The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. There's been another terrorist truck bombing, killing four people this time at the American Embassy in Kuwait. We look at the motives and backing of the terrorist group which again claims responsibility. And we hear of Arab unhappiness with Washington's new tilt to Israel. In El Salvador we hear how that country's defense minister explains the rampant death squads. Jim Lehrer is off tonight, and Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Robin, also in the NewsHour tonight, we talk with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and get a report on how much we should worry about the federal deficit.

Sen. MAX BAUCUS, (D) Montana: By the time these hearings conclude on Wednesday, we will have incurred an additional $1 billion in national debt.

WOODRUFF: We hear the story of a California woman who says starvation is the answer for her, and hear about a century-spanning trip by Pope John Paul II.

MacNEIL: A truck loaded with explosives crashed into the American Embassy compound in Kuwait today, and bombs exploded in five other places; in all, killing five people and injuring 61. Bombs also went off at the Kuwait airport, killing one technician; at the French Embassy, injuring two workers, and at an industrial complex, a power station and a residential area where many Americans live. In a telephone call in Beirut, a terrorist group calling itself the Islamich Holy War claimed responsibility for the bombings. It was the same group that had claimed it caused the suicide truck bombing which killed nearly 300 American and French troops in Beirut in October. Here's report from Phil Davis of Viznews.

PHIL DAVIS, Viznews [voice-over]: The American Embassy complex was badly damaged. Two men in a truck were trying to crash through the gates when their load of explosives went off. Incredibly, one of them survived and was taken to the hospital. But four people in the compound at the time were killed; there were no American nationals among them, however. Another 15 people were treated for injuries caused by flying debris; some were hurt badly in what was an identical suicide attack used with such tragic and devastating effect in Lebanon recently. The other American target was a residential complex used by a variety of Amercans working in the city. While police inspected the debris, searching for evidence, security at other embassies and foreign missions was being stepped up. Even private homes of senior officials will be guarded to prevent a repeat of scenes like this.

MacNEIL: Kuwait, where the explosions occurred, is a small state at the northwest end of the Persian Gulf with some of the largest oil reserves in the world, but a population of less than a million and a half. In politics, Kuwait's national assembly is the only freely elected deliberative body in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait has generally sided with its neighbor, Iraq, in the long war with the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Secretary of State Shultz, stopping in Portugal after travelling through the Middle East, deplored the attacks as tragic, but said government-instigated terrorism has become an unfortunate fact of life. Shultz stressed that such acts, rather than being isolated incidents, planned by what he called "some little group who are dissatisfied," often have behind them organized and systematic governmental efforts to achieve some object. As for who was responsible for the Kuwait bombings, a spokesman at the State Department here in Washington had little to add.

ALAN ROMBERG, State Department spokesman: You've seen the media reports that a group calling itself the Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for the attack; we have no independent confirmation of these reports. An organization calling itself the Islamic Jihad, among other organizations, claimed responsibility for the bombings in Beirut, but we have no idea whether they are related.

WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, White House officials confirmed today that the Secret Service now has the capability to fire ground to air missiles at any aircraft that flies too close to the White House. This in the wake of recent terrorist attacks in the Middle East, and expected attacks in the future from Shiite Moslem groups. Security agents monitor planes flying into and out of Washington's National Airport from a control center in the old executive office building which sits just across a driveway from the White House. Time magazine reports this week that the officers doing the monitoring have less than a minute to decide whether to fire the missiles if a plane begins to operate suspiciously. Robin? More Terrorist Bombings

MacNEIL: Now we're going to look a little more deeply at the group which claimed to have carried out today's bombings, the Islamic Jihad -- "jihad," the Arabic word for Holy War -- and what its motives and backing may be. Richard Dekmajian is a specialist in Islamic fundamentalism and is completing a study for the Defense Department of its manifestations in Syria and Lebanon. Mr. Dekmejian is a professor of Near East Studies at the State University of New York at Binghamton, and he joins us tonight from public station WSKG in Binghamton. Prof. Dekmejian, what is the Islamic Holy War group?

RICHARD DEKMEJIAN: It's very difficult to say, and there are a number of organizations which operate under this name. There are literally hundreds of Islamic fundamentalist organizations throughout the Arab world, and in the Islamic world. This particular organization, in terms of its pattern of operation, appears to be the same as the one which was responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Marines in Beirut. If I were able to guess, it is a Shiite organization, although we can never be sure, unless more information is available.

MacNEIL: Shiite being the sect of Islam which is paramount in Iran?

Prof. DEKMEJIAN: That's correct. It's paramount in Iran, and it's being persecuted in Iraq, where it is the majority sect.And also this sect is preponderant in terms of its concentration in the oil fields of the Gulf.

MacNEIL: Now, may I ask you -- the U.S. has charged, after the Beirut bombing of the Marine compound, that there were connections with Iran.How direct -- and is there proof for a connection -- with the Khomeini regime in Iran?

Prof. DEKMEJIAN: I, in my studies, haven't seen a direct connection, and indeed it's very difficult to establish a direct connection. But the Khomeini regime has certainly the incentives to attack us. I think that a causal factor is the French supply of Exocet missiles and super Etendard bombers to Iraq. And I think that was an important motive both in Beirut, as well as, and specifically, in Kuwait. In fact, I've been very surprised why, as to why the Iranians have held their fire in the Gulf. They're capable of great damage to our interests and the Gulf countries supporting Iraq. But I think this is only the opening round.

