The Robert MacNeil Report; 1975--excerpts

<v Speaker>[intro music]. <v Robert MacNeil>Good evening. For the second day running, there was gloomy news on the <v Robert MacNeil>economy today from Washington. <v Robert MacNeil>Yesterday, the government reported that wholesale prices had risen by one point eight <v Robert MacNeil>percent last month, the sharpest monthly rise in a year. <v Robert MacNeil>Today, it was the monthly figures, unemployment. <v Robert MacNeil>The unemployment rate rose to eight point six percent of the workforce. <v Robert MacNeil>It had been falling for the past four months from the peak of the recession when the rate <v Robert MacNeil>was nine point two percent. But last month, a further two hundred twenty nine thousand <v Robert MacNeil>Americans became unemployed, making the total eight million people. <v Robert MacNeil>The good news, such as it was, came in the length of time people remain unemployed.

<v Robert MacNeil>In September, it was sixteen point two weeks on average. <v Robert MacNeil>Last month, it dropped for the first time this year to fifteen point four weeks. <v Robert MacNeil>Well, what do these dry figures really mean? <v Robert MacNeil>How is the nation going to live with what's coming to look like chronic mass unemployment <v Robert MacNeil>on a scale only exceeded by the Great Depression? <v Robert MacNeil>What are the administration and Congress doing or what should they be doing? <v Robert MacNeil>Four people represented in that figure of eight million unemployed are with us, living <v Robert MacNeil>statistics, if you like? <v Robert MacNeil>Wendy Cominco is a former art teacher in the New York City school system <v Robert MacNeil>who's been unemployed since last June. <v Robert MacNeil>She was earning about eleven thousand dollars a year in her last job. <v Robert MacNeil>Now she collects ninety five dollars a week in unemployment benefit. <v Robert MacNeil>Charles Buddy is 54 years old. <v Robert MacNeil>He'd had 20 years experience as a clerk and secretary when he left his last job over a <v Robert MacNeil>year ago. On Monday, his unemployment benefits ran out. <v Robert MacNeil>Sal Melluso was a New York City policeman until he lost his job last July

<v Robert MacNeil>1st. He's married, has one son and he and his wife are expecting a second child soon. <v Robert MacNeil>And William Conkling, 49 years old, married one child. <v Robert MacNeil>He's an electrician and has been out of work for 14 weeks, about one and a half weeks, <v Robert MacNeil>less than the national average this month. <v Robert MacNeil>These four people have a lot of questions about the unemployment situation <v Robert MacNeil>Jim. <v Jim Lehrer>And here with me in Washington to grapple with those questions are two of Congress's top <v Jim Lehrer>leaders. Democrat Jim Wright of Texas, deputy majority whip of the House, and the <v Jim Lehrer>Democratic leadership's number one spokesman on economic affairs. <v Jim Lehrer>And Republican John Anderson of Illinois, chairman of the influential House Republican <v Jim Lehrer>Conference and a member of the GOP leadership's inner circle. <v Robert MacNeil>First, Mr. Conkling, what would you like to ask the congressman there? <v Conkling>Congressman, I'm very interested to learn exactly what is Congress <v Conkling>doing to help the unemployed? <v Conkling>In my particular field, construction.

<v Conkling>What is Congress doing? <v Conkling>Why does Congress sit back and not help? <v Conkling>Why does not Congress help the construction worker by <v Conkling>eliminating through congressman Biaggi's bill, <v Conkling>the illegal alien who is taking jobs away from <v Conkling>bonafied construction workers, men who pay taxes <v Conkling>and where the illegal alien is paid under the hat, <v Conkling>paid off the books and pays no taxes. <v Robert MacNeil>Let's give them a chance to answer, Mr. Conkling. <v Robert MacNeil>Mr. Wright. Would you care to answer that first? <v Jim Wright>Yes, I'll be glad to try. <v Jim Wright>Mr. Conkling, I believe you're an electrician. <v Conkling>That's right. <v Jim Wright>And the building trades, as you so painfully are aware, unemployment is higher <v Jim Wright>than it is in any other segment of society. <v Jim Wright>You have maybe 20 percent throughout the nation unemployed in the building trades. <v Jim Wright>And I think this is a disgrace, particularly in light of the fact that we have <v Jim Wright>unused equipment lying idle.

