The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The lead stories today are these. President Reagan said Secretary Shultz won't have to take a lie detector test. New economic figures showed prices up, growth sluggish. And the French hostage drama ended peacefully with all hostages safe. We'll have the details on our news summary in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary we have a newsmaker interview with Majority Leader Robert Dole on what this Congress has achieved. And then Elizabeth Brackett reports on the controversy over compulsory drug tests at a nuclear power plant in Georgia, and we examine how drug testing is spreading in American industry. Finally, should experiments with artificial hearts continue? An update from today's hearing in Washington. News Summary

LEHRER: President Reagan provided the followup today to the high-level flap over using lie detector tests to uncover spies and leakers. Secretary of State Shultz told reporters yesterday he would resign if forced to take a polygraph examination. On his way to Camp David this afternoon, President Reagan told reporters he had talked to Shultz about it.

1st REPORTER: Mr. President, did you try tochange Secretary Shultz' mind about lie detector tests?

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Not at all. I just explained to him that what he read in the press in Europe was not true.

1st REPORTER: Do you think he feels better?

Pres. REAGAN: Yep.

2nd REPORTER: Will he have to take one?

Pres. REAGAN: Neither one of us are going to.

LEHRER: Congress put itself out of its misery. Both the House and Senate adjourned for the holidays late today, even though they failed to reach agreement on a minor tax bill that had things in a stall. The Senate had stayed in session 'til after two this morning in a hassle over how to finance the Superfund for toxic waste cleanup. Robin?

MacNEIL: New government figures showed the U.S. economy ending a year of very slow growth but with very mild inflation. The Commerce Department said gross national product grew 3.2% in this quarter for an annual growth rate of 2.4%. That's the weakest rate since the recession year of 1982. As for inflation, the consumer price index rose 0.6% in November for an annual rate of 3.6%, slightly better than the 4% last year.

And in political news, Senator Edward Kennedy today gave a fuller explanation of why he decided not to run for president. Reporter Maryann Kane was at the news conference in Boston.

Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts: Well, here I don't go again.

MARYANN KANE, WGBH [voice-over]: Not going, despite what he called domination over his democratic rivals in recent polls. His reasons: family considerations. Family members, including Ted Jr. and Joe Kennedy, were there. And his belief that he is more effective in the U.S. Senate. He also said increased speculation about his political plans forced him to accelerate the decision that he wished to delay until the November '86 elections.

Sen. KENNEDY: I nd now that people are more interested not in the substance of what I am stating, but whether I'm moving to the left or the right, or whether my weight is going up and down. And quite frankly I believe that I can be more effective on the issues that I care about in indicating that I will continue to serve in the United States Senate and be a candidate for re-election here in Massachusetts in 1988.

KANE [voice-over]: While planning to run for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, Kennedy said he'd like to be president someday; he's just not running for it in '88.

LEHRER: That report from Maryann Kane of WGBH. The French hostage drama had a happy ending today. All hostages were released unharmed and the three gunmen were taken into custody. It began yesterday in a courtroom. We have a report from James Robbins of the BBC.

JAMES ROBBINS, BBC [voice-over]: The second day of the siege started quietly enough. Three more hostages released overnight; the police giving no ground except to allow in breakfast of coffee and bread for the gunmen and their remaining captives. With the courthouse completely under the control of France's new elite anti-terrorist intervention force, the position of the three gunmen was becoming increasingly desperate. Then at mid-morning the police called for a reporter from French radio, deliberately allowed access to the gunmen in the hope of breaking the deadlock. When the reporter emerged 45 minutes later he had dramatic news: gunmen were determined to come out with their four remaining hostages, including the trial judge. If the security forces intervened, they would detonate their grenades and kill themselves and their captives.

The last of the women hostages were released as French radio broadcast the words of the gunmen. Then suddenly, men of the anti-terrorist squad started pouring out of the courthouse. The crisis was about to be resolved. To the amazement of both news teams and police, Georges Courtois, the leading gunman, appeared on the courthouse steps, handcuffed to the judge who was presiding at his trial. Courtois waved a pistol in one hand, and, true to his threat, a grenade in the other. Perhaps dazed by the array of people less than a hundred yards from him, Courtois fired a shot in the air. Reporters, camera teams and police threw themselves to the ground before Courtois fired again, apparently deliberately towards the camera positions, his second bullet passing straight through the BBC camera lens. The bullet lodged inside the camera. French television pictures show how narrowly BBC cameraman Don Nesbitt escaped.

By now the police gamble was proving highly dangerous, but after we'd been pinned to the ground for well over half an hour, it was clear the gunmen and the hostages had been successfully transferred to a van, fulfilling their demand to be allowed safe passage to Nantes Airport. So with the hostages and the gunmen on their way and an airplane being prepared to fly them out of France, the new anti-terrorist force had at least shifted the dangers away from the city center.

LEHRER: The gunmen drove to the airport holding four judges in chains. There they were pinned down again and released two of the judges. Finally, after several hours of negotiation, the gunmen surrendered. The last two hostages were freed unharmed. As police cars drove the gunmen away, the cameras caught a glimpse of the Moroccan who captured the courtroom and George Courtois, the Frenchman who became the leader of the group. Courtois said they surrendered to save the life of the Moroccan, because he had risked his life for the two Frenchmen who were on trial when it all began.