MacNEIL: You said that Khomeini's Iran has motives for attacking the United States. What are those motives currently? In other words, what might be a motive be for attacking the American Embassy in Kuwait today?

Prof. DEKMEJIAN: In their perception, and one cannot be sure again, but in their perception -- in the Iranian perception -- the Iraqis and their abilities to be able to confront the Iranians is based on American and Western help. The Iranians feel that the French government could have been persuaded by the American government not to supply the Iraqis with the support they've been getting. There is some evidence that we are supportive of Iraq although it's not clear, but this is the way it looks from the Iranian perspective.

MacNEIL: And the Kuwaitis have certainly supported Iraq with --

Prof. DEKMEJIAN: Yes, although the Kuwaitis have tried to be moderate about their opposition to Iran. They've supported Iraq, especially financially, but they haven't taken any explicit steps to alienate Khomeini.

MacNEIL: What could the United States effectively do to wipe out, or neutralize, the Islamic Holy War terrorist group or groups?

Prof. DEKMEJIAN: Not much, I'm afraid. The Islamic fundamentalist movement has been sweeping the Islamic countries, and its different manifestations we've seen in the take-over of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia. We've seen it in December of '81 in the plot to overthrow the Bahrain government; that was a Shiite group. And a Sunni group, of course, assassinated President Sadat. So Islamic fundamentalism is here to stay. I think what we can do is try to extricate ourselves from Lebanon, try to establish a larger, more comprehensive and representative government there, and deal with the Palestinian question and the -- generally the larger Arab-Israeli conflict.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you Judy? Middle East Policy

WOODRUFF: For more on the administrtion's response to the criticism it's been receiving from Arab capitals, we talk with Geoffrey Kemp, who is senior director for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the President's National Security Council. He has worked closely with U.S. negotiators who are seeking a settlement for the crisis in Lebanon. Mr. Kemp, why is Secretary Shultz, as he travels through Arab capitals, stressing for these new, stronger U.S. ties with the Israelis? Is he trying to say that this is a change in American policy?

GEOFFREY KEMP: Judy, I don't think he's trying to say this is a change in American policy. The United States has always had close relations with Israel, and will continue to have close relations with Israel. I think what's happened is that in the wake of Prime Minister Shamir's visit to Washington, there was a great deal of coverage in the media, both here and in the Middle East about the new directions in which our relationship with Israel was going. What was not, I think, given as much stress were some of the other issues that the President and Prime Minister Shamir discussed, including our desire for kcloser ties with our moderate Arab friends and our determination to press ahead with the President's peace process.

WOODRUFF: But Secretary Shultz in being quoted throughout the American press as talking about closer ties with Israel. Now that is what he is being critizied for while he is over there.

Mr. KEMP: It's no doubt at all that in the meetings that we had in Washington certain agreements were reached to bring our relationship even closer together. But again I want to stress that this is something we've been wanting to do for a long time now. As early as April of 1981, Secretary Haig made a trip to the Middle East where he said he wanted closer strategic ties with all our friends.Israel and the Arab nations. In the meantime, there have been a lot of events have taken place, including the war in Lebanon, and if you like, we've put on the back burner some of the decisions we wanted to take a long time ago. There's nothing really new in this policy; it's part of an overall, strategic review of American policy which has at least three components: relations with Israel; relations with the Arabs; and the peace process.

WOODRUFF: Well, how does this policy -- new or redefined or restressed or however you want to put it -- how does that put us any closer to a solution overall in the Middle East? And the administration has said itself that the Palestinians are the key to that.

Mr. KEMP: I think you can answer that in two ways. First, I think we all realize that our immediate priority is to get a resolution to the Lebanon crisis. We've got to get all foreign forces out of Lebanon, including ultimately our own forces. We can best do this if we have close working relationships with our friends, particularly with Israelis who are in Lebanon. Secondly, if we are to make progress on the Palestinian problem, and have a peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbors, as well as Egypt, it's essential that Israel feel comfortable in its own security. And that is why close relations with the United States are good. But this is not a zero sum game; we are not supporting Israel at the expense of the Arabs, or supporting the Arabs at the expense of Israel.

WOODRUFF: But specifically -- I hear what you're saying about how the closer relationship is going to somehow bring about this feeling of amity and so forth, but specifically, how is it going to break the logjam? I mean what has changed?

Mr. KEMP: Well, I think that we have a very clear understanding now, probably a clearer understanding that we've had in the past, about Israel's attitudes toward Lebanon. And I think we now have a greater complementarity of Interests with the Israelis in reaching a solution in Lebanon.

WOODRUFF: And what would you say Israel's attitude toward Lebanon is that we have a greater understanding of?

Mr. KEMP: I think the Israelis, like ourselves, want to see a sovereign, independent Lebanon, free of all foreign forces, and they want to see President Gemayel be able to extend his jurisdiction over the entire country, as long as they can assume that the security of their northern border is safe.

WOODRUFF: All right, we'll talk again in a minute. Robin?

MacNEIL: For an Arab perspective, we have Mohammad Hakki, former press security to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mr. Hakki is now an international affairs consultant in Washington. Mr. Hakki, how is the new Israeli relationship being perceived in the Arab world?

MOHAMMAD HAKKI: Unfortunately it is being perceived as a complete, almost 180 degrees change in Washington's policies towards the Middle East. No one is going to come out and say that publicly, but privately, they must all be squirming in their seats and wondering exactly what motivated Washington to make that move now.

MacNEIL: And is that what they're telling Mr. Shultz as he goes around, do you think?