<v Jim Wright>We have construction firms that are paying money on borrowed capital <v Jim Wright>and they like to get started. Now you ask, what is Congress doing? <v Jim Wright>We've tried to do several things and have done a few. <v Jim Wright>My friend John Anderson probably would disagree with me on this. <v Jim Wright>I think the public service jobs bill that we passed initially designed to create <v Jim Wright>some 400 to 500 thousand new jobs ought to have been signed <v Jim Wright>by the president. It was vetoed. <v Jim Wright>We countered by another bill which would have produced maybe two hundred thousand <v Jim Wright>additional jobs, and he signed that. We've done the best we could. <v Jim Wright>We tried to override the veto, failed by five votes to override. <v Jim Wright>Ninety two percent of those on my side, the Democrats voted to override. <v Jim Wright>Eighty seven percent of those on my friend John Anderson's side, the Republicans voted <v Jim Wright>not override. The second thing we did was a housing bill that would interest <v Jim Wright>you and those in the construction trades certainly. <v Jim Wright>That housing bill was designed to put employment opportunities <v Jim Wright>together in private industry for some five to 600000

<v Jim Wright>additional American workers. That bill was vetoed. <v Jim Wright>We tried to override that, but we did pass a secondary bill, which ought to put some <v Jim Wright>one hundred and forty thousand to work. <v Jim Wright>Now, we've done the best we've been able to do, but that still isn't enough. <v Jim Wright>Now, with respect to the illegal alien, you've already identified him. <v Jim Wright>We've already made him illegal. <v Jim Wright>We are not the responsible agents for enforcing the law. <v Jim Wright>There may be some things that could be done to make it more difficult for him <v Jim Wright>or for his subterranean employer to evade the law. <v Jim Wright>And if those things can be done, they ought to be done. <v Jim Wright>Beyond that, I'd just like to say that I think America is rich enough that it ought to <v Jim Wright>be able to provide a job for everybody desires to work. <v Robert MacNeil>Since since your question sums up so much of the of the attitude. <v Robert MacNeil>Can we just get a word from Mr. Anderson on that? <v John B. Anderson>Well, I would like to offer just a very brief rebuttal to what my friend and <v John B. Anderson>colleague in the Congress, Mr. Wright, has said, because it seems to me that he suggested

<v John B. Anderson>that the principal onus for unemployment and the building trades rests with the president <v John B. Anderson>because of certain vetoes that he's exercised on some bills that were passed <v John B. Anderson>by the House of Representatives and the Senate. <v John B. Anderson>Now, of course, as a matter of fact, although Mr. Wright has said that these bills were <v John B. Anderson>going to produce 200000 jobs and 400000 jobs and so on, we have no <v John B. Anderson>real way of knowing whether or not those jobs would be made available, at least <v John B. Anderson>within a time period. That would put you, Mr. Conkling, back to work. <v John B. Anderson>And the reason the president vetoed those bills was his concern about a <v John B. Anderson>federal budget deficit in excess this year of 70 billion dollars. <v John B. Anderson>And with it inflation and with it the kind of interest rates that mean that the average <v John B. Anderson>person today who wants a home mortgage is paying about nine percent. <v John B. Anderson>And this, I think, is one of the reasons why we've had a slowdown in construction, why we <v John B. Anderson>haven't had the kind of revival in the building industry that we would like <v John B. Anderson>to see that would put you and men like you back to work.

