The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines today Bernhard Goetz was indicted on four counts of attempted murder. The Supreme Court outlawed the right of police to fire at fleeing unarmed felons, but it said it was legal to put a nativity scene on public land. Strategic nuclear arms talks began again in Geneva as the last congressional vote on the MX was set for tomorrow. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary tonight, these are our focus sections. We discuss the prospects for the Geneva arms talks now that President Reagan has had his way on MX. We have a documentary report on the financial woes of Eastern Airlines and its embattled chairman, Frank Borman. Four months after the election an Indiana House seat is still in dispute. The two candidates debate their claims. With new allegations of point shaving in college basketball, we discuss the gambling environment that encourages fixing.News Summary

WOODRUFF: They finally threw the book at Bernhard Goetz, the man with the gun in the New York subway. A grand jury late today indicted him on four counts of attempted murder for shooting four youths last December. Goetz, who is 37, became a national celebrity, dubbed "the subway vigilante" following reports the four teenagers were attempting to rob him. Today's charges also included four counts of first-degree assault, one count of fourth-degree reckless endangerment and one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. An earlier grand jury had returned only a minor weapons possession charge against him. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau resubmitted the case March 13, saying a new witness had been found. Yesterday Goetz was to have testified before the grand jury, but a dispute arose over the extent of the questioning and he did not. After the indictments were issued this afternoon Goetz's lawyer and the Manhattan DA talked to reporters.

ROBERT MORGENTHAU, Manhattan District Attorney: The first presentation was careful and thorough. I, you know, say I'm not present, but I have to think that the new evidence had a substantial impact.

REPORTER: If you were satisfied with what the first grand jury did, this would never have happened. Is that correct?

Mr. MORGENTHAU: If there had been -- since there was new evidence we --

REPORTER: But you didn't say there was new evidence after the first grand jury.

Mr. MORGENTHAU: Because there wasn't new evidence after the first. It wasn't until we found it -- 'til we looked for it and found it.

REPORTER: Would you have looked for it had you been satisfied with the first grand jury's --

Mr. MORGENTHAU: I think in any case there is a continuing investigation, and you're going to look for new evidence, and if there's new evidence you're going to re-present.

BARRY SLOTNICK, defense attorney: I don't believe there was any surprise information or any surprise witness. I think the surprise was that the district attorney was unhappy with the results of the first grand jury, and as a result of that -- and I've seen his press statement. "We then began to look for new evidence." You know, is that an admission that his first investigation was shoddy, or is that an admission that Bill Kunstler was right, that he didn't do it appropriately the first time? Or is that simply a statement that we decided we were going to indict Bernhard Goetz and abort the mandate of the first grand jury?

LEHRER: The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 25 years in prison. The assault and weapons charges carry 15-year maximums; the reckless endangerment, seven years. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Supreme Court ruled today that police may not shoot unarmed suspects fleeing from the scene of a crime when there's no apparent threat of a harm to the police or others. In a six-to-three vote the court struck down a Tennessee law that authorized police to shoot at a fleeing felon. About half the states have similar laws. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White said, "It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape." For the dissenting minority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "The decision will create problems for law enforcement officers by effectively creating a right allowing a burglary suspect to flee unimpeded." The attorney general of Tennessee, Mike Cody, had this comment.

MIKE CODY, Attorney General, Tennessee: The court's majority opinion basically gives a constitutional right to flee, and it makes the burglar who is faster than the police officer on foot able to gauge his conduct and to go into a home at night to rob someone, whether a person is there or not, with the only danger that he as a burglar faces is to run the risk of being able to be faster on his feet than the police officer.

MacNEIL: In another case, the court dividing four votes to four, upheld a ruling that forces a New York comunity to provide public land for a privately-sponsored nativity scene each year. The justices ruled that Scarsdale, New York, must permit the placing of a nativity scene in a park in the middle of town. Such tie votes do not usually set national precedents.

LEHRER: House Majority Leader Jim Wright today conceded the fight over the MX has been won by President Reagan. He said there would be only a minimum debate before the final-final House vote on it tomorrow. Earlier in the day, however, House Speaker Thomas O'Neill said he would mount an all-out effort to defeat the MX tomorrow. That vote is actually to appropriate the $1.5 billion to build the 21 MX missiles. Yesterday the President won the big first round authorizing that expenditure by a six-vote, 219-213 margin. The Senate approved both last week. In pushing for the favorable vote, Mr. Reagan's major push was the connection between the MX missile and the arms talks in Geneva. Arms negotiator Max Kampelman was flown back from Geneva even to help the lobbying effort. Today in Geneva the strategic nuclear weapons part of the three-way talks got underway. Former Senator John Tower, under Kampelman's overall leadership, is the chief U.S. negotiator. He met with his Soviet counterparts for two hours. There was no comment afterward from him or anyone else on what went on. But there will be comments here in our lead focus segment on the Geneva talks now that the MX issue is decided.

MacNEIL: America's NATO partners today endorsed U.S. research into President Reagan's strategic defense system, nicknamed Star Wars. A communique issued after a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Luxembourg said the research was in NATO's interest and should continue. They put off until individual governments could consider a U.S. request that all NATO allies join the Star Wars program.

The Reagan administration today recalled a Soviet official from California to Washington as a diplomatic response to the shooting of a U.S. officer in East Germany. The official was a Soviet naval attache on a tour for foreign diplomats. He was recalled to Washington to receive a protest in the shooting. Reuters News Agency quoted a senior administration official for the report.