MacNEIL: In South Africa, the army said it's been given broad powers to suppress violence. Soldiers will now be able to arrest suspects, man roadblocks, search buildings and disperse illegal meetings as the police do now. And the government warned that all nations in southern Africa would pay a heavy price if guerrillas continue to attack South Africa from neighboring countries. In Namibia, which is governed by South Africa, two black children were killed and 19 people injured by a land mine near the border with Angola. Guerrillas fighting for Namibian independence frequently operate in that area. And in Lesotho, the government said South African commandos raided two houses and killed nine people described as political refugees from South Africa. The South African government denied any responsibility. But a guerrilla group backed by Pretoria said it carried out the raid.

Terry Waite, the Anglican church envoy, was back in Beirut today, saying he had just and fair proposals for the release of four U.S. hostages. Making his third visit in two months, Waite said, "There's a definite way forward if common sense and reason prevail." He added that his negotiations were still complex.

LEHRER: The latest on 40-year-old Mary Lund, the first woman to be given an artificial heart. Her operation was performed yesterday in Minneapolis. She was reported today to be improving and responding to doctors, but a surgical team spokesman said there is concern she is not progressing as rapidly as hoped.

And there was a development in the Newfoundland air crash investigation. The Federal Aviation Administration said the chartered Arrow Airlines DC-8 was the same plane that narrowly averted disaster in January 1982 when owned by another airline. The FAA said the plane had to make an emergency landing in Denver after it plunged 14,000 feet in three minutes. A burst water tank on the plane was later identified as the cause. Two hundred and forty-eight soldiers and eight crew members died when that plane crashed at the Gander, Newfoundland, airport last Thursday.

MacNEIL: That's our news summary. Coming up on the NewsHour, a report and discussion on compulsory drug testing for American workers; an update on artificial hearts: should the experiments continue? And a newsmaker interview with Senator Robert Dole, the Majority Leader. Drug Testing on the Job

MacNEIL: We have a major focus on the growing use of drug testing in the workplace and the controversy surrounding it. An estimated 100 of the Fortune 500 companies now test current and prospective employees for drug use. An equal number say they plan to start in the next two years. Some of the most extensive testing is in the nuclear power industry, where employee drug abuse threatens public safety. But critics charge that mandatory tests are being used to harass workers. That's the charge at one nuclear plant site near Augusta, Georgia. We have a report from correspondent Elizabeth Brackett.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: Leslie Price and her friend Susan Register didn't think they would have the time to swing on the front porch of Susan's rural Georgia home. Britt Register didn't think he would be watching his stepdaughter play with the family dog on this late November afternoon. All three of these people thought they would be working here, the construction site for the Vogtle nuclear power plant outside of Augusta, Georgia. But Price and the Registers were all fired from this construction site 10 months ago. Price and Britt Register were fired after being told they had failed a drug screening test given by the Georgia Power Company. Susan Register was fired for refusing to take the test. All three deny using drugs.

LESLIE PRICE, former employee: I was earning $14 an hour. Would I give that up for a joint, and a job that I was good at and I really liked? I honestly thought I had a future with the company too at one point.

BRACKETT: Britt, is there any reason you could have failed that test? Have you smoked marijuana in the weeks before you had taken the test?

BRITT REGISTER, former employee: No. No, I hadn't. And my thoughts along that line are that either the test results were controlled by management at the plant Vogtle, or either I was one of the pretty large percent that come up with bad test results -- the tests are not accurate to start with. One or the other, I don't know.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: All three think the drug tests were used as an excuse to fire them. They say they were fired because they went to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to report what they believed were serious safety violations at the nuclear power construction site. Price and the Registers call their firings harassment. Gene Guerrero of the Georgia American Civil Liberties Union agrees. The ACLU is now defending them and five other Vogtle power plant employees. The charge: Georgia Power is violating a federal law protecting employees who file safety-related complaints. Administered by the U.S. Labor Department, it is often called the whistle-blower's act.

GENE GUERRERO, ACLU: The question is whether or not whistle blowers are being fired and whether or not the program is helping or deterring safety on the job. We think whistle blowers are being fired, and that in addition, overall, it's hink at is what's actually going on, and as I say, we're confident that the Labor Department, once they get to the merits of our complaint, will find that this program hinders safety and that these people were unfairly discharged.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Harry Gregory, general manager at the Vogtle site, won't speak to the specifics of the case, but he says the drug screening program was designed to stop drug abuse, not harass whistle blowers.

HARRY GREGORY, plant manager: First of all, we're in litigation with specific individuals, and I'd rather not comment on that. I will comment that the program has never been used to harass individuals for safety complaints.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Georgia Power is particularly concerned about drug abuse because of what is being built here. At a nuclear power plant, the stakes can mean disaster.

Mr. GREGORY: We basically said that drugs and construction don't mix, and that we're going to take whatever means necessary to assure that. And part of that is that we're going to educate the people as to the harms of drugs. Secondly, we're going to test people, urinalysis if necessary, to assure us that people are not on drugs while they're at plant Vogtle. And we will also reserve the right to use dogs, other things.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Vogtle plant employees are checked for drugs and other contraband as they leave the plant each day. Since the program began a year and a half ago, more than 300 people have been fired, either for failing the drug test or refusing to take it. Twelve thousand people work on the construction site now. Many workers on the site support the drug testing program. Mike Bell, a union steward at the plant, says he wants to be protected from drug abusers.

MIKE BELL, employee: And we don't need those kind of people on this job. It's hard enough to come out here and work without stuff falling on your head. When you get people taking drugs, it's very dangerous. They could be walking through the power block and some guy out there'll drop something on your head. I got a wife and family, and I appreciate them taking the effort and the money to initiate something like this.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But Leslie Price and her friends insist that they too are interested in safety. They support nuclear power and do not want to see drug abuse on a nuclear power construction site. But they say the drug testing program is used by Georgia Power to control its employees, not drug abuse.