<v John B. Anderson>Is that we've had double digit inflation and as a result, we've had high interest <v John B. Anderson>rates and we haven't had the kind of activity in the building industry that would <v John B. Anderson>generate jobs. So I think that really a <v John B. Anderson>much fairer approach to this problem is, is to say that difficult as it is, <v John B. Anderson>I think for a time, we have to exercise the kind of fiscal discipline and restraint <v John B. Anderson>that will get the economy back on track again into a non inflationary <v John B. Anderson>posture where interest rates will come down because high interest rates are a concomitant <v John B. Anderson>of inflation. There isn't any question about that. <v John B. Anderson>Get those interest rates down and then I think we'll have. <v John B. Anderson>The kind of activity in the private sector in construction that will put <v John B. Anderson>you and thousands like you back to work. <v Jim Lehrer>Gentlemen, both of you, both of you mentioned President Ford. <v Jim Lehrer>And ideally, there should be a third seat here tonight for President Ford or one of his <v Jim Lehrer>top economic advisers. Mr. Conklin's question and others to follow should be directed <v Jim Lehrer>to them as well. But neither the president, understandably, nor any of his people, not <v Jim Lehrer>so understandably, would join us tonight.

<v Jim Lehrer>But because the administration's position is such such a crucial ingredient, as <v Jim Lehrer>Congressman Anderson has just said in this total mix, we did want to take a few moments <v Jim Lehrer>to review it before proceeding further on today's new unemployment figures, for instance. <v Jim Lehrer>William Seidman, the president's chief economic man, expressed concern but said, quote, <v Jim Lehrer>We think at the present time that we're doing what can be reasonably done to reduce <v Jim Lehrer>unemployment without increasing the risk of inflation. <v Jim Lehrer>This follows the administration's constant position that a relatively high unemployment <v Jim Lehrer>rate is the price that must be paid to fight inflation. <v Jim Lehrer>President Ford himself has been asked about this in past months at news conferences, and <v Jim Lehrer>we pieced together this quick compilation of his remarks. <v reporter>President. You've painted a pretty bleak picture of the economy. <v reporter>Just what can the American people expect in the months ahead? <v reporter>How high will unemployment go and how soon will your medicine start taking <v reporter>hold? <v President Ford>You can get a variety of answers as to high how high unemployment will <v President Ford>go. But you can take one figure

<v President Ford>of seven point five percent, some say over eight percent. <v President Ford>Either figure is too high and my program, if <v President Ford>implemented by the Congress, will remedy the situation. <v President Ford>Now, it <v President Ford>seems to me that by the late <v President Ford>summer we ought to see a turnaround both <v President Ford>as to economic activity and I hope, a better <v President Ford>month in the unemployment figures. <v President Ford>I think there will be an improvement toward the end of this year <v President Ford>and certainly in the beginning of next year on the unemployment. <v President Ford>And on the other hand, we think it's wise at this <v President Ford>time to be prepared for any adverse re developments. <v reporter>Overall, unemployment rate is nine percent, but among black teenagers and young black <v reporter>males and some other minority groups is three times that.

<v President Ford>In the long run, the best way to get the young people <v President Ford>properly employed in our economy is to have a healthy <v President Ford>economy, not a government dominated economy. <v President Ford>I think we're in the process of coming out of the recession. <v President Ford>I'm optimistic in the future. And when we... <v President Ford>In the third and fourth quarters of this year, have the success <v President Ford>that I think we're going to have, some of the problems will be answered that you have <v President Ford>raised. As you bring down inflation. <v President Ford>We may have to suffer for a short period of time, higher unemployment <v President Ford>than we like, but I'm convinced that with the policies we're pursuing, <v President Ford>we can gradually increase employment and <v President Ford>gradually decrease unemployment. <v President Ford>And I'm glad to indicate that in the last two months, <v President Ford>according to the statisticians, we've had an increase of about five <v President Ford>hundred and fifty thousand more people gainfully employed.