Meanwhile, Pentagon officials said that when the U.S. major, Arthur Nicholson, was shot, he was photographing Soviet military equipment in an area that had earlier been off limits to American observers, but they said the Soviets had lifted the restriction on February 20th and had not deterred other American observers who went there subsequently. The Soviets say Major Nicholson was taking photographs through the window of a storage building on a restricted Soviet military installation.

LEHRER: In other overseas news Iran claimed it fired its sixth long-range missile in the last two weeks at Baghdad, and reports from the Iraqi capital say it was rocked by an explosion and that a cloud of smoke was seen over a densely populated section of the city. According to the Reuters News Agency, at least 76 people were killed yesterday when the Iranian missile hit a Baghdad apartment house. For its part, Iraq says its planes again attacked Teheran and five other Iranian cities.

In Lebanon there was some happy kidnapping news for a change. Jeffrey Nash, a 60-year-old British citizen, was released unharmed in West Beirut. Nash is one of nine Westerners who have disappeared over the last two weeks in Lebanon. According to Nash's daughter, his kidnappers originally thought he was an American.

MacNEIL: In South Africa the police shot and killed two more blacks today when a crowd attacked the house of a local mayor in a black township near Port Elizabeth. Earlier, two more bodies were found from fighting last week, bringing the total of dead since Thursday to 35.

LEHRER: And, back in this country, Education Secretary William Bennett said today parents should have more choice in the public schools their children attend. In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington Bennett also made a pitch for tax breaks to help pay private school tuitions.

WILLIAM BENNETT, Secretary of Education: We must offer parents of school-aged children instruments of choice within public education and between public and non-public education. All parents, not only the affluent, must be able to exercise greater choice in what, where and how their children learn. I believe that one of the most promising is the concept of a voucher system. Popular support for vouchers is growing. A 1983 Gallup poll found that 51% of the general public favors the idea. Tuition tax credits or deductions are equally promising. It may come as a surprise to many to learn that such plans already exist and work. Minnesota, for example, has provided tuition tax deductions since 1955 for parents whose children attend public, parochial or private schools. We will be urging Congress to give these proposals full and fair consideration.

MacNEIL: In New Orleans, three members of the Tulane University basketball team and a fourth student will be charged with point shaving. Two of them were arrested last night, and two others turned themselves in today. The point-shaving scheme was alleged to involve two games, February 20th against the University of Southern Mississippi -- I'm sorry, that was February 2nd -- and February 20th against Memphis State, one of the four teams now competing in the NCAA playoffs. Later in tonight's program we examine the gambling environment that encourages game fixing. The MX Card

MacNEIL: American and Soviet strategic arms negotiators met today for their first substantive talks in 15 months. The meeting in Geneva came one day after the House narrowly approved President Reagan's request to build 21 more MX missiles. A nal House vote tomorrow is not expected to change the result. The administration won Senate approval last week. Both sides in the MX debate say a major explanation for the Reagan victory in the Democratic-controlled House was what is now being called "the Kampelman factor," the argument made by the chief U.S. arms control negotiator that he needed the MX to do his job in Geneva. The implications of the MX factor for the negotiations in Geneva is the topic of our first focus segment tonight. We start with William Hyland, editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. Mr. Hyland served in a number of top foreign policy positions at the State Department and National Security Council during the Nixon and Ford administrations.

Mr. Hyland, does this MX victory give Mr. Reagan a stronger hand to play in Geneva?

WILLIAM HYLAND: I think it gives him a stronger hand in the near term over the next several months. But you have to remember that this MX vote is not the last one. There will be a vote equally critical on the 1986 appropriation. At that time --

MacNEIL: Some time this summer.

Mr. HYLAND: Probably this summer; certainly by late fall. At that time many of the supporters may be asking the administration, "What did we get for the MX? We supported you as your program said for the Kampelman factor. Now what are we trading for? What are we getting from the Russians?" And I think that as a bargaining chip it is a rather weak one. The Russians can see that the program is really crippled. It barely escaped this time. It might not escape at all the last time. We've only voted about 40 missiles. It's already cut back from 200 to 100. So the President may find that he cannot produce much at the Geneva talks for his bargaining chip.

MacNEIL: But it does give Mr. Kampelman, or Senator Tower, whosever is doing that side of it, it does give him another chip, does it not? Something to bargain away if they're willing to do that?

Mr. HYLAND: Oh, yes. It's much better from his standpoint, from SenatorTower's and Max Kampelman's standpoint and the administration's, than a defeat, of course. The question is, how do you play it now? It is a bargaining chip in the sense that if you ask the Russians to give you something for it maybe you have a deal. but if the Russians do not respond, if the Russians say, "Well, we're no longer concerned about the MX, we're now worried about Star Wars," then it may not be much of an advantage over a longer term.

MacNEIL: But if it does give them something additional to deal with, then the administration was right in claiming it would help them in Geneva?

Mr. HYLAND: Oh, the administration is correct in my view in claiming that it helps in Geneva. The question is, how does it help? What is the price? What are you bargaining for? If you are now saying, as the administration might be saying, "We will give up the MX or cut it back if you Russians give up your heavy missiles or a number of your new MIRVed missiles," then you have a possible bargain and the President could return and say, "See? I told you so. It was worthwhile."

MacNEIL: And what about this decision by NATO today in Luxembourg to say, "Yes, we all approve of you Americans going on with your Star Wars research. Maybe we'll go along with you; we'll have to consider that later." Is that also a help to Mr. Reagan in Geneva?

Mr. HYLAND: I think it's very helpful to Mr. Reagan in Geneva because the Russians have certainly hoped that they could divide the European allies from the United States on Star Wars. After all, they could play on the theme that, while the United States is protecting itself by Star Wars, it's leaving its European allies uncovered because the original plan, certainly, did not include coverage of Europe. So that puts a little bit of a damper on that Soviet tactic , and I think it helps the administration.