Ms. PRICE: It started after I overheard a conversation, when somebody ran into our office and went, "Oh, my God, have you heard the buildings were sinking?" And at first I thought it was a joke, and somebody told me, "Well, if you think that there's a chance that it's true, go check the documentation in the vault." I went and checked the documentation in the vault and I was convinced they were telling the truth. And I couldn't tell my bosses because I felt they already were aware of it, and so I called the NRC.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Price, who worked as a quality control inspector at the plant, has three years of experience working on nuclear construction sites. The buildings Price complained about will house the plant's nuclear reactors. Price claims soil compaction tests for the buildings' dirt base were falsified. She believes the buildings are sinking. This was the charge she took to the NRC.

Ms. PRICE: People's lives were in danger. We told the NRC. We told them about the buildings sinking, and we told them that the urinalysis was used against people who went to the NRC and complained. And the man that we talked to said that he would grant us confidentiality, and that we could just spill our guts to him and it was okay. And we did, we really believed this man.

BRACKETT: The man at the NRC in Atlanta.

Ms. PRICE: The investigator. And less than a week later Susan and I were in Augusta, and one of Susan's co-workers came up to her and repeated everything that had been said to the NRC and asked why she ratted out plant Vogtle to the NRC. And we looked at each other and started denying it, got in my car and we left town. I mean, it scared us. People's -- we've been told we are messing up thousands of people's livelihoods, because we wanted to shut down plant Vogtle. And we don't; we want plant Vogtle safe.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The NRC says neither Price or the Registers asked for confidentiality when they made their complaints. Those complaints have been on file in the Atlanta NRC office for the last 10 months. But NRC Atlanta chief Roger Walker says they have not yet been fully investigated.

ROGER WALKER, NRC: You got to understand that this is a reactor under construction. It's not an operating plant. That we prioritize our workload to try to take care of what is the most safety concern to us first. Obviously an operating plant would be more of a safety problem to us than a construction plant. That does not mean that we're not following up on it. Sometimes people don't like the speed we follow up on it, but we have to follow up on it consistent with making our determination of whether the plant's licensable.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Walker did tell NewsHour reporter Bill Shebar that the NRC completed a thorough licensing evaluation of the Vogtle plant in late October. The plant was given high marks in almost all areas and praised for its vigorous management effort. The report called the plant's soil and foundation program an area of major strength. Plant manager Gregory says that finding clears the project of the charge that the reactor buildings are sinking.

Mr. GREGORY: The NRC has made some comments as to the fact that the testing program it utilized was very appropriate and eliminates that possibility.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Gregory also maintains that the drug screening program is an important part of Vogtle's strong safety record. All employees, whether they work directly for Georgia Power or for a company with contracts at Vogtle, are given pre-employment drug tests. Employees are also tested if their name is called in on the drug abuse hotline. But Price, whose name was called in on the hotline, says the line is often used for retaliation.

Ms. PRICE: Like I'd go to the field and I'd give a guy a bad time without a weld, and he'd say, "Hey, you keep being so picky and I'm going to call you in, and you won't be around here to bug me anymore."

Mr. GREGORY: Simply put, you know, if you're asked to undergo urinalysis and you don't refuse that, then there is nothing attached that would be negative for you undergoing urinalysis. If it's negative, then you go back to work, you're paid for your time and troubles and life goes on the way it was the day before you were asked to undergo urinalysis.

BRACKETT: Much of the initial drug testing is done here at this small clinic on the plant site. If employees of the construction firms hired by Georgia Power are told they must come in for drug testing, they leave a urine sample here. Technicians then make the first analysis of that sample.

[voice-over] Around 100 samples a month are tested here in the safety trailer on the plant site. Less than 1 are found to be positive. But if they are positive, further tests are made at a nearby professional laboratory. But the ACLU's Guerrero says the whole process is offensive.

Mr. GUERRERO: The only way you can run a real urinalysis program and make sure somebody doesn't mess with the urine sample is to watch them give that sample -- watch them pee in the bottle. And that's not why people came over here to this country, is to set up a society where somebody can make you pee in a bottle as a condition of your getting or keeping a job.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Susan Register claims she was humiliated when she reported to take her drug test.

SUSAN REGISTER, former employee: The first day we went to the doctor's office, I couldn't give him enough urine. So I sat there until five o'clock. The second day we went, and I ran in there, because I had to go to the bathroom. And I sat down, and I told the nurse, "Come on, come on, I've got to go," and she walked in there and she says, "This won't do." She made me put my right hand in the air. I had the bottle in my left hand, and I was standing like this with the bottle between my legs. Of course, I barely hit the bottle -- you just can't do it. She yelled at me: "I told you to do it my way," or something like that. Told me I was going to have to do it again. I said, "Oh, no, not me. I have had -- this is it, this is it."

BRACKETT: The nurse at the private clinic where Susan Register took that test told us off camera that she was forced to have Susan use strict clinical procedures. The nurse said she had reason to believe that Register had tried to sabotage the drug test. Register was fired the next day for insubordination for refusing to take the test a third time.

[voice-over] But we found that the Smith-Klein Laboratory in Tucker, Georgia, does have a record of receiving a urine sample from Register. The attorney representing Susan and Britt Register and Leslie Price is now attempting to get the laboratory results of their urine tests. The physician who runs the Smith-Klein laboratory, Dr. Jerry McHan, says he stands behind the testing procedures used to analyze the urine samples here. He admits that the most controversial drug to test for is marijuana. He says THC, the active chemical found in marijuana, can remain in the body for six weeks or even longer. THC can also be found even if a person has not used marijuana himself but is in a room where it is being used. But Dr. McHan says he and the Georgia Power Company have set the drug testing levels high enough so that only significant drug use could cause a positive test result.