<v President Ford>This is a good trend and I think you're going to see it increasing. <v President Ford>And I hope in the process that will go down from the nine point two percent <v President Ford>unemployment. <v reporter>And then in one of his most recent statements on October the 10th, Mr. Ford said, <v reporter>we are making headway in a good many areas and trying to eliminate unemployment. <v reporter>We believe that there will be a continuing downtrend in the unemployment rate between now <v reporter>and the end of the calendar year, 1976. <v reporter>It won't be as low as we wanted, but it will be going down. <v reporter>And furthermore, we will be making a continuous improvement in the rate of inflation. <v reporter>In one respect. Today's figures do not support the theme the administration has been <v reporter>emphasizing. That the high number of unemployed had to be seen in the perspective of <v reporter>steadily rising employment. <v reporter>Last month, there were scarcely any change on that front. <v reporter>The number of Americans employed remained at eighty five point four million. <v reporter>About the same as in September. So the president accepts that such unemployment figures <v reporter>may last for another year.

<v reporter>In a moment. How does the country live with that? <v Robert MacNeil>Back to our four living statistics in New York. <v Robert MacNeil>Ms. Kamaiko, do you hold the federal government responsible for your not having a job? <v Wendy Kamaiko>Well, I think they have a large part in what is happening. <v Wendy Kamaiko>The unfortunate situation that I see is that they are talking about statistics, <v Wendy Kamaiko>whereas we are people we may be part of that, but we are living and breathing. <v Wendy Kamaiko>And right now, I don't believe those statistics and I think a great many people don't <v Wendy Kamaiko>believe them. Those unemployment statistics don't include all the people who don't <v Wendy Kamaiko>qualify for unemployment, whose unemployment insurance has run out.

<v Wendy Kamaiko>So the statistics are really quite hot. <v Wendy Kamaiko>I really want to know what's going to happen when my unemployment insurance runs out. <v Wendy Kamaiko>What am I to do? <v Robert MacNeil>You know, can I just-. Do you, Mr. Bodey, hold the federal government responsible for <v Robert MacNeil>this? <v Charles Bodey>Yes, I do. <v Robert MacNeil>You do? <v Charles Bodey>Yes. <v Robert MacNeil>Now, your case is a little bit different since you're a New York City policeman and <v Robert MacNeil>policeman hadn't been laid off. <v Robert MacNeil>[inaudible] in every city in the United States. Do you think the federal government has <v Robert MacNeil>any responsibility in your case? <v Sal Melluso>Yes, I believe they do, because during the Depression era, not one city comp <v Sal Melluso>was laid off. And now I don't foresee any national depression, <v Sal Melluso>but yet we do have 3000 unemployed police officers. <v Sal Melluso>Now, President Ford at the beginning used to say his primary concern was with law <v Sal Melluso>and order. And he was sort of you sound like, blue-eyed President Nixon, <v Sal Melluso>but yet to allow 3000 cops to be laid off and then sen- <v Sal Melluso>for Senator Anderson to turn around and promise that there's <v Sal Melluso>going to be more housing and everything. I can't see that with more cops and everybody

<v Sal Melluso>else being laid off, because in order to get those houses developed, you have to have <v Sal Melluso>people to buy them. <v Sal Melluso>More people being laid off and stuff and more people being unemployed. <v Sal Melluso>I can't say he's going to go back to work in construction. <v Robert MacNeil>I know Mr. Conkling, you think the federal government has some responsibility here <v Robert MacNeil>because you indicated that before. <v Robert MacNeil>I wonder, gentlemen, in Washington, would you care to respond to the specific question <v Robert MacNeil>from Ms. Kamaiko? <v Robert MacNeil>What's going to happen when her benefits run out as part of federal government <v Robert MacNeil>responsibility, if you assume that? <v John B. Anderson>Well, I do assume it. And I think that Arthur Burns, who <v John B. Anderson>the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in a speech recently said that <v John B. Anderson>he felt that the federal government should, in fact, be <v John B. Anderson>the employer of last resort. <v John B. Anderson>And some people reacted unfavorably to that statement. <v John B. Anderson>I didn't. I think that we've got to work out programs to <v John B. Anderson>provide opportunities for people like those on the program tonight. <v John B. Anderson>But to go back to the initial question, which you asked, which was do they think <v John B. Anderson>the federal government is responsible? And as I recall it.