MacNEIL: Now, looking at Geneva. We're just a couple of weeks -- the talks are really just beginning to get going. With all the pleasant noices being made between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev at the moment, are the outlines of a possible compromise and a settlement beginning to be apparent in Geneva?

Mr. HYLAND: Well, I don't think yet. I think it's very early. There's a lot of testing and probing that will be done this spring, over the summer, well into the fall before both sides can really make an assessment as to what is negotiable and what is not negotiable. The rough outlines have been there all along, I think. The Russians will offer at some point to reduce their offensive forces, including perhaps some new big missiles, if the United States puts some restraint on its Star Wars program. That will be a real test, I think, for the administration. It could prove to be a rather attractive and popular offer in the Congress.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Another view of it now from former arms negotiation Edward Rowney. Ambassador Rowney headed the U.S. delegation to the Geneva talks that were suspended in 1983. He now serves as a special adviser to the President on arms control issues.

Mr. Ambassador, how did that MX vote yesterday change things in Geneva?

EDWARD ROWNEY: Oh, I think it changed because it showed the Soviets that we do have the will to modernize our forces, and therefore we do have the will to be able to deter the Soviets. And this, in the long run, brings the Soviets to a more serious bargaining position.

LEHRER: How is that demonstrated when the margin was only six votes and President Reagan had to pull out every stop he could possibly get to win that vote?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, the Soviets are pretty realistic. They not only count our forces but they also know that if you win by one vote, you win. I'm not saying that we would not have liked to have won by more. But if you win by one vote, you know, you get the appropriations. That's the important thing. And many important things in the past have been decided by one vote, as you know.

LEHRER: Sure. What about Mr. Hyland's point, though, that there are other votes to come? The '86 vote, where it may go -- which, if something doesn't come out of these talks between now and then, the whole thing could go flush down the tubes.

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, you know, negotiating like politics is the art of the possible. We've had 21 modernized missiles approved before; now we have 21 more. And I look at 42 Jaguars, '85 models, replacing those old 1963 Minutemen. That gives us a lot of deterrence power, and that gives us more leverage at the bargaining table.

LEHRER: But, in a way, does yesterday's vote also -- is it some way a mixed blessing for President Reagan and the negotiators in that they must now come up with an agreement?

Amb. ROWNEY: No, I wouldn't say that that's the criterion. We do want an agreement, and we have -- are under no illusions that an agreement can be reached in a big rush, in a big hurry. These are complex matters. We have put serious and flexible positions down. Senator Tower is empowered now to repeat some of those proposals that I originally proposed and with more specificity, and at the same time is given some flexibility. So we are going to put these tradeoff proposals on the table and see if the Soviets will reason with us and reduce the number of weapons on both sides and thus reduce the risk of nuclear war.

LEHRER: Does the MX immediately go on the table?

Amb. ROWNEY: No, no, the MX doesn't come on the table. Remember now, as I think you know, Jim, that we're mosystems; they're now testing two more. They have 600 MXs already, and we're beginning now to modernize our force. So this is an evolutionary process where we're modernizing the leg of our triangle.

LEHRER: So Bill Hyland's possible scenario that the MX goes on the table and the Russians say, "Okay, if you won't build the MX, we won't build this, this, that." You're saying that's impossible?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, they've already done it, you see. And I don't expect them to scrap their 600 MX-type missiles that they've already built for the MXs we're now beginning to build. At the same time I look at the other side. I remember in July of '83 when there was a close vote which we also won at that time and when a high-ranking Soviet negotiator said to me, "Well, we Soviets won that one." And -- or, rather, "You Americans won that one. We Soviets are going to win the next one." I'm happy to see that the Soviets didn't win this one.

LEHRER: But back to my point about the pressure. The President did say that the Geneva arms talks would be seriously jeopardized if the Congress of the United States did not approve the MX. All right, the Congress did. Now, isn't the heat on the negotiators to come up with an agreement?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, I agree that the talks would be seriously jeopardized. I've told that to the President all along when I was negotiating. I have not changed my mind. I said I would be crippled, just as John Tower. They would be crippled if we did not show that we have the will to go ahead and modernize our force and take care of our security. Now, this doesn't automatically guarantee you a treaty in the short run, but it does mean that you're showing the Soviets that we are ready to put our money where our mouth is, we do want to deter. And the Soviets are realistic. They don't look at words. They look at deeds. They don't look at debates. They look at deterrence and what the deeds do to that equation.

LEHRER: Mr. Hyland, what do you think about that idea that it's a mixed blessing, in some ways, that the pressure is now back on the United States as much as it is on the Soviet Union as a result of the vote?

Mr. HYLAND: I think that's true, Jim, because I see down the road, perhaps in the late summer or the fall, a number of congressmen who supported the President and who said, "We are doing this because we do not want to cripple the negotiator in Geneva," will then be back saying, "How can we justify another vote? What are we getting for it in Geneva?" And, as Ambassador Rowney said, many in the administration don't really believe the MX is on the bargaining table. So it could turn out to be another rather difficult crunch point when all of that comes home to roost.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador?

Amb. ROWNEY: No one said this is going to be easy, but it is vital, I think, to our good sanity and well-being of the world that we do try to get an arms control agreement, say we are coming forth with good arms control proposals which offer tradeoffs of things of concern to the Soviets for those things of concern to us. At the same time, we have to show that we are willing to modernize our forces to deter or else they're just going to sit and wait for the apple to fall off the tree.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, what would be a realistic timetable for looking for some kind of agreement?