JERRY McHAN, physician: So in the case of either a pre-employment or an individual already employed with Georgia Power that's being screened and has been found to be positive for THC, they can rest assured that three different methods have been used, all giving the same result. So when that individual is confronted, if that happens to be the particular end result, they can confront that individual with confidence, knowing that indeed that drug was present in the individual's urine.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But the ACLU's Gene Guerrero says even if positive results are obtained, it does not necessarily mean that the person's ability to perform his job has been affected.

Mr. GUERRERO: So the question is whether or not when you walk through the gate in the morning, you're in a good condition to work. And the company has an absolute right to demand that you are in a good condition, but they don't have a right to goback and use a machine to figure out what you were doing that weekend or two weeks ago, or how you and your wife were getting along, or whether or not, you know, this, that and the other. They just don't have that right to come in and invade the privacy of my body or my mind. It's not within their rights.

Mr. GREGORY: We have no right to supervise people's off-site activities, and don't. We supervise their on-site activities. If they come with drugs in their system, that is our responsibility. It is our right, the rights of the 99 of the people that want a safe place to work out there, certainly overrule any right of some individual to break the law, in effect -- utilize drugs.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The cases of Price and the Registers are currently awaiting action by the U.S. Department of Labor. The questions are many. Is drug testing a legitimate right of an employer? Was it used as a club to punish workers who spoke out? As more and more companies across the country gear up for their own drug testing programs, what happens to this case in Georgia will be closely watched.

MacNEIL: That report was by Elizabeth Brackett. The man who advised Georgia Power in setting up its drug testing program is Peter Bensinger. His firm, Bensinger, DuPont and Associates, also helps private companies establish drug testing programs. He headed the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency from 1976 to '81, and he joins us tonight from Chicago.

Mr. Bensinger, what is the extent of drug abuse among workers across the country?

PETER BENSINGER: Probably anywhere from five to 12 percent of the American workforce uses illegal drugs during the course of their personal life or even on the job. It's a very large percentage of our workforce.

MacNEIL: By drugs you mean what?

Mr. BENSINGER: I mean cocaine, marijuana, hallucinogenics, PCP, amphetamines and barbiturates not prescribed by a personal physician.

MacNEIL: One can understand in the case of the nuclear power industry, where safety has a particular relevance. Is drug testing justified in industries where safety is not the primary consideration, public safety is not the primary consideration?

Mr. BENSINGER: Well, I think it is, because someone who may be an inventory clerk, someone who may be involved filing material, someone who may be in an office can make serious judgment errors and have. The impact on safety is not just for the forklift driver, for the nuclear regulatory operator that is in a power plant, or perhaps the locomotive engineer. It applies, I think, to American industry, and I think the industry does have a responsibility to provide safe and healthy working conditions.

MacNEIL: We mentioned at the beginning that roughly 100 of the Fortune 500 companies were doing it, and another 100 are planning to soon. Is that extending into white-collar industry as well the blue-collar workforce?

Mr. BENSINGER: Absolutely. IBM, for example, does pre-employment drug testing. So does The New York Times.

MacNEIL: On-the-job testing?

Mr. BENSINGER: Pre-employment testing, and reserve the right for fitness-for-duty tests, and have for many years.

MacNEIL: How accurate is this test?

Mr. BENSINGER: The tests are accurate. These labs are the same facilities, often, that are providing analytical information to hospitals and physicians every minute, every day. They are providing blood, hematology, urine counts for physicians in laboratory procedures. The drug testing which Georgia Power utilizes is accurate. It is confirmed when there is a positive; the chain of custody is watched. The representation that the employer does not have a right to test has been tested itself in court and found, in fact, to be in favor of the employer.

MacNEIL: Have there been found to be abuses of the testing program? For instance, its use to harass workers, for example, as was alleged there for whistle blowing or other things?

Mr. BENSINGER: Here's the problem. I think a company has the responsibility to have a safe work environment, and can provide for testing if someone appears to be unfit for duty, if someone is reported through a hotline, as is the case in Georgia Power, to have been abusing the company's rules and unfit for duty and there was not a supervisory observation. The company is in a dilemma. If it does not act on that information, does not test, and there's an accident or there's a major problem, it incurs tremendous liability. It has to weigh the information that it receives, and then I think is under an obligation to err, if it does err, on the side of safety. And that means testing.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Bensinger. Now to Washington and Judy Woodruff. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now we hear from a critic of drug testing programs. He is Kevin Zeese, national director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijauna Laws.

First of all, Mr. Zeese, is drug abuse in the workplace as widespread as Mr. Bensinger indicates?

KEVIN ZEESE: Well, it's a problem, but as Mr. Bensinger described it, he said five to 12 percent people use it either on the job or off the job. I think it's more important for employers to be concerned about on-the-job abuse, impairment on the job. And that's the major problem with urinalysis testing, especially for marijuana: it does not deal with impairment or intoxication or how someone does their job. Someone who uses marijuana can test positive on a urinalysis test for 30 days or more after taking marijuana, and in fact there's a study by the Navy that shows people testing positive for 75 days after using marijuana. So you're not testing for the concern. I think everyone has a reasonable concern about safety on the job, about people using drugs on the job, about people being able to do their job in a safe way. But urine tests don't solve that problem.