<v John B. Anderson>Each of them said yes. And I think that in a sense that that is true. <v John B. Anderson>But what is the responsibility of the federal government? <v John B. Anderson>I think it is, first of all, to try to combat this double digit <v John B. Anderson>inflation that has produced the recession in our in our in our country. <v John B. Anderson>And before we before we council increased <v John B. Anderson>deficit spending, that is simply going to exacerbate <v John B. Anderson>the recession. I think that we in Congress have the responsibility <v John B. Anderson>to exercise some fiscal restraint and control. <v John B. Anderson>And that's exactly, I think, what the president was doing when he vetoed some of the <v John B. Anderson>legislation that Mr. Wright described in his comments. <v Jim Lehrer>If if Congressman. Right. If in fact Congress does or the federal government does have <v Jim Lehrer>the responsibility, why has Congress not done something about this? <v Jim Wright>As I tried to explain a while ago, Congress has made several initiatives that have been <v Jim Wright>thwarted by a presidential veto. <v Jim Wright>We're trying some others. We've got an accelerated public works bill which will make

<v Jim Wright>money available for immediate work in all the cities of the country with a great backlog <v Jim Wright>of necessary public works that lies there. <v Jim Wright>If we can get that bill passed and then signed. <v Jim Wright>But I want to disagree with a couple of things my friend John has said. <v Jim Wright>First, the very idea that you've got to have unemployment in order to halt inflation. <v Jim Wright>That's not true. It's just not true. <v John B. Anderson>Well, I don't I don't I don't agree that that is my position. <v John B. Anderson>Jim, let let me issue a caveat right now. <v John B. Anderson>The economists do have something they call the Phillips curve that says there is a trade <v John B. Anderson>off between unemployment and inflation. <v John B. Anderson>You've got a bill. You Democrats have a bill called the Humphrey Hawkins bill that's kind <v John B. Anderson>of put everybody back to work. But the economists-. <v Jim Wright>I hope that bill- I hope that bill might be enacted. <v John B. Anderson>The economists who have examined that bill say that the price that we will pay <v John B. Anderson>if you try to bring unemployment down to three percent within 18 months, which I think is <v John B. Anderson>the goal of that legislation, is that we are going to have interest rates in this country <v John B. Anderson>of 10 percent and we're going to have 12 or 13 or even 14 percent inflation.

<v John B. Anderson>And I wonder whether that is going to be very good for Ms.-. <v Robert MacNeil>Let's bring let's bring the people in here. <v Robert MacNeil>Miss Kamaiko wants to come in on that. <v Wendy Kamaiko>Yeah. I'd like to ask a direct question of you, Congressman, are as responsible <v Wendy Kamaiko>members of Congress who have talked about the fact that you cannot get through <v Wendy Kamaiko>certain. Legislation to help the economic situation. <v Wendy Kamaiko>Why don't you, as Congressmen, lend your prestige, your leadership, <v Wendy Kamaiko>your position towards organizing the people to demonstrate, <v Wendy Kamaiko>to have meetings, to petition, to put pressure on these people who <v Wendy Kamaiko>won't put through this legislation, which we so strongly need? <v Robert MacNeil>You mean, on the president? <v Wendy Kamaiko>Well, on the president and other congressmen who are stopping these bills. <v Jim Wright>Wendy, Excuse me. I'm sorry, Miss Kamaiko. <v Jim Wright>I don't reckon it's my responsibility to talk people into demonstrating. <v Jim Wright>I think I hear from my people and I know John Anderson feel that he hears from his people <v Jim Wright>and he feels he represents their wishes.