Amb. ROWNEY: Oh, this is awfully hard to say. If we were together on our goals in Geneva, and we're not, we're still very far apart.

LEHRER: We, meaning the United States and the Soviet Union?

Amb. ROWNEY: The United States and the Soviet Union. If we were in agreement on our goals, it woudl still take months. These are complex matters to write down provisions for the verification, which is going to be very difficult, and get all these other things down in black and white, particularly when the Soviets work with words and try to build in loopholes. It's going to take months. Now, I would rather it take months than years. If we don't agree on the goals -- and this is what -- the goals is what disturbs me now because we're being ridden off the ball. We're looking at all these defense initiative aspects, which are research programs. We should be looking at reducing the number of offensive arms on both sides. We should keep our eye on the objective, and that's to try to reduce what's here now.

LEHRER: Mr. Hyland, what are you picking up, if anything, on what Gorbachev's attitude is toward these arms talks and what influence his attitude may have?

Mr. HYLAND: I think it's very early for him to have a new, definite position. But you must remember that he faces a turning point of sorts. Next spring at the latest, perhaps even at the end of the year, he goes into a new party congress which is mandated by the party statutes. He has to come up with a new five-year plan. By then he has to have a general idea of what his strategy is going to be in foreign policy, and of course the focal point in his dealings with the West, I think, are the arms control talks with the United States. I think Gorbachev may be forced into an earlier decision than he might prefer and, in a sense, that's to our advantage.

LEHRER: Why?

Mr. HYLAND: I see a possible opportunity for some breakthrough coming the way of the administration late this year, early next year.

LEHRER: You agree with that?

Amb. ROWNEY: Yes, I do, and I'm hopeful that we will have these opportunities come along with a man who now says, "Let's make a more sensible world."

LEHRER: Let's make a deal?

Amb. ROWNEY: Let's make a deal.

LEHRER: Have our negotiators in Geneva picked up any new indications of that yet?

Amb. ROWNEY: No, not yet. As Bill says, it's too early. After all, the Soviets like to show continuity, and the new man has to show continuity, has to show the nomenclatura that he's one of the crowd after all and he's got to get his positions in order.

LEHRER: In a general way, what have they been talking about thus far?

Amb. ROWNEY: So far it's been mostly the procedures. We talked about what are we going to talk about and how we're going to talk about it.

LEHRER: Who's going to sit where on which days?

Amb. ROWNEY: Not so much who's going to sit where, but, you know, the Soviets' main objective seems to be, if you listen to what they say from Moscow, to try to stop our defense research.

LEHRER: The so-called Star Wars.

Amb. ROWNEY: The so-called Star Wars, which are called the strategic defense initiative. Our objective is to get at the offensive weapons and to reduce the things that are here now, these weapons which are destabilizing and which could make for a nasty situation in time of crisis. We're saying let's get at reducing the strategic arms and the intermediate-range arms. They're saying, "Let's talk about these other things in space."

LEHRER: And that's all they've been doing up 'til now is --

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, there's more to it than that. Remember, these are new teams and it takes time to get your guidelines down, and these things, as you know, don't happen in a big hurry. and we have to remember that. We have to be patient. One of the greatest attributes that the Soviets have and we don't have is patience.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much. Mr. Hyland, in New York, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: By the way, on Monday we interviewed a wavering congressman about the Democrat vote. He was Democrat John Spratt of South Carolina, and he told us that because of some persuasive lobbying by the administration, in particular Max Kampelman, he was leaning in favor of the MX. But yesterday Mr. Spratt voted with the opposition. Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio found him today and asked why.

Rep. JOHN SPRATT, (D) South Carolina: As I went through the arguments pro and con for the last time, I came back to the merits of the system, which was my reason for voting against the MX several times in the past. And I concluded that the system simply had to stand or fall on its own merits, and that in truth its value as a bargaining chip was dependent on its own merits as a strategic system.

COKIE ROBERTS, National Public Radio: You say that being undecided got you an awful lot of attention that you didn't really expect. Would you do that again, tell the world that you were undecided?

Rep. SPRATT: No, it's hard enough to make up your mind without trying to do it in front of a camera. It was not a terribly good way to go about making a tough decision. And having so much press attention is rather intrusive. I didn't seek it and, having gotten it, I'll be more cautious in the future. I think I learned my lesson.

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a report on the troubles of Frank Borman and Eastern Airlines, a focus debate between the two men who both believe they won the same congressional seat in Indiana, and a sportswriter's view of why college basketball players can be bought by gamblers. Eastern Woes

MacNEIL: Next tonight we focus on the struggle of a big airline to stay in business. It's a common struggle these days. At Pan American, striking transport workers are expected to ratify a new contract tonight, ending a 26-day strike. That good news may be short-lived. Pan Am's flight attendants have threatened to strike, perhaps as early as next Monday. Labor unrest has also recently shaken Eastern Airlines, whose employees begin voting next week on a new round of wage concessions the company is demanding to ease its financial problems. In January alone, Eastern lost more than $30 million and almost defaulted on its bank loans. Independent producer Ken Witty prepared this report on Eastern and its determined chairman, Frank Borman.

[voice-over ] Recently Chairman Frank Borman welcomed the graduating class of flight attendants into the Eastern Airline family.

FRANK BORMAN, Chairman, Eastern Airlines: I want to welcome you. I know it's belatedly because you have all been out flying and so you know the airline. But perhaps you know at least --

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Borman took the occasion to explain how deregulation has transformed the airline business.