WOODRUFF: But don't employers have a right to know if the people they've hired are using drugs, using drugs illegally?

Mr. ZEESE: Employers have a right to know if they're using drugs on the job and it's affecting their job performance. There have been a number of court cases around the country involving policemen, firemen, schoolteachers, prison guard employees, school students, which have all come back saying that the U.S. Constitution protects people's privacy. And that's the problem, we have a tension between the need to protect privacy and the need for a safe work environment. And the solution, the middle ground, I believe, is an impairment test, an intoxication test. And there is an impairment test available for marijuana. It's called the oral THC test. You test the saliva, and people will test positive for about four and a half hours after using marijuana. That's appropriate. Similarly, an alcohol impairment test would be appropriate. If you have some suspicion someone is impaired on the job, you should do an impairment test. And in other cases, I think even what's more important, more broadly than that, is doing some kind of a test to make sure people aren't overtired, overstressed, overworked and doing sloppy work for that reason. You need a test that would solve that problem, some kind of broader impairment, not just drugs.

WOODRUFF: So it's not testing overall that you object to, it's just this kind of testing?

Mr. ZEESE: They're misusing the test, using the wrong test for the environment they want to solve the problem. The problem they want to solve is abuse on the job, intoxication on the job, and urine tests do not test for that. And there's no forensic scientist in the country who will tell you that urinalysis tests for marijuana, tests for impairment. Because they don't, and the manufacturers admit that.

WOODRUFF: But again, you're saying that it's not any business of the employer if the employee, even if it's a sensitive industry, as the nuclear power industry -- even in those circumstances the employer has no business knowing what the employee does?

Mr. ZEESE: On the off duty, if it doesn't affect their job. The employer's responsibility is a safe work environment. The employer's responsibility is to make sure people are not impaired on the job. But a urinalysis doesn't do that. In fact, if someone uses marijuana today, right now, and goes for work an hour later, he'll test negative on a urinalysis test. He won't be testing positive while he's under the influence. So not only will you not uncover those people, but you'll miss them. And what you need is a saliva test, an oral THC test, confirmed by some kind of a blood test. Even though a blood test doesn't show impairment, it will help a good deal if it's preceded by an oral THC test.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Bensinger, let me go back to you. You heard what Mr. Zeese is saying, that what we need is a more specific kind of test that tests impairment rather than just whether drugs have been used at some point in the recent past.

Mr. BENSINGER: that Mr. Zeese has said. First of all, the courts have found, in fact, that use off the job is of interest to the employer because they can be bringing those chemicals to work with them. In the case of marijuana, THC, a recent study from Stanford University tested 10 experienced licensed pilots. This was just recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. I brought the study with me, by Dr. Yesvage. Twenty-four hours after inhaling mild marijuana cigarettesthc 8 the individual pilots in their testing showed significant impairment, deviation in landing and working ailerons, and working the entire approach to the landing field. So I think that the representation that if someone takes a joint on a Saturday night or a Sunday night and they show up Monday, that won't be a problem for the company, is erroneous. I think in addition -- I think the company has its first responsibility, and that's to put out a written policy and tell its employees, people on the job site, exactly what the rules are as far as that location --

WOODRUFF: I'm sorry, let me just clarify something. Your point was that it's important to test for whether someone has had a drug, that it's not enough to have an impairment test, is that correct?

Mr. BENSINGER: That's correct. And I think also you will get varying degrees of medical representation, and it will be hard within a given urinalysis test to prove that someone was 8% impaired, 20% impaired, 12% impaired or 50% impaired. It depends on really the individual's chemical reaction to the drug. But what Georgia Power and many employers are doing are putting out a booklet on the health and safety information on drugs and spelling out their company policy. And in the case of Georgia Power, they clearly made known to the employees that individuals working with illegal drugs in their system would not be tolerated on the job site, that it represented a risk and one that the company really could not incur.

WOODRUFF: Let's go back to the original point that I was asking you about the impairment test, and what do you say to his point that the impairment test isn't sufficient, Mr. Zeese?

Mr. ZEESE: Well, I still think impairment test is sufficient. The study he talked about from Stanford involved 10 pilots. That's the first study of its kind to show any kind of carryover effect. And if there's a simulator test that can show whether a pilot can do his job or not, why not use that simulator test instead of using a urinalysis test? Let's give the pilot -- if you have some suspicion that the person's impaired, give him a simulator test. If he can fly the plane, he can fly the plane. [crosstalk] The other thing, Mr. Bensinger, that you misstated was accuracy. The Journal of the American Medical Association published a report this year that showed over 60% inaccuracy on urinalysis tests, and the manufacturers admit that the test is not 100 accurate. And we're talking about in this country testing three to five million people a year. Every 1 inaccuracy is 30 to 50 thousand false accusations, and that's a serious problem in our country that you cannot just be blindly accusing people -- a piece of paper should not stand in front of a person's reputation, a person's own work history.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Bensinger, what about that report on the accuracy?

Mr. ZEESE: Well, the accuracy that Mr. Zeese refers to is a broad laboratory-wide survey of testing. It does not refer specifically to the testing of this company, to the chain of custody used. It doesn't distinguish that each individual specimen is tested and is not thrown in a large-batch sample, that there isn't confirmation of the presumptive positive. It also I think raises one other issue which I think is very important, and that is the case that occurred in Texas, where an individual worker was presumed to be drunk on the job, taken off the job, and the company said, "Listen, we don't think you're right. We better drive you home." The employee said, "No, I'm fine, I resent this interference," put his key in the ignition, drove himself out of the parking lot, killed himself and two other people. What I think the employees have got to realize is that not only their safety is at stake by what they do themselves, but by what their co-workers do. And that's why Mr. Bell, the union representative at Georgia Power, was pleased with the testing. He wanted to make sure those people are off the job site.