<v Jim Wright>I know that. I think I know the wishes of my people. <v Jim Wright>I do want to say something, though, that I think is very vitally important, and that is <v Jim Wright>when we're worried about deficits, we ought to recognize the reason for <v Jim Wright>the deficit. The reason for the federal deficit today is the unemployment <v Jim Wright>rate. That is not just one of the reasons. <v Jim Wright>That is the overpowering reason. <v Jim Wright>It is a well-established rule of thumb accepted by conservative and <v Jim Wright>liberal economists alike that each percentage point of unemployment <v Jim Wright>generates an adverse impact upon the budget equal to approximately 16 <v Jim Wright>billion dollars. <v Robert MacNeil>You mean because people aren't paying their income taxes? <v Jim Wright>That's part of it. Some 14 billion is lost to the anticipated revenues <v Jim Wright>because people out of work aren't paying taxes. <v Jim Wright>And some two billion is added to the necessary cost of government and <v Jim Wright>related unemployment compensation and other welfare costs. <v Jim Wright>Therefore, if we had four percent unemployment, a more normal, healthy level

<v Jim Wright>as we had instead of eight point six, it's an easy thing to <v Jim Wright>figure out. We'd be getting some 68 billion dollars more. <v Jim Wright>Now, the president recognizes that the reason for the deficit, he asked is for 52 <v Jim Wright>billion was directly caused by unemployment. <v Jim Wright>And yet he didn't suggest those stimulative things to stop unemployment. <v Jim Wright>Now, it seems to me that we do have a responsibility as a government, not only <v Jim Wright>to ourselves, not only to the United States and fiscal solidarity, <v Jim Wright>but to the people, the human beings. <v Jim Wright>I think Dr. Greenspan, Dr. Burns and Dr. <v Jim Wright>Simon, are they're nice men. They're good men. <v Jim Wright>They're not they're not cruel men, but they have they all come from a very limited <v Jim Wright>background, a very honorable background. <v Jim Wright>But they've all done the same thing. They're all connected with the New York financial <v Jim Wright>fraternity. They don't know any people who are unemployed. <v Jim Wright>They think everybody's got a job who's willing to work. And that just isnt true. <v Jim Lehrer>Well, John Anderson. John Anderson knows some unemployed people.

<v Jim Lehrer>How do you respond to that? <v John B. Anderson>Well, yes, indeed. And there isn't any question. <v John B. Anderson>But what Jim says is correct. In the overall, when when you have high unemployment <v John B. Anderson>rates and people aren't paying taxes, of course, government government revenues decline <v John B. Anderson>and you have you have deficit. But I repeat that we have to somehow <v John B. Anderson>face the fact that we've got to create the kind of conditions and the kind of economic <v John B. Anderson>climate in this country whereby we can encourage investment, <v John B. Anderson>where we can encourage people to go out and build the factories and to start <v John B. Anderson>productive enterprises that will put people like the people on this program tonight back <v John B. Anderson>to work. And I'm for that. Everyone is for that. <v John B. Anderson>But we've got to face the fact that we have been going through not just in <v John B. Anderson>in the United States, but in Western Europe. <v John B. Anderson>I think in every country of the industrialized world, for a variety <v John B. Anderson>of reasons, we've had economies moving in recession since nineteen hundred <v John B. Anderson>and seventy three. Now, I want to I want to reply to something that Mr. MacNeil said <v John B. Anderson>where he said that it appears that we've got to resign ourselves to chronic mass