Chairman BORMAN: The airline industry has changed dramatically since 1978. Before '78 we were treated almost as a public utility, a telephone company or an electric company. And at that instant, in October of '78, when President Carter deregulated the airline industry, our lives changed.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Deregulation has been a time of crisis for Borman. His airline has failed to make a profit for four straight years. Eastern's losses now total nearly $400 million. With a debt of $2.2 billion hanging over the company, Borman's been fighting a constant battle to avoid financial collapse.

Chairman BORMAN: How can you be proud of losses? I'm not proud of that. But on the other hand, given the circumstances and given the facts of deregulation and a recession and the OPEC and then the controllers' strike, I think that we have managed to survive, and I think we are now postured for success.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Borman has reason for optimism. The airline's bookings are healthy. Discount airlines who compete with Eastern are folding up. Eastern's fleet is the most modern and fuel-efficient in the industry. And the company is expected to make a small profit this year if the economy holds up. Ed Greenslet follows Eastern and other airlines as a securities analyst for Merrill Lynch.

ED GREENSLET, airline analyst: Eastern, in facing their problems, appear to have at least dealt with them and overcome them to the point where they are surviving. They are holding their position in the marketplace, and some of those competitors have in fact gone away -- bankruptcy or other ways they have reduced their effectiveness and reduced their position in the market. So, to that extent, you would have to say Eastern has won in many respects in the markets that they chose to defend.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: So the good news is that Eastern under Borman seems to be a survivor, but keeping Eastern aloft has clearly taken its toll on the chief executive. The former astronaut, now 57, has visibly aged in the past two years. Borman's been chairman for a decade, and today remains very much in command.

Chairman BORMAN: We'll talk about it next week then, and then we'll send somebody out to, I guess, Kansas City to talk to Air Midwest and see where we go on making a deal.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Ever since he became head of Eastern, Borman has been ahighly visible chief executive, first in the airline's ads.

Chairman BORMAN [in Eastern TV commercial]: You've heard us say we earn our wings every day. Well, that's not just a slogan, it's a commitment.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: More recently Borman has waged a media battle with Eastern's unions over concessionary wage contracts. Borman's high visibility has drawn personal criticism of his management decisions. He is blamed for the country's towering debt because he was too aggressive in buying a new fleet of fuel-efficient aircraft as oil prices fell. Larry Schulte is head of the pilots' union at Eastern.

LARRY SCHULTE, Eastern pilot: The bottom line comes down to, do you take the debt to a point where it jeopardizes the viability of the corporation? And I think that's the question foremost in people's minds. And to do that from the standpoint of an employee in the corporation, where you jeopardize my job, yes, I'm upset with that.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Many airline analysts agree with Schulte and question whether Borman hasn't mortgaged Eastern's future with his ambitious program to modernize his fleet. Borman vehemently disagrees.

Chairman BORMAN: We've tried to do everything we can to beg, borrow or steal equipment. Now, why do you want to do that? Why didn't you just stick with your 100s or your Electras? The answer is you cannot. I don't care how motivated your employees are or how tight you manage, you can't succeed in a free marketplace if you're flying Electras and somebody else is flying 757s.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Labor relations is another area in which Borman gets mixed marks. On the plus side, in 1983 Borman negotiated a revolutionary labor agreement. Eastern workers traded in an 18 wage increase for one-quarter of the company's stock and four seats on the board. The labor pact avoided bankruptcy and gave workers decision-making power at all levels of the company, from bottom to top.

Chairman BORMAN: I think the real story at Eastern is that in '84 we had a $300 million turnaround from 1983. And that's basically because, whether we like it or not, management and labor recognize that we are both like passengers on a boat. We may not want to be there, but we're there and the survival and the safety of both of us depends upon our cooperation.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: A key feature of the labor pact involved raising productivity to help bring down the airline's high cost structure. A large part of the problem was Eastern's notoriously bad labor-management relations. Already significant progress has been made. At this repair department at the engine service center in Miami, the work force has shrunk from 97 to 20, yet production has increased. We asked mechanic Joe LaPointe how this has happened.

JOE LaPOINTE, mechanic: We work smarter, and instead of doing it by the book, if we see an easier, faster and safer way to do something, we incorporate it into our regular work, and then we inform management that we find that we can save time and money by doing it this way. And we've cut costs probably 70% in this department.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: And how does LaPointe feel about his job these days?

Mr. LaPOINTE: I enjoy my job. I really do. A few years ago it was -- I hated to come in. But now, I enjoy coming to work now. We have people staying a little bit later on shifts to coordinate the two shifts together, and this is off the clock. They're not getting paid for it. And it's just people wanting to help each other and employee involvement.

EDDIE SIMPSON, mechanic: The environment has changed, and when you come to work and you see everyone working together, it gets you going for the week.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: But this new, positive environment in the workplace has been unsettled this winter by the latest round of contract disputes between Borman and the unions. Last New Year's Eve Borman sent a letter to Eastern employees telling them that the company was extending the one-year wage freeze beyond the contract period. Union leaders like machinist president Charles Bryan were infuriated.

CHARLES BRYAN, union leader: I think what happened on January 1st was unbelievable. For someone to say, "I signed something and I signed that I was going to do something and committed faithfully to do something, but that doesn't matter, I'm still not going to do it," it's difficult to deal with that.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Borman and the unions finally struck a deal in February, but this winter's labor battles rekindled employees' feelings of distrust and bitterness. Many workers say Borman's style is still paternalistic and autocractic. His unilateral order to freeze wages has demoralized the workforce.

DAN MILLER, machinist: What he did the end of the year by pulling the carpet out from under the employees as a group, we'll never be able to have any trust or confidence in the man.