Mr. ZEESE: One point, Mr. Bensinger, that you need to realize is that urinalysis testing is not going to solve the drug problem. They've been using urinalysis tests now in the military for a number of years, and they have not -- [crosstalk] The result they've had is a tremendous increase in alcoholism. They've had a tremendous amount -- [crosstalk] The Navy has had a 33% increase in accidents since they started urinalysis. It has not made the place safer.

Mr. BENSINGER: That is not true.

Mr. ZEESE: I just read the article today.

Mr. BENSINGER: I talked with the person that did the audit for the Navy. They found that the illegal drugs found two years ago were in the Navy system upwards of 40%; when they started their comprehensive testing program it went down to 4 .

Mr. ZEESE: Now you've changed the problem to alcoholism instead. That's not solving the drug problem, that's changing the drug problem.

Mr. BENSINGER: That statistical study does not measure the incidents that happened on the Nimitz, that happened on other ships that have had impaired pilots and Navy personnel as a result of drugs. You're going to take the position that marijuana ought to be legalized by the end of this program, which is the position of your organization.

Mr. ZEESE: That's a separate issue. I'd be glad to debate that issue, but I don't think that's on the agenda for tonight.

Mr. BENSINGER: That isn't the issue. But I think that the public's entitled to know your perception of marijuana is one that doesn't even address --

Mr. ZEESE: As I started my conversation --

Mr. BENSINGER: -- the fact that people using this drug, use it with friends.

Mr. ZEESE: Mr. Bensinger, as I started talking I said that I was opposed to abuse on the job.

WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, gentlemen, thank you both. Obviously we didn't get any closer -- the two of you didn't get any closer tonight on this, but we appreciate your being with us. Mr. Bensinger, Mr. Zeese here in Washington, thank you both.

MacNEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour, an update on artificial hearts: should the experiments continue? And an interview with Senator Robert Dole, the majority leader. Defending the Artificial Heart

LEHRER: Next tonight, an update on the artificial heart. An eight-member advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration heard witnesses today on whether to continue the experimental implantation of the device by Dr. William DeVries of the Humana Hospital in Louisville. Correspondent June Cross reports.

JUNE CROSS [voice-over]: Four years ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a mechanical device, the Jarvik-7, as a permanent replacement heart for seven patients. All the operations were to be performed by heart surgeon Dr. William DeVries. But the track record on these operations hasn't been good. The first patient, Barney Clark, lived only 112 days. Two other patients, William Schroeder and Murray Haydon, suffered strokes. And the last, Jack Burcham, died 10 days after his operation from complications. Because of this track record, the FDA today held hearings to determine whether they should allow the last three operations to go forward. One of those who thought they should call for a moratorium was George Annas, an expert in medical ethics.

GEORGE ANNAS, medical ethicist: My main argument today, that we have further trials of the Jarvik-7 as a permanent device cannot be justified because of the results of the first four trials have indicated that the device presents an unreasonable risk to health and safety.

CROSS [voice-over]: Annas said doctors should prove that the next three patients wouldn't suffer fates similar to that of Barney Clark and the others. But the developer of the heart, Dr. Robert Jarvik, disagreed.

Dr. ROBERT JARVIK, artificial heart developer: Heart valves, pacemakers and artificial hip joints have had many problems in their early applications, but today they are commonplace and extraordinarily successful. Patients who take part in early-phase medical research know that they may not gain a lot for themselves, but their contribution to medical science can benefit others enormously.

CROSS [voice-over]: And Barney Clark's wife, Una Loy, said she and the wives of the other artificial heart patients were thankful that their husbands had had one last chance.

UNA LOY CLARK: I thank God for men of vision with the courage to face possible failure, but with the stamina and the determination to ultimately succeed. And that's what I think we are faced with at this point.

CROSS [voice-over]: Her sentiments were supportedby Jack Wellman, a 55-year-old victim of heart disease who considered accepting an artificial heart earlier this year.

JACK WELLMAN, heart patient: It should be the right of each individual to have the opportunity to refuse or accept, to live or to die, and to participate in an experiment which someday, soon, I hope, could benefit a member of my family or your family.

CROSS [voice-over]: Representatives of various medical societies said the medical community needs more data on what has gone wrong in the past.

GERALD RAINER, Society of Thoracic Surgeons: Of great concern to the Society is the lack of availability and accessibility to scientific data gained from recent clinical experiences. This is a source of frustration to the scientific community at large. The effectiveness of our peer review system depends upon disclosure of appropriate information, either at meetings or recognized scientific groups or publication in peer-reviewed journals.

CROSS [voice-over]: Critics of the artificial heart say no more implants should be done until the heart is perfected. Dr. DeVries, who testified behind closed doors today, has said in the past he disagrees with that.

Dr. WILLIAM DeVRIES, Humana Hospital: So I for one think that the heart is good enough.

CROSS [voice-over]: But at least one doctor at today's hearing said operating on humans was the only way the artificial heart could be perfected. And he said sheer numbers dictated that research should go on.

DOCTOR: The most optimistic estimates indicate that no more than 2,000 heart transplant donors are available in this country per year. Therefore, currently the only realistic alternative for the prevention of cardiac death and the preservation of productive life by heart replacement is by the development of total artificial hearts and circulatory assist devices.