<v John B. Anderson>unemployment. I don't think that's accurate because we had in the last quarter <v John B. Anderson>we had eleven point two percent increase in in in the gross <v John B. Anderson>national product, the hugest, largest increase in the last 20 <v John B. Anderson>years in two decades. I think the economy is moving up. <v John B. Anderson>And before we push the panic button and suggest that we're going to have <v John B. Anderson>a perpetual eight point six percent unemployed, I think we ought to recognize <v John B. Anderson>that the recovery has begun in this country. <v John B. Anderson>It bottomed out in April of this year. <v John B. Anderson>We're starting back up. And sure, there are problems that remain. <v John B. Anderson>But if if we will maintain some balance, I think, <v John B. Anderson>between federal spending and and <v John B. Anderson>outgo from the federal government, I think we're gonna be able to encourage the kind of <v John B. Anderson>demand in this country that's going to put these people back to work. <v Jim Lehrer>What about this question that you mentioned it a moment ago. <v Jim Lehrer>The federal government should be the employer of last resort. <v Jim Lehrer>And no matter what technique is used to lower inflation, to settle out the

<v Jim Lehrer>economy, as you've been mentioning. What happens to what should be done now so these <v Jim Lehrer>people and other people like them can actually be put to work? <v Jim Wright>Well, I'm certainly in favor of public service employment, jobs, and we have, of course, <v Jim Wright>CETA, the Comprehensive Employment Training Act on the books at the present time. <v Jim Wright>And if necessary, I would be in favor of expanding that program. <v Jim Wright>If we can't find jobs for people in the private sector, then I think we ought to expand <v Jim Wright>public service employment and take care of-. <v Jim Lehrer>You favor-. You favor public service employment do you not congressman? <v Jim Wright>I favored it all along, not just with rhetoric and thought, but with <v Jim Wright>votes. And I think we ought to pass something like this bill that guarantees a job. <v Jim Wright>I think this country is rich enough. It can afford a job for everybody who's willing to <v Jim Wright>work. And I think that ought to be our first priority. <v Jim Wright>The way to wipe out deficits is to get Americans back to work. <v Jim Wright>That's the way to do it. <v Jim Lehrer>Robin, I wonder if the people in New York would be willing to work for the federal <v Jim Lehrer>government. <v Robert MacNeil>Would you be willing to work for the federal government, Mr. Bodey? <v Charles Bodey>I certainly would, I have about 12 years with different agencies years ago when

<v Charles Bodey>there were activities in the Newark area. <v Charles Bodey>They have since closed out and moved to other areas. <v Charles Bodey>And there aren't too many federal jobs available in our immediate area. <v Charles Bodey>I have a question I'd like to speak to the gentlemen about. <v Charles Bodey>My benefits ran out as of Monday. <v Charles Bodey>Now they tell me that I'm eligible for relief. <v Charles Bodey>Do I look like somebody that wants to sit down and collect welfare <v Charles Bodey>when I am able to work? I'm willing to work. <v Charles Bodey>And it hurts me for the same gentleman who were telling me that, <v Charles Bodey>you know, about they can't get these programs through, but yet you can you can <v Charles Bodey>appropriate millions and billions for foreign countries and you're taking care of people <v Charles Bodey>that are not contributing to the economy of our country. <v Charles Bodey>I'd like to know how you feel about that. Mr. Wright. <v Jim Wright>I think there are somewhat related but not directly related. <v Jim Wright>The amount that is given in foreign economic aid is a very small percentage <v Jim Wright>of the budget. And I don't think that that's the kind of tradeoff.

<v Jim Wright>If we put every penny that's going into foreign economic aid, into providing <v Jim Wright>jobs for Americans, it still wouldn't do the job. <v Jim Wright>I think I, I think I understand how you feel. <v Jim Wright>But, you know, there isn't any way for anybody to understand how you feel, Mr. <v Jim Wright>Bodey, unless he's been in your shoes. <v Charles Bodey>That's true. <v Jim Wright>I try, you know. But let me just be honest with you. <v Jim Wright>I remember the Great Depression. <v Jim Wright>I was at an impressionable age. I was eight or nine years old. <v Jim Wright>And my grandfather, who had worked for a big national company for 23 <v Jim Wright>years, and he was in his mid 60s was dismissed. <v Jim Wright>There wasn't any unemployment compensation. There wasn't any Social Security. <v Jim Wright>There wasn't anything in those days. <v Jim Wright>And God knows, I saw he was a proud man. <v Jim Wright>You see, this company laid off everybody who had more than 20 years of work <v Jim Wright>because they had a retirement program that started at 25. <v Jim Wright>Well, they were struck to it in the middle. <v Jim Wright>You know, the depression.