KATHY BAILEY, flight attendant: We can't continually give, give and give, because employees are not going to. There is going to come a day when employees are going to say we've had enough.

Chairman BORMAN: There's no question that the difficult negotiations that we just went through to some extent offset the real progress that we made in labor relations throughout 1984. And there's no question that this residue of discontent is something that we have to face and we have to deal with.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: An encouraging sign is that the same Eastern employees who voice such anger at Borman are quite optimistic about the airline's future.

DON BOYD, machinist: I think we as union members have a lot of programs that are going to help the company, and then believe that we're going to make money.

Mr. SCHULTE: I think we're getting our costs in control and we have the ability to compete in the marketplace, wherever it is, and you know, translated in financial terms it's got to be positive.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: But this positive feeling about the airline's future does not extend to the chairman.

MIKE WALKER, machinist: I think the commitment is still there to try to make the company work, but as long as Borman's at the head of it I don't think we can get that enthusiasm back to a level that we had prior to December 31st.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: For years Frank Borman has been caught in the cross-currents, squeezed between the conflicting interests of his bankers and the unions. As a result his management style has been perceived by many as a series qo f sharp about-turns. Now the question remains, can Borman continue to lead in an effective manner?

Chairman BORMAN: There's no question that returning to the profitability levels that we had in the '70s -- '76 on -- would change all of the armchair experts' opinion of whether we've been managing right or not, and of course the performance that we should have in '85 and beyond will, we'll see who was right.

MacNEIL: Eastern's first-quarter results for '85 are due out in about three weeks. Most analysts are predicting that the airline will reduce its large 1984 losses and may even turn its first quarterly profit since 1982. Ballot Box Battle

LEHRER: We focus next on the congressman who isn't there, the one from the Eighth District of Indiana. Judy Woodruff has the story. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, even though the election was almost five months ago, there is still a dispute over who won the race for the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the southwest corner of Indiana. The results of a contest between Democrat incumbent Frank McCloskey and Republican challenger Rick McIntyre were so close that different counts have given the victory to each candidate. Indiana's Republican secretary of state certified McCloskey, the Republican, the winner, but the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has refused to seat him. The outcome now rests in the hand of the House Administration Committee, which yesterday, for the first time in about 25 years, ordered a congressionally supervised recount. As a result, government auditors are now in Indiana going over each ballot under the eye of representatives of both campaigns. It is a process that is expected to go on for the next two weeks. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republican House members have been working hard to keep this issue alive. Today a group of GOP congressmen vented their frustrations before a specially appointed task force.

Rep. ROBERT SMITH, (R) New Hampshire: A homerun is a homerun, Mr. Chairman, according to the rules of the game. You can't change the rules of the game after the game begins. If McIntyre manages to win this third count of the votes in Indiana, will the task force report the Indiana electoral process has been too uncertain to produce a clear winner and recommend holding a special election and give Mr. McCloskey a fourth chance to win? Mr. Chairman, I think the public needs an answer to that question because I think it's the threshold question. If in this recount Mr. McIntyre wins by five votes, 35 votes, 14 votes, 4,000 votes, will this committee say that Mr. McIntyre is the winner, or will this committee say we have to have another election?

Rep. TOM DeLAY, (R) Texas: I"m here to address an issue which appears to have been ignored by this body, and that is taxation without representation. That's what this whole McIntyre scandal is all about. The simple fact is that the citizens of the Eighth District of Indiana have been denied representation but are still being asked to pay taxes.

WOODRUFF: We turn now to the two men who are at the center of all this, Republican Rick McIntyre, who was a two-term member of the Indiana state house of representatives and is now a lawyer in his hometown of Bedford, and Democrat Frank McCloskey, formerly the mayor of Bloomington before being elected to the disputed congressional seat two years ago. They join us tonight from the studios of public station WFYI in Indianapolis.

This isn't the first recount, gentlemen. As I understand it it's the third one. Are you both prepared to accept the results, no matter what they are, Mr. McCloskey?

FRANK McCLOSKEY: Judy, I would say that it's the second recount. I am more than prepared to accept the results. I think the good news is that for the first time with the House Administration Committee working with the GAO auditors we will get a final and fair count. I would ask that the Republicans make the same pledge that they in effect made as a charge against the Democrats in that if I am to be named the winner by five or 10 votes that they don't call for a special election. I think the House is doing its duty, and we should have a result within two weeks.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. McIntyre, let me ask you the same question. Are you prepared to accept the results, whatever they are?

Mr. McINTYRE: Well, Judy, I am prepared to accept the results, assuming that the count is done in a fair manner, that it's done looking at Republican and Democrat ballots equally, and if indeed the count is done in a fair manner and we are treated fairly by the auditors who are conducting the recount, then we will be back to the original election night victory, and I would expect to be, after three counts, sworn into the House of Representatives.

WOODRUFF: Well, at this point are you pretty much persuaded that it is being done fairly?

Mr. McINTYRE: Well, that's hard to say. It just started yesterday, and as I understand it there are some rules which leave some leeway for counting ballots still. We don't have complete certainty as to how the ballots will be counted, and I think we have to wait and see how those disputed ballots will be treated by the task force or by whoever makes the final decision on those ballots.

WOODRUFF: Mr. McCloskey, why was this recount necessary? It's the third count, I misspoke, rather than the third recount. Why was this one necessary?

Mr. McCLOSKEY: Well, firstly, we have never had a result from election night that was all that clear and that, contrary to some assertions, I was the clear winner for five or six days before Mr. McIntyre's forces discovered an error in Gibson County which they tried to certify as an immediate correction rather than as a function of a recount in nine or 10 counties. But I think more seriously, in the Indiana-ordered recount we had different rules in different counties. We had about 5,000 voters disenfranchised because of technicalities, including about 1,000 minority voters in the Evansville area. We are, in effect, asking that as much as possible the House reconstruct the vote as it was taken on election night, and I think they're doing that right now.