Mr. HAKKI: I'm sure they are telling him, I mean, despite all of the diplomatic niceties, they are telling him exactly how their own people and the pressures from all the peoples of the moderate countries is mounting to at least have an explanation as exactly why this change is happening right now.

MacNEIL: Well, you just heard Mr. Kemp say it isn't really a change, that the United States has always had close relations with Israel, and it's -- this is just warming it up a bit.

Mr. HAKKI: No. Let us go back. If we backtrack to the time of the invasion of Lebanon, and when the President presented his Reagan Plan, everybody felt a sigh of relief, and they felt that there was at least a distance between the United States and Israel. And what is happening now is that, as Mr. Kemp was saying, there is a complementarity of views, and this is very alarming to a lot of the Arab governments and Arab countries.

MacNEIL: What is, in your view, is this new relationship going to do to U.S. relations with friendly Arab countries, like Egypt, your country?

Mr. HAKKI: I am sure it is confusing our -- my leaders. It is confusing the president no end; it is confusing everyone in his entourage no end. And we don't know exactly why. As I said, you know, if America is trying to get itself out, or get the Marines out of Lebanon, there is a way. You can always resort to the Arab countries, and we were getting somewhere. We were trying to persuade the Syrians that the Lebanese treaty is not all that bad. We can eliminate some parts of it. We were trying to persuade the different factions of the Lebanese people who go to Geneva -- and they did go to Geneva. So we were getting somewhere.

MacNEIL: Are you saying that this new deal, or arrangement, with Israel will undermine or destroy the efforts that moderate Arab countries were making to get a settlement in Lebanon?

Mr. HAKKI: I hope not. It looks -- it sounds as if it's putting the whole process in the shredding machine. But I hope that the Arabs will still collect their efforts and bring themselves together and try and help America out of this Amityville-horror box that we are all putting ourselves into.

MacNEIL: You heard Mr. Kemp say that the Washington hopes -- the administration hopes that it will actually help the process in Lebanon because it will make Israel feel more secure and particularly about its northern borders, and it's helped us define what Israel wants in Lebanon.

Mr. HAKKI: We've heard that one before, haven't we? I think every time -- like the one who needs one more drink, every time we try to give Israel more to make her feel secure, it turned around and said no deal. Even before Mr. Shamir and Mr. Arens left Washington, they turned around and told Washington, simply, no deal. We hope -- I'm happy to hear from Mr. Kemp that there were more to the negotiations in the White House behind the closed doors to press on the Israelis to pull out of Lebanon and really reach an equitable solution. But it doesn't look that way.

MacNEIL: How will this be in Syria, do you think? Or how does it affect Syria's role in this whole matter?

Mr. HAKKI: Syria must be happy about -- you look at what the media is projecting the whole business here. The Shiites, the Druses -- these are Lebanese -- and what they are fighting is a bad agreement -- between the Lebanese government, a minority government, and Israel, which is blessed by America. And instead of saying it's a bad agreement and let us review it, Washington is saying, no, it is a good agreement, and you have to swallow it. Of course, the Druse and the Shiites simply see eye to eye with Syria now. There is no shread of evidence that they will continue to see eye to eye with Syria after a solution can be found to the Lebanese problem. They may very well feel close to Syria, but they can also feel that it is a difficult country to deal with, which they have always felt, before the recent events.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Mr. Kemp, let me ask you about a point that Mr. Hakki just made, and that is that every time the United States does a favor, if you will, for the Israelis, that instead of their being cooperative back, they ask for still more. How do you respond to that? Do you think there's any significance to what he's saying?

Mr. KEMP: He was talking, I believe, about the context of Lebanon. And I think it's clear to everybody that the Israelis want to leave Lebanon, and that is very much in American interests. I think it's in Israeli interests, and it's certainly in the Lebanese interests. And we think that we now have the mechanism for them to leave; this was cemented in May of this year between -- negotiations between the Israelis and the Lebanese which we worked with them on. This is the --

WOOKRUFF: But the Syrians, you're referring to the May agreement, the Syrians aren't buying that.

Mr. KEMP: No, the Syrians are not buying it at the moment, but the fact of the matter is, it is the one piece of paper we have that commits the Israelis to leave Lebanon. And as everybody knows, who dealt with the Israelis, when they make a commitment such as that, they keep it.

WOODRUFF: It commits them to leave, but under terms that are unacceptable to the other major party in Lebanon, which is the Syrians. So --

Mr. KEMP: The Syrians, it is true, have their own agenda in Lebanon. But the one thing, I think, we can say about the Syrian government, and in particular, its leader, President Assad, in the many years that we've been dealing with him, is that basically he's pragmatic. That in the last resort, Syria does not want a confrontation with Israel, and we do not believe it wants a confrontation with the United States. Syria is clearly looking to maximize its relations with the Lebanese government on its terms.And what we have -- are trying to do is to persuade the Syrians that the best way to seek interests that they share with Lebanon is to negotiate an agreement similar to the one that the Israelis negotiated.

WOODRUFF: But do you have any real tangible evidence now that, as a result of this newly defined relationship with Israel, that you're going to get that sort of reaction from the Syrians?

Mr. KEMP: We are certainly continuing our diplomatic exchanges with the Syrians. Our ambassador has been in several times to see their foreign minister recently, and we have no reason to believe that the Syrians will not continue to negotiate.

WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. Hakki, what about that? He's saying that the Syrians are going to come around. Do you agree with him?