LEHRER: The panel was expected to announce a decision late today, but so far it has not. Robert Dole: Leader's View

LEHRER: Congress did finally wind up its business today, leaving unresolved until next year a hassle over how to trim $74 billion from the federal budget, among other sticky things. Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole is with us from Capitol Hill now for a newsmaker interview about the end, among other sticky things.

Senator Dole, welcome.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE: Thank you very much.

LEHRER: Are you glad it's over, sir?

Sen. DOLE: I'm very happy it's over. I think we've had a pretty good year. There are some things we did not complete, but we'll be back in 30 days and the big issue again will be how to reduce federal spending.

LEHRER: Well, what was the problem these last 24 hours? You all worked 'til three in the morning, two or three in the morning, and you came back and it took all day. What in the world was going on, sir?

Sen. DOLE: Well, I think we discovered, and maybe it's partly our fault -- we discovered a little late that the reconciliation bill had a lot of new programs sort of tucked away in it. And the President said that on a number of occasions he would not sign the bill unless most of those programs were removed. And when push came to shove, the President said no. We tried to accommodate the President, also tried to accommodate those who were opposed to these programs, and we just couldn't get it done. We couldn't get it back to the House conference. They had for all practical purposes adjourned last night. So now we'll have to wait until January. But we still have a chance to save I think in the neighborhood of $50 or $60 billion over the next three years if we're responsible and in a bipartisan way can reach an agreement in January, early February.

LEHRER: Well, Senator, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill has just passed and was signed with great trumpets blaring these last several days, and here's the first test of that kind of thing and you all couldn't get it together.

Sen. DOLE: Not really. I don't think this was a test at all of Gramm-Rudman. This is a reconciliation process that we've been involved in, I must say, since March, April, really starting way back in January of 1985. And because of Gramm-Rudman we lost about 30 days on the reconciliation process. It sort of became mired down in a lot of subcommittees. We had literally hundreds of conferees, and it came to us too late. It was a massive piece of legislation. I think it probably weighed, the bill itself, 30 pounds or 40 pounds. So it was -- but not at all impacted by Gramm-Rudman. We just didn't have time to do it.

LEHRER: In other words, the principle is not the same. In other words, you were trying to cut the budget, though, with this bill, and of course that's what Gramm-Rudman is all about. That's what I was trying to get at.

Sen. DOLE: Oh, yes. But I think the more those experts look at reconciliation -- we were saying we had about $80 billion in savings; the White House was saying, well, maybe $16 billion over three years; we were saying 80. So we were getting, you know, rather large gaps between our numbers and the Office of Management and Budget numbers, Mr. Miller. And he's the one who advises the President. So in my view we just couldn't get it done. We didn't have enough time; the string sort of ran out, and we'll look at it again in January.

LEHRER: Senator, why does the Congress of the United States work this way, where things this important, not just this, but many things the last several days for, all come down to the very last minute -- you all working around the clock and all of that? Why do things happen that way?

Sen. DOLE: I don't know why. We'd like to change the way they happen. We've been working on that without much success. I believe we need to change the budget process. We need to move up the timetables; we need to have a little more discipline if we don't meet the timetables. But let's face it: this place operates at the will of the members, and sometimes members move rather quickly; most of the time, though, we move rather slowly.

LEHRER: A lot of people said, though -- when you became the Senate Majority Leader, you used the word "discipline" -- well, a lot of people said that Bob Dole was going to apply discipline, and that kind of hanky panky and delaying and all that sort of thing was going to end when Bob Dole got in charge. What happened?

Sen. DOLE: You can't do it without the votes. We have a very slim margin of 53 to 47. We've dealt with a number of very tough issues. We think we've been -- you know, we've gotten a lot of things done that have been hanging around the Senate for a long time. We've passed a lot of good legislation, whether it's dealing with South Africa, the farm bill, farm credit, foreign aid, gun control -- we've addressed a number of issues. But let's face it: if one person in the Senate wishes to sort of tie up the place for a couple of days, under our rules it can be done. I happen to believe that until we change the rules and until members themselves decide that leaders can be a little more, I don't say autocratic, but a little more independent, we're not really going to streamline the process very much.

LEHRER: Do you think it ought to be changed, Senator?

Sen. DOLE: Oh, yes, I think so. I don't believe that -- in other words, I believe as a leader I should be able to call up a bill and move to that bill without somebody saying, "Oh, no, I'm going to filibuster your right to proceed to that bill." It's a little thing, but it takes sometimes two or three days or a week, and with 100 senators, all very bright, free spirits, it takes a lot of cooperation. But having said that, I wouldn't trade my place in the Senate for any other job that I can think of.

LEHRER: Not even president?

Sen. DOLE: Well, I haven't thought much about that one.

LEHRER: Are you -- I was going to ask you about that later, toward the end of the interview; I'll get to it now -- you brought it up, or I brought it up. No, are you still interested in running for president?

Sen. DOLE: Well, yes, I'm not like Ted Kennedy. I'm not saying I'm not interested in '88. But again, it seems to me it's 1985. Perhaps a year from now, those who are really interested in both parties will really start to surface. Obviously there are front runners in each party, but in my view it's a bit too early to say one way or the other.

LEHRER: What is your analysis of the impact of Senator Kennedy's decision? What do you think that's going to do to the race?

Sen. DOLE: I think primarily it opens up the race on the Democratic side. It may mean a little more of a centrist position by Democratic candidates. Even Senator Kennedy was sort of moving to the middle. As you know, he voted for the so-called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provision. He earlier voted for the line item veto to give the President a little more over spending bills. So you could see a little change in the voting habits. But I think primarily it means more on the Democratic side than it does on our side.