WOODRUFF: Well, despite all that, the Indiana secretary of state declared your opponent the winner. Why weren't you prepared to accept that?

Mr. McCLOSKEY: Well, I think for various reasons. The main thing is that the secretary of state did not follow his statutory duty in naming me the winner under his statutory obligations with the schedules as passed in Indiana law. There were 15 recounts going when there was enough of a lead from one county to put Mr. McIntyre ahead. Immediately though it was much past the certification process. Mr. McIntyre was certified. Then we got into the Indiana-ordered recount where, as I said, there were different rules in different counties and 5,000 voters disenfranchised.

WOODRUFF: All right, well, without getting too technical, because some of us don't have all the background, of course, that you do, Mr. McIntyre, what's wrong with what he just said?

Mr. McINTYRE: Well, Judy, we have to go back and look at the facts and, without trying to be too technical, there were at least three or four counties who, on election night, made major errors. As a matter of fact, when I went to bed election night I thought I had a 600 or 700-vote victory. The next day in Vanderburgh County, the largest county in the district, there was a massive error discovered, approximately 600-vote error, which when corrected added significantly to Mr. McCloskey's totals. There was another error discovered in Gibson County which, when it was finally corrected -- which, by the way, we had to go to court to get corrected, we had a final count. Admittedly it was not an overwhelming mandate, but it was a certified, complete, accurate, 34-vote victory, and based on that, it's our feeling that the Congress should do in this race as they have done in all other races in history and swear in the certified winner, pending whatever further investigation or recounts may need to be done.

WOODRUFF: Why weren't you willing to abide with the decision of the U.S. House of Representatives, and that is, you know, they were not willing to seat you?

Mr. McINTYRE: Well, the main reason is that the House, in doing so, in refusing to seat the duly-elected certified member from a sovereign state for the first time in history, has overruled state law. They have, many people -- I think many legal scholars would argue, have ignored the Constitution and have left half a million people in southern Indiana without representation for three months now, and conceivably for another month during this third recount. So all we have asked for is for them to follow their own precedent, their own procedure and their own statutory procedure which is contained in the federal Contested Elections Act.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask you this. There are many questions that we could ask here, but do each of you feel that the other one has generally operated in good faith throughout this? I mean, do you just feel that it's a circumstantial problem that you've got on your hands and that once the recount is fairly taken care of that, you know, you're willing to abide by the answer? Or do you feel that the other one, that your opponent has just not been operating in a fair way? I mean, what's your attitude, Mr. McCloskey?

Mr. McCLOSKEY: I would say there's a natural tendency in Indiana, given the structures of the recount process, for it to become a political adversary contest rather than a uniform and fair recount. Given that there's a natural amount of political partisanship, without being pejorative as such I think it's fair to say that Mr. McIntyre's forces, particularly when they hit Vanderburgh County, approached the recount process with fierce partisanship as far as throwing out thousands of people's ballots who had duly voted.

WOODRUFF: Mr. McIntyre?

Mr. McINTYRE: That's an amazing assertion because, for anyone who is familiar with the facts in Vanderburgh County or, for that matter most of the Eighth District, they would be aware of the fact that the recounts in two-thirds of the counties, including Vanderburgh County, are controlled by the Democrats. Recount commissions constituted of two Democrats and one Republican. And, as a matter of fact, we had very little if any input into that recount process, just as we have continued to have little if any input into this second recount.

WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, I'm sorry. We are going to have to cut it off here. Just a brief answer from each of you. Is there a way to avoid this sort of thing from happening again around the nation?

Mr. McCLOSKEY: I would say yes. First of all, Indiana should pass laws, they're evidently not doing it this session, to have uniform and fair administration under one director. Secondly, I daresay the House should consider national legislation which would in effect encourage or mandate the states to clean this sort of problem up before January 3rd so people like Rick and I and 500,000 voters aren't facing this.

WOODRUFF: We'll have to leave it there, gentlemen. Thank you both for joining us.

Mr. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.

Mr. McINTYRE: Thank you. Point Shaving

MacNEIL: Finally tonight we go back to today's story about alleged rigging of basketball games at Tulane University. Point shaving scandals have hit college basketball every few years, ever since the game became a big-time sport and attracted the attention of gamblers. Point shaving happens when gamblers bribe players to make sure they win or lose by a certain number of points, thus guaranteeing that a point spread bet will pay off. For more on the Tulane story here is a report by Alec Giffard of WDSU-TV, New Orleans.

ALEC GIFFARD, WDSU-TV [voice-over]: The case involves three of Tulane's best known names, John "Hot Rod" Williams, the 6'10" senior center. Some call him the sun around whom the other players revolve; David Domique, Bobby Thompson; all accused of shaving points for cocaine and cash. A 21-year-old Tulane student from New York, Gary Kranz, arrested in handcuffs late in the night, accused of dealing in cocaine. When Hot Rod himself came past the cameras, he denied any wrongdoing.

JOHN "HOT ROD" WILLIAMS, ballplayer: I have nothing to do this. I've got too much at stake.

REPORTER: You didn't take money or cocaine to shave points in basketball?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No.

GIFFARD [voice-over]: And this morning the shocking story continued to unfold with the arrest of David Domique, the first man out of the car, and Bobby Thompson, both accused of taking part in shaving points in two key games. They were brought into the office of the district attorney who had accused them.