Mr. HAKKI: I hope so. But what I'm saying is that the agreement is making things so difficult for everybody, that it is -- I mean, we have always traditionally fell back on Egypt and said, why don't you start or restart, you negotiations, you Camp David agreements or negotiations with the Israelis about the autonomy talks. Do you think we can do that now? Do you think the Syrians are buying this now?

WOODRUFF: Well, why wouldn't they?

Mr. HAKKI: Because there is no -- nothing that -- in the tea leaves. There is nothing in the picture that somehow allows them to believe that yes, we can reach an equitable solution quickly on the Lebanese side and then something for the Palestinians. And then they can reach something for them in the Golan Heights.

WOODRUFF: Well, do you agree with Mr. Kemp, then -- that the Syrians -- that President Assad is pragmatic, that he really doesn't in the last analysis, want a confrontation with Israel?

Mr. HAKKI: I agree with him, yes, I agree on that point. And I think that he has proved this all along, that in the final analysis, when Syria's national interest is at stake, he comes along.

WOODRUFF: So how do you see us getting from where we are now to that point?

Mr. HAKKI: I think with more clearly defined objectives, with a clear message to the Palestinians, a clear message to the Lebanese, and a clear message to the Israelis. If Mr. Kemp is saying that the clear message has been delivered to the Israelis behind doors, so be it.Welcome. But I think the Syrians need to be somehow persuaded and convinced that this is the case.

WOODRUFF: How much of what we've been hearing from the Arabs right now is just a sense on their part that they really need to be making these noises of criticism? That it's just expected of them to criticize?

Mr. HAKKI: What noises? I'm waiting to hear the noises. I don't see that they are making any noises. In fact, if anything, we are extremely -- they are falling over backwards to be nice to America and to -- not to lose the whole deal because of the unfortunate and tragic events --

WOODRUFF: But I mean in expressing their criticism, their misgivings to Secretary Shultz as he travels. As he comes out of meetings, he says, I'm hearing criticism.

Mr. HAKKI: I think this is a very essential trip. I think that Mr. Shultz is going to hear, probably for the first time, very frank opinions from the Arab leaders, and I hope that they will also hear from him clearer commitments on the U.S. side, that we are going to move off the dead center.

WOODRUFF: Are you optimistic, Mr. Hakki, about a solution?

Mr. HAKKI: I have a butterfly in my heart.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Kemp, are you optimistic?

Mr. KEMP: I have to be. Yes, I basically believe that it's in everybody's interest, apart from the few extremist groups that were referred to earlier in the program, to reach a negotiated settlement in Lebanon, and from that position, move ahead with the program that the President outlined on September 1,1982. It is the most practical, realistic and fair solution, we believe, to the Palestinian problem.

WOODRUFF: Allright, thank you, Mr. Kemp and Mr. Hakki. Robin?

MacNEIL: More American troops came home from Grenada today. About 700 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were greeted by cheering relatives and friends when they returned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. That leaves a small U.S. contingent, primarily military police, on the Caribbean island, seven weeks after the U.S. invasion.

President Reagan today saluted the country's armed forces and said Grenada showed that the U.S. is willing to act to protect freedom.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: History doesn't offer many crystal clear lessons for those who manage our nation's affairs. But there are a few, and one of them surely is a lesson that weakness on the part of those who cherish freedom inevitably brings a threat to that freedom. Tyrants are tempted. With the best intentions, we have tried turning our ploughshares -- or our swords into ploughshares, hoping that others will follow. Well, our days of weakness are over. [applause]

MacNEIL: The President was speaking to the 1983 convention of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society in New York City. We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Saranac Lake, New York] Federal Deficit

WOODRUFF: Treasury Secretary Donald Regan made the first public acknowledgement by a Reagan administration official today that the Presiden't 1985 budget proposal will contain some type of tax increase plan. But regan stressed the administration is still looking for spending cuts. He spoke at a luncheon before the Washington Press Club.

DONALD REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury: There will be a tax proposal of some type that will be contingent upon getting spending cuts. Now, to what and the like, that has not been decided. The actual type of tax submission. But what I'm talking about, as far as contingency is concerned, you've got to remember that everything we're suggesting here, spending cuts come first. Later come tax increases, and not one without the other, as many would have it. It's not that we lack revenues; it's that we lack the will to cut out some of the programs, or to cut back on some of the programs. There is no way that you could have a credible administration that would show an increasing deficit. We have to get it down; now whether or not the Congress works with us is the second question. What we have to show that, and we have to be determined to fight for it -- that is to cut spending in order to keep those deficits coming down over the out-years. We're through with the recession now. We're in the period of expansion; it's time to cut back on our federal spending.

WOODRUFF: While Secretary Regan acknowledges that the nearly $200 billion deficit is bad.Senate Finance Committee chairman Robert Dole says he also has a way to reduce it significantly. And Dole is holding a series of hearings to draw attention to the problem.The White House didn't like the $150 billion 3 year deficit cutting program Dole propsoed while Congress was in session, and wasn't particularly happy with his decision to hold these hearings.Nevertheless, here's sample of what was said today.

Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: It's my hope that during these hearings we will have a change to not only look at short-range consequences, but particularly at the long-range damage that we are inflicting on this country by these huge, growing deficits. The American people have a right to know what we are in Washington doing to correct this very damaging situation. And the answer is, a really, a one-word answer: we are doing absolutely nothing.

Sen. MAX BAUCUS, (D) Montana: We are incurring a defict, Mr. President, at the rate of $22 million a half hour. That means, by the time these hearings conclude on Wednesday, we will have incurred an additional $1 billion in national debt. Twenty-two million dollars an hour until Congress and the President figure out some way to reduce that rate.