LEHRER: A Republican was quoted in The Washington Post this morning anonymously as saying this was great news for Republicans because it was the one guy, Kennedy was the one man Republicans felt they could beat for sure. Do you agree with that?

Sen. DOLE: Well, I don't know how it could be great news if he's the one guy we could beat. Maybe he meant it was bad news. Maybe this was a Democrat.

LEHRER: Oh, I see.

Sen. DOLE: But it would -- I don't know. I think Ted Kennedy has been very effective. He's a very effective senator. He's a hard worker, he's well prepared, he has good staff. Now, whether or not he could be elected president I think's another question. Obviously there are questions when anybody throws their hat in the ring, but he would be a tough contender. I wouldn't have written Ted Kennedy off in '88 as a tough nominee for the Democrats. He led in all the polls. But that's not going to happen now apparently, so Republicans and Democrats will have to battle someone else.

LEHRER: All right. Moving back to Congress, how is tax reform going to do in the Senate?

Sen. DOLE: We called the President tonight when we finished our work -- myself and Senator Byrd, Robert Byrd. We called the President at Camp David, said, "Mr. President, we're finished. Is there anything else you want us to do?" He told us not really. But he did mention tax reform. He said he was looking forward to that next year. Now, we were both silent, not because we disapproved, but because I think we both believe it's going to be very tough to accomplish in the Senate in 1986.

LEHRER: Do you and other Republicans share the disagreements with this House version that your colleagues, your Republican colleagues in the House, do?

Sen. DOLE: Well, my view was that you had to have a process and you had to keep the process going. So the House vote to send it to the Senate seemed to me to be logical. I nd many flaws in the House bill, but that's only half the process. The Senate has an opportunity to work its will. I think the one startling development was that the House Republicans who had been so vocal in opposition of the bill did not even ask for a roll-call vote on final passage. And that doesn't help us much because we don't really have a measure now in the Senate of how deep the opposition was.

LEHRER: Where do you think the bill should be changed if it's going to make it through the Senate?

Sen. DOLE: I think we have to try to attempt to lower the rates to increase the personal exemption pretty much across the board. We have to raise the threshold. I think the Democrats lowered the threshold where the fourth tax bracket will start taking effect, the 38% rate. But when we start doing those things we have to keep in mind that we have to look, then, how do we pay for it, how do we pick up the revenue and still keep the bill so-called revenue neutral. I don't have any master plan. Senator Bob Packwood, the chairman of the Finance Committee, will be the chief architect. Certainly I want to be helpful; I'm a member of the committee, and will have the responsibility as the Majority Leader. But I think tax reform is a good idea. The President's right. But we need to make certain that it's not counterproductive and it's not a disincentive for business.

LEHRER: Are you going to need a full-court press by President Reagan in order to pass it through the Senate?

Sen. DOLE: At this point even a full-court press would not be enough. We're about in the same position the Republicans in the House were on the first vote. There were 14 Republicans voted with the President the first time out. If we took a vote today in the Senate -- we're out of session, we can't; but if we did take even a straw vote -- I doubt a dozen Republican senators would say that they were enthusiastic about either the President's proposal, and even fewer enthusiastic about the House-passed bill.

LEHRER: So that would mean -- it would seem to me that it would fail, in other words, if it was up to a vote today.

Sen. DOLE: What it means is early on, we're not going to buy on to a program until we fully understand it. It's over 1,300 pages long. Senator Packwood, the chairman of the Finance Committee, is going to have some more hearings. We would like to test it ourselves on the American public, people in our states -- get their reaction.

LEHRER: There's been an impression, Senator Dole, that tax reform was never a major priority to you. Is that a correct perception?

Sen. DOLE: Not really, because I hope that in 1981, having been chairman of the Finance Committee, we managed the President's tax bill; did the same thing in '82, which was tax reform -- we closed more loopholes in '82 than ever before that I can recall; and again in 1984. My view was we had to be realistic about tax reform, and maybe we were biting off too much. Maybe we ought to have a stiff minimum tax, lower the rates to some degree, and then through a process of maybe every third or fourth year, take another bite on tax reform. When you try to do it all at once, you end up with what you have in the House bill, a sort of a reshuffling of the special interest provisions and not real tax reform.

LEHRER: Well, it sounds to me like you're talking about a major revision, then, of the House version.

Sen. DOLE: Well, you know, we would like to see a revision. Again, it's one thing to make speeches and make statements, anotherthing to find the votes. That's the one thing I found very difficult in the Senate from time to time. But we're for tax reform in the Senate. I think it's bipartisan. It has to be bipartisan. But that doesn't mean we're going to have a bill that's going to satisfy everyone, maybe not even satisfy fully the President. But I think as you also know, and maybe many viewers know, the real differences in tax bills are worked out after the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill, in what we call the conference. And that's where it'll be written.

LEHRER: Yes, sir. Senator Dole, thank you very much for being with us tonight.

Sen. DOLE: Thank you.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: In his cartoon tonight, Lurie also looks at Edward Kennedy's announcement that he won't run for President.

[Ranon Lurie cartoon -- Democrat says, "Now that he's out, we can ride more comfortably." Turns out that he and other Democrats are crushing a donkey to death.]

LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this day. The French hostage drama ended peacefully, with all hostages safe. A new gross national product figure showed the economy sluggish. A new consumer price index figure showed prices up but inflation still in check. And Congress adjourned for the holidays. President Reagan also said Secretary Shultz would not have to take a lie detector test.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back on Monday. I'm Robert MacNeil. Have a good weekend. Good night.