HARVY CONNIC, district attorney: We have allegations that drugs were used to initiate a relationship with a player or players on the Tulane basketball team. We have allegations to the affect that players received money to effect and control the outcome of two basketball games.

GIFFARD [voice-over]: And on the campus at Tulane University a few miles away, the shocked reaction.

1st TULANE STUDENT: I've heard rumors for weeks, including the players' names. Some of them have already been mentioned. And I think it's really sad, especially for one of the players who had a good chance in pro prospects, I thought. And now his whole career might be ruined because of it.

2nd TULANE STUDENT: I think it's totally out of hand, but I'm really not surprised that it happened here at all, just because I've heard of a lot of other things that have been going on related to this kind of thing.

REPORTER: You have been aware for several weeks, like many people on the campus, about reports of possible point shaving in basketball and drug involvement?

2nd STUDENT: Not in this but drug involvement. I've heard of a lot of people who have been getting in trouble for coke, and the FBI had been here searching dorms and stuff like that. So I really wasn't surprised when I heard it.

MacNEIL: The New Orleans arrests are particularly embarrassing right now because the national collegiate basketball championship will be decided on Monday. One of the teams still in the running, Memphis State, was the opposing team in one of the games the Tulane players allegedly fixed. To give us more background in all this, we have a reporter who covers college basketball, Mike Lupica, sports columnist for the New York Daily News.

Mike, why does it always appear that these scandals crop up in college basketball? First of all, is that a correct impression and, if it is, why?

MIKE LUPICA: Well, because there's 30 years of history involved with this. I mean, it started with the New York schools in the early '50s and the University of Kentucky. It cropped up again in the early '60s when there were 22 or 27 schools involved, 1979 at Boston College -- it happens to be my alma mater -- there was a point shaving scandal; a kid named Rick Kuhn ended up going to college [sic]. And these are only the ones that we know about. These are the people who got caught. And the bottom line is we're dealing with college kids who will take favors and it's easy to fix a basketball game.

MacNEIL: Easier than other sports.

Mr. LUPICA: Sure. You're only dealing with five players, and you don't even have to affect the outcome. I mean, we're talking -- one of the games involved, Tulane was a 10-point favorite. They won by one. That's only three missed jump shots, and you can control that down the end, or a few missed one-and-ones. Another game, they lost by more than they were supposed to lose by to Memphis State. It's really easy, with a thrown pass, and you only need one player. In this case it looks like they might have two or three or even more.

MacNEIL: Easy so that even the coach doesn't notice what's going on?

Mr. LUPICA: I've talked to a lot of coaches, and it's their number-one fear. I mean, they can't tell. In Boston College's case in '79 the coaches who were the beneficiaries of the so-called shaving, they didn't know what was happening either. They thought the kids were just having off nights, and it's their ultimate nightmare. They don't want think that way. Joe Lapchick, the old coach at St. John's, had a scrapbook filled with all the stories about the scandals of the '50s, and the first day of practice when he was the St. John's coach that was required reading.

MacNEIL: Is there a typical kind of player or a typical college that is more vulnerable to this?

Mr. LUPICA: No, if there's any pattern to the scandals across the last 30 and 35 years it's that there's no pattern. I can't see any connection between CCNY and Kentucky of the early '50s, Boston College and Tulane. I think they like to pick a school that is slightly -- now, anyway -- out of the mainstream, that doesn't have tremendous media focus. You know, this mention of the Tulane basketball team is really the first I've had this season. And we're not dealing with the future ambassadors to France here. We're talking about college basketball players. I mean, when you find out that a kid at North Carolina State named Chris Washburn, who was involved in stealing some stereo equipment earlier this year, it came out that his College Board scores, combined, were 470. Now, you get 400 points on the SATs if you can answer the question, who are you? So he's 70 points above that. So they are vulnerable. And if they're at a school where they're not getting favors under the table with their scholarship, then they can be vulnerable if a wiseguy comes around and offers them some cocaine or some money.

MacNEIL: How big is the gambling surrounding college basketball?

Mr. LUPICA: I'm sure it goes into billions of dollars a year. People in New York City that I know who I wouldn't even consider "degenerate gamblers" will bet on five and six college basketball games a night, and I've always been opposed to having point spreads for college basketball games in the newspaper. Bobby Knight, the Indiana coach, says putting point spreads on college games in the newspaper is comparable to printing the names and addresses of prostitutes, because we're dealing with an amateur sport. It's all around us, and all you need is one kid who's, you know, late making a car payment or something, or wants some cocaine. And you say, "Hey, kid. You don't have to even make sure your team loses. Just give me four points somewhere during the game."

MacNEIL: What could be done to stop this?

Mr. LUPICA: I agree with Digger Phelps, the Notre Dame coach. I believe that college athletes -- there's $32 million a year coming into collegebasketball from the networks. I think you got to start paying college basketball players, because I think they're looking around and saying, "Hey, where's mine?"

MacNEIL: I see. And, in a word, does this ruin the possible career, even if these young men are found innocent? I mean, will a pro team hire them after they've been charged like this?

Mr. LUPICA: Robin, it'll be very, very hard, and we're not just talking about ruining careers here. We're talking abou ruining lives.

MacNEIL: All right, Mike. Thank you very much for joining us.

Mr. LUPICA: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: Again the major stories of this day. Bernhard Goetz, the New York City so-called subway vigilante, was indicted on four counts of attempted murder. The Supreme Court outlawed the right of police to fire at fleeing unarmed felons, but it said it was legal to put a nativity scene on public land. Strategic nuclear arms talks began again in Geneva as the [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] last congressional vote on the MX was set for tomorrow.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.