Dr. RUDOLPH PENNER, director Congressional Budget Office: Unless current taxing and spending policies are changed, the budget deficit will grow and add to intrest rate pressures. The potential for economic growth will then be reduced and standards of living will be lowered in the long run. More important, large current deficits have a way of generating increased future deficits.Even with the interest rates assumed in this analysis, the net interest bill grows faster than the GNP in our projections. The tax increases, or other spending cuts necessary to offset this rise, become more and more arduous as time passes.

MURRAY WEIDENBAUM, former chairman, Council of Economic Advisers: There is, literally, a San Andreas fault in current budget policy. It is the failure to match the 1981 tax cuts with spending cuts. However we measure it, real terms, percent of GNP, federal spending is still a growth area of the American economy.

MacNEIL: Senator Dole, the chairman of the committee, called the hearings, unusual during a Congressional recess, because he continues to say that tackling the deficits can't wait until after the 1984 election. After the recess, he plans to push for the package of $150 billion to lower the deficit, almost evenly divided between spending cuts and tax increases. The Senator is with us this evening.

Why do you choose this time to hold these hearings, Senator?

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, (R) Kansas: Well, we were directed by the Senate Finance Committee, by a vote of 15 to one, to come back with a package in February of 1984, of maybe evenly balanced deficit reduction of -- between taxes and spending restraint.In addition, the Congress passed a budget resolution asking us to raise $73 billion in taxes and cut spending $12 billion over three years. I didn't support that; it was too much on the tax side, but we have an obligation to try to put together a deficit reduction package, and the fact that we're not in session doesn't mean we're not supposed to work.

MacNEIL: What do you say to those who say you're holding hearings when no one is around, to get a little publicity because you really want to run for the Senate Majority Leader's position?

Sen. DOLE: No, we can't help -- how people may assign what we do in Congress. I've indicated my interest in that position, but that has nothing do do with the deficit or the deficit-reduction efforts. We've had some outstanding witnesses today; we'll have a total of 18 economists over this 3-day period to try to convince us or persuade us that we ought to take action, and the sooner the better. You know, it's -- you could take junkets, or you can stay here and work, and we choose to stay here and try to follow the mandate my committee gave to me to put together a package and report back by February.

MacNEIL: I'd like to discuss your package in a moment, but first the politics of this. The President seems to be dead-set against any tax increases. Speaker O'Neill seems to be dead set against cutting any domestic programs. How do you expect to get them off the dime in an election year?

Sen. DOLE: Well, that's -- I just listened to Don Regan, who's a great guy and a good secretary of the treasury, saying we gotta cut spending. But we're told you can't cut defense spending, which is $250 billion: we can't cut Social Security, which -- depending how you figure it, is another couple hundred billion. And co-obviously, we can't touch interest on debt, which is over $100-and-some billion. That doesn't leave much for us to cut, and I think that what we need is a recognition that if we're going to cut spending, everything ought to be on the table. But if not --

MacNEIL: Including defense, you mean?

Sen. DOLE: Well, obviously including defense. We're not going to have the 22% increase that Secretary Weinbergr advocates, but beyond that, if in fact we are -- our options are so limited, it's going to be more difficult. But there's still many areas, and I agree with the President, I agree with the secretary of the treasury, many areas of non-defense, discretionary spending that can be reduced. We also believe that big entitlement programs, like Medicare, can be tackled and tackled now.

MacNEIL: But I'm just wondering how you get the movement going. I mean, what your program would amount to would be tarring this President with a brush of a tax-increaser in an election year, and Speaker O'Neill with the brush of a domestic program-cutter. How do you get that moving?

Sen. DOLE: But I think you have to look at the altermatives. In the first place, our taxes would be contingent, as Secretary Regan insists and the Pr09ident -- I don't think that's the best way to do it, but we're willing to concede that we have to do that. So any taxes will be contingent on getting spending reduction. Now whether or not we can sell that to Speaker O'Neill is something else. But our first obligation, our first responsibility is to get it through the Senate Finance Committee, on to the Senate floor, through the Senate, hopefully with the President's support. But let's just take, instead of how difficult this is, let's see how difficult it is if we do nothing. If we stack up, back to back, $200 billion deficits, in my view, it's going to raise interest rates, if not in '84, in '85, and every percentage interest increase on a $50,000 home, on a 30-year mortgage, adds about $15,000 a year. Now we can play games, or we can settle down and try to go to work on the problem.

MacNEIL: Mr. Feldstein, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, is accused by the White House of not being a team player, for arguing very much as you're arguing now. Are you regarded by the White House, although a Republican chairman, as not being a team player for doing this?

Sen. DOLE: Oh, I think by most people in the White House, I think we're regarded as team players, and I don't suggest that Martin Feldstein is not a team player. We both supported the President's economic package.Nearly everything that happened in the past three years wasinitiated in the Senate, much of it in the Senate Finance Committee, so we're certainly supportive of the President. I'm not going to vote for just another tax bill; we want deficit reduction and make certain we have a sustained recovery.

MacNEIL: Well, let's go through the package, briefly. Take the spending cuts side of it, first. If that's roughly half of the $150 billion, say $75 billion, where do you get $75 billion out of the Federal budget?

Sen. DOLE: Okay, the total package is $150 billion over a four-year period. Our committee obviously doesn't have total jurisdiction; we can only deal with areas where we have jurisdiction. We get much of the spending reduction on doing certain things in the Medicaire area, and again I would say that nearly everything we do on Medicaire and restraining the growth of spending, was recommended in whole or in part by the President in his '84 budget. In addition, on the spending side, we do something on Medicaid. I mean, they add up to a substantial amount of money. We hope to pick up with what we'll save on debt service, if we get the tax changes, and about $20-some billion dollars in restraint on Medicaire over a 4-year period, we believe we can come out of our committee with about three-fourths the total package, $150 billion being the total package. We think the other committees in defense, agriculture, other areas can pick up $30-$40 billion in spending restraint.

MacNEIL: Now briefly, how do you raise $75 billion, roughly, in taxes.

Sen. DOLE: Well, very carefully, you look at the President's recommendations in '84, which we did. He proposed an energy tax, we propose an energy tax. He proposed a surcharge on individual and corporate income; we have a little different approach, but we have pretty much the same thing. Now we did do a couple of things the President didn't suggest. We would sort of round down -- let's say on indexing, if you're entitled, say, the bracket [unintelligible] or the formula was about 3.4%, we would round it down to 3%, and even that little bit on indexing would save $5-$6 billion. We do the same on Social Security indexing. We don't change the basic [unintelligible], but if you're entitled 3.5, we say you get three. That's a very minor savings in Social Security, but it's important.So it adds up to about a $125 billion -- $115 billion out of our committee, leaving $35 billion for the other committees.

MacNEIL: Well, Senator, we'll have to watch how that goes. Thank you.

Sen. DOLE: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Judy?

MacNEIL: Former Vice President Walter Mondale today pronounced himself on schedule in the race to win the Democratic nomination for president. He told a news conference that his endorsement by the 250,000-member National Organization for Women was very, very significant. It came on the heels of another endorsement he won this weekend from the largely black Alabama Democratic Conference. And almost $1.5 million in new contributions raised from fund-raising parties held across the country on Saturday. The president of the National Organization for Women, or NOW, Judy Goldsmith said that NOW's endorsement would send a message to the majority of women in this nation that Walter Mondale is the candidate who will be best for women, and who can defeat Ronald Reagan. She added that Mondale has promised to consider a woman to be his running mate if he wins the nomination.

The Supreme Court today refused to order an operation to prolong the life of Baby Jane Doe, the New York infant with severe birth defects whose parents have decided against corrective surgery. The justices let stand lower court decisions in the parents' farents' favor. In so doing, they ruled against a lawyer who had intervened on behalf of Baby Doe, arguing that her constitutional rights had been violated. The baby was born two months ago, and without surgery, she's not expected to live beyond the age of two. Meanwhile, a court in Califormia is wrestling with another patient's life or death decision, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that story. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Tomorrow hearings will resume in the case of 26-year-old Elizabeth Bouvia, the severely disabled woman who wants to starve herself in the California hospital where she is a patient.Mrs. Bouvia, who has cerebral palsy and is a quadriplegic, has asked a superior court judge for an injunction to prevent Riverside General Hospital from force-feeding her. Mrs. Bouvia checked herself into the hospital in September, asking that the staff give her pain killers, but no food. Doctors refused. They say she is depressed over her recent divorce and her inability to have a child. She is challenging the hospital in court. Mrs. Bouvia's case has touched off a national debate, in the press and elsewhere, over the right to die. And last week, TV cameras were in the courtroom to capture the arguments on both sides.

ELIZABETH BOUVIA, right-to-die defendant: I'm not asking for anybody to kill me. I'm asking for the natural processes of death to let me be taken over. In other words, I'm saying I realize that by refusing nutrients and medical care, that that's what's going to happen -- the natural process of death will take over eventually.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: But Barbara Millikan, an attorney for the county hospital, saw it another way.

BARBARA MILLIKAN, attorney: Plaintiff is not asking the court to sanction her suicide, unattended or alone, those are not the circumstances. The plaintiff is asking the court to sanction her suicide in a hospital devoted to life and healing.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: But Mrs. Bouvia's lawyer, Richard Scott, told reporters that she should have the right to determine her own fate.

RICHARD SCOTT, lawyer: It's the patient's body; it's the patient's disease. It's the patient's decision, and it may be the wrong decision in the view of the doctors and the nurses, yet still, the patient's decision. Whose life is it, anyway?

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: Whatever the court decides, both sides have said they intend to do what they feel is right. Dr. Donald Disher is chief of psychiatry at the hospital.

DONALD FISHER, chief of psychiatry: I have no intention of treating this patient in the furtherance of her declared intent to suicide.

Mrs. BOUVIA: I am going to carry out what I'm going to do. The only difference is if I do not get this right, the hospital will have the right to physically force-feed me against my will. And that is exactly what's going to happen.

Ms. MILLIKAN: Mrs. Bouvia, that's what I was going to ask you. If the court does not sign the order that you're asking for, what will you do?

Mrs. BOUVIA: Exactly what I have stated I'm going to do.

Ms. MILLIKAN: You're going to starve yourself.

Mrs. BOUVIA: Yes, I am. Yes, I am.

HUNTER-GAULT: A decision on Mrs. Bouvia's request to stop the hospital from feeding her is expected some time this week. If she wins her case, this time around, that still won't be the end of it. Another hearing will be required before the injunction against the hospital becomes permanent. No date has been set for that. Robin?

MacNEIL: The United States Supreme Court today refused to postpone the execution of a murderer scheduled to die in Louisiana on Wednesday. He is 31-year-old Robert Wayne Williams, who was sentenced for the 1978 shotgun shooting of a Baton Rouge security guard during a hold-up.If the execution is carried out, Williams will be the first person to die in Louisiana's electric chair in 22 years. The Supreme Court was divided today; three of the justices, Brendan, Marshall and Blackman, voted to grant Williams a delay. Justice Blackman said the court appeared to be making an untoward rush to judgment. We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Bryce Canyon, Utah] Salvador Death Squads

MacNEIL: This week sees a stepped-up American diplomatic effort in Central America. The Kissinger Commission, which is considering long-range policy, is visiting Mexico and Venezuela. Special Ambassador Richard Stone will hold more talks with the Contadora group of nations. Yesterday, Vice President Bush met with government leaders and expressed support for the efforts of the Contadora group, Panama, Mexico, Columbia and Venezuela, to find a negotiated peace in Central America. And in El Salvador, Vice President Bush added to the mounting administration rhetoric condemning the death squads, who continue to murder Salvadoran civilians.

Vice President GEORGE BUSH: My role was to reiterate the President's revulsion and simply to, as clearly as possible, look at them right in the eyes, say it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to give the support ot this country that the country deserves if something isn't done about all of this. And we left it at about there. My message is that there must be progress to get support in the administration and certainly in the United States Congress.

MacNEIL: One of the Salvadoran leaders who met with Vice President Bush was Defense Minister Eugenio Vides-Casanova, who himself, for the first time, ten days ago, publicly denounced death squads and vowed to stop them. So far, no member of a death squad has ever been apprehended in El Salvador. General Vides-Casanova was head of the National Guard in 1980 when four American Catholic churchwomen were killed, allegedly by a National Guard patrol. Recently, special correspondent Charles Krause talked with the defense minister, asking first about American charges that Salvadoran soldiers may be death squad participants.

EUGENIO VIDES-CASANOVA, Salvador Defense Minister [through interpreter]: I do not discard the possibility, though, that some bad seed of the armed forces could be a member of some death squad. I have spoken clearly in my statements to the press, domestic as well as international. And we are ready to take all measures within our abilities to find out where those people are. You can rest assured that if tomorrow a member of the armed forces, whether retired or active, is found to be a member of one of those death squads that are causing us so much harm, we will apply to him the full strength of the law. The important thing is to take the first step. We have already taken it. Among the most important steps is a visit to all military and public security groups, have direct talks with the commanders of the different posts, with the chiefs, officers, and even with the troops, and show them that the line to follow, the policy to be followed by the minister of defense is against the death squads, and against any violation of human rights or abuses of power. In that respect I tell them personally that I have never authorized anyone to give an order of that kind, and that if ever a member of the armed forces were to be found in one of those squads, he would be dealt with, with the full force of the law.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you believe the death squads not only threaten El Salvador's relationship with the United States, but also its own internal stability?

Gen. VIDES-CASANOVA [through interpreter]: Yes, that is correct. I believe the death squads not only threaten our internal security; it doesn't matter whether they come from the right or from the left -- the damage is the same. The truth is that they are also a crucial factor in our good relationship with the United States. We have the last case in which fourunion members died; they were executed by a death squad. That has caused El Salvador a reduction of $30 million in military aid. I want everyone to realize all that the armed forces could have done with those $30 million. Fighting as we ought to fight, as an armed force.

KRAUSE: Do you have adequate resources to investigate and stop the death squads? Or do you think it would be useful to have the FBI or the CIA help you investigate the death squads?

Gen. VIDES-CASANOVA [through interpreter]: Our problem lies in the fact that there are many things to investigate, and hardly 150 to 200 people available to carry out all the investigations in the whole country. At this moment, I don't know exactly what is allowed by our own laws. One way could be, like you said, to respect the help of one of these prestigious agencies that have shown sufficient capacity for that. And another could be to request training for our own units. Perhaps the process would be a little longer, but no matter how long the road, you always have to take that first step.

WOODRUFF: An unusual admission from the Soviet Union today. Space officials there confirmed that a manned-space mission was scrubbed in September because of a launch-pad accident, and they said two cosmonauts orbiting in a space-lab had to stay up longer than planned as a result. The officials also said the orbiting Salyut 7's space station had a fuel leak, but claimed it did not endanger the cosmonauts. The statements came in a news conference held by the two cosmonauts and Soviet space officials. The commander of the Salyut 7, Vladimir Lyakhov, didn't say how many days were added to their mission, and he insisted they could have returned safely to earth at any given moment.

Pope John Paul II made a different kind of trip yesterday, nowhere near as long, but just as significant in the eyes of some people. Charlayne Hunter-Gault explains. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: The trip John Paul took was from Vatican City to the Evangelical Lutheran Christ Church -- not a long distance in miles, but one that took centuries.

[voice-over] In an unprecedented act of reconciliation, the Pope visited the Lutheran Church, nearly five centuries after Martin Luther and his followers split from the Roman Catholic Church. Lutheran officials emphasized that John Paul was there not as the Pope but as the Bishop of Rome. The audience of 400 specially invited guests received the Pope in a polite, but restrained manner. The service was an ecumenical one. But Vatican officials stressed that they had discussed and approved it in advance. The Pope, speaking in German, preached a sermon on the theme of unity of all Christians, but the Pope also reminded the congregation that there were still many issues that continue to divide the two churches.

[on camera] Here to give us some insight into those issues as well as a broader look at the Pope's increasing visibility on a range of issues is an expert on such things. He is Father Joseph O'Hare, editor-in-chief of America Magazine, a Catholic weekly with some 40,000 subscribers. Father O'Hare, how do you explain the significance of the Pope's visit yesterday to the Lutheran church?

Father JOSEPH O'HARE: Well, I think this Pope sees himself, above all, as a teacher, an evangelist, a teacher of the Gospel. He has a great sense of the symbolic gesture; he is very much an activist Pope, and I think this type of gesture of going there and participating in that ecumenical ceremony fits both his character and also his rong-range objectives.

HUNTER-GAULT: But what does it mean?

Father O'HARE: What it means is the animosities of the centuries should be resolved as much as possible, that he's trying to reach out across those animosities, across those differences and show his own personal commitment to the cause of church unity.

HUNTER-GAULT: But in his message yesterday, he also alluded to the fact that there were continuing differences. In a breif description of those, what are they?

Father O'HARE: Well, I think the issue of the role of the Pope himself would be one of the principle ones. In the past 15 years or more, groups of Catholic theologians and Lutheran theologians, churchmen from both denominations have been meeting in various dialogues, exploring these issues, you know, the theological the issue of justification, which is a rather technical theological issue -- they recently completed a report on that, which pointed out remarkable convergence, although identifying certain real differences. But probably the most difficult issue of all will be the question of the papacy itself because you have here not simply a theology and not simply a different reading of scripture, but you also have the historical development of an institution down through the centuries.

HUNTER-GAULT: And the Lutherans would not accept the notion, the doctrine of papal infallibility?

Fathr O'HARE: Well, I think the Lutherans would accept the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the first bishop, among others, among his brother bishops, that he exercises a petrying ministry, that is, a ministry in the tradition of St. Peter, the first of the Apostles to be a symbol of unity. When we get on the doctrine of infallibility, though, this would create real problems, but this doctrine, too, relatively recent doctrine in the history of the church -- as far as we know, it's only been exercised once in the history of Catholic teaching, and there are different intepretations of it today.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I suspect that story will continue on for some time to come. Meanwhile, the Pope has been increasingly visible on a number of issues, like he's volunteered to intervene in the Geneva arms talks after the Russians walked out. He intervened in the Florida death penalty case on the side of holding up the death penalty, and a number of othe things. What's going on in the Vatican?

Father O'HARE: Well, I think a lot of this can be explained by the character of the man himself. He is, as I mentioned earlier, an activist Pope. His view of Christianity is very broad; it's also very exact in terms of his fidelity to traditional doctrine --

HUNTER-GAULT: Which he just recently re-emphasized.

Father O'HARE: But -- he -- I was present in Rome in that October 1978 liturgy that inaugurated his papacy, and I remember him holding up the Book of the Gospels out to the vast crowd of hundreds of thousands in St. Peter's Square, and he said, here in the message of Christ is a message for all peoples, for all cultures, for all institutions. So he has a Christian humanism that is kind of driving intellectual force in his life.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you know, recently the Reagan administration has moved to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican; a move that hasn't been universally accepted by a lot of people, including a lot of Catholics. And someone observing that said that the Pope has moved beyond being a religious figure. Is that what's happening here?

Father O'HARE: Well, I think the Pope sees himself as a moral leader, a religious teacher, but I think that was true of his predecessorsas well. In other words, Pope John XXIII, first of all, and Paul VI, in that tradition, addressed their letters to all men and women of good will, as well as Catholics. But I don't think he sees himself as anything but a religious leader. I don't think he sees himself as a political figure, divorced from religion.

HUNTER-GAULT: What can you tell us about his decision to visit Ali Asha[?], the man who was convicted of shooting the Pope? He's planned to visit him in jail.

Father O'HARE: I think it's another instance of this Pope's penchant for the dramatic, visible gesture, a gesture of reconciliation.

HUNTER-GAULT: Can we expect to see more of that in the months to come?

Father O'HARE: Well, I don't know if -- I hope he doesn't have too many more assassins that he has to visit in prison.

HUNTER-GAULT: But more of the visible, dramatic --

Father O'HARE: But more dramatic and highly visible actions, I think, yes.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you, Father O'Hare. Robin?

MacNEIL: In case you missed anything. Here's our recap of the top stories. A terrorist truck bomb damaged the American Embassy in Kuwait. Five people were killed in that and five other explosions. The shadowy Islamic Holy War terrorist group claimed all of them. The Secret Service says it's ready to use surface-to-air missiles if terrorists tried to attack the White House by air. Seven hundred paratroopers came home from Grenada, leaving only a small policing contingent on the Caribbean island. The Supreme Court refused to order an operation for Baby Doe, the Long Island, New York, infant whose parents have refused surgery to correct birth defects. A divided Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 not to postpone the execution of Louisiana murderer Robert Wayne Williams, scheduled for Wednesday.

And finally, a story that caught our eye over the weekend. The Dallas Times Herald reported yesterday on an academic achievement test it devised to see how American students compared with those in other countries. Four prominent educators developed the tests, which were given within the past month to sixth grade students in Australia, Canada, England, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland, and in two Dallas schools. The results were not comforting for U.S. education. In mathematics, Japanese students finished first; Americans last. In science, Sweden was first; Americans were sixth out of eight. In geography, fourth, with the Swedes again first. More than a fifth of those tested at one of the Dallas schools could not locate the United States on a world map. H. Ross Perot, chairman of the Texas Select Committee on Public Education, commented, "It's too bad we can't give a test on football or drill teams, so we could finish first." Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Pretty depressing. Good night, Robin. And that's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.