<v Jim Wright>I saw my grandfather get up every morning and eagerly go to the paper and read the little <v Jim Wright>meager want ads for help and go down and knock on doors. <v Jim Wright>And I, I saw the whole grain from his eyes only to be faintly <v Jim Wright>rekindled and then dashed again. <v Jim Wright>So in this sense, it kind of vicariously. <v Jim Wright>I've seen it and I remember it. I was eight or nine and that's all. <v Jim Wright>But I remember it. <v Sal Melluso>Congressman, in other words, you're not concerned about the professional people, you're <v Sal Melluso>mostly concerned about just providing any type of job. <v Jim Wright>I am concerned about providing a job. <v Jim Wright>I can't I couldn't guarantee you honestly that the <v Jim Wright>federal government could offer to each of you the job <v Jim Wright>that you would most want. I think it'd be a little dishonest for me to say that. <v Jim Wright>But what I'm trying to say is that we ought to have these programs on the books. <v Jim Wright>So that-. <v Sal Melluso>Excuse me, Congressman. But some of them are because I was going for my Masters at John <v Sal Melluso>J. <v Jim Wright>I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

<v Sal Melluso>Some of the programs are in effect now. <v Sal Melluso>Such as Leap. [Jim Wright: Yeah] it's law enforcement's education program. <v Jim Wright>I'm familiar with it. A son in law-. <v Sal Melluso>Well, I was going for my master's, and since I got laid off, the <v Sal Melluso>funds for my master's have not shown. <v Sal Melluso>And I couldn't continue going for my masters now. <v Robert MacNeil>I hate to have to interrupt you. <v Robert MacNeil>We have given, I think, a a sample of some some of the views <v Robert MacNeil>that many people have. We could go on with this for many hours. <v Robert MacNeil>I would just like to to ask each of the gentlemen in Washington whether they could very <v Robert MacNeil>briefly, in a few sentences, sum up at the beginning of this extraordinary presidential <v Robert MacNeil>year when everything is going to become a can of worms, what is actually going to happen? <v Robert MacNeil>In a few words, each of you. Uh, Mr. Anderson. <v John B. Anderson>Well, I certainly want to emphasize that we don't regard the four people that have been <v John B. Anderson>on this program tonight as simply statistics. <v John B. Anderson>They are living proof that there is no greater human tragedy than people who want <v John B. Anderson>work and are out of work. I don't think that even we in Washington have all of the <v John B. Anderson>answers yet as to what combination of public service

<v John B. Anderson>employment, together with measures to beef up the private. <v John B. Anderson>Economy should be taken to bring full employment. <v John B. Anderson>But I think we're moving in that direction. <v John B. Anderson>And I think as we-. <v Robert MacNeil>And a word from Mr. Wright. I'm awfully sorry, Mr. Anderson. <v Robert MacNeil>And a word from Mr. Wright. <v Jim Wright>Thank you very much. I do want to echo what my my friend has said. <v Jim Wright>He and I disagree on things, but we're still friends. <v Jim Wright>And I think he is as good an American as I am. <v Jim Wright>I really, honestly believe that the first priority of this nation ought to be to <v Jim Wright>guarantee that every American who wants a job-. <v Robert MacNeil>We have to leave it there congressman, thank you. <v Robert MacNeil>Thank you, Congressman. And thank you very much for coming this evening. <v Robert MacNeil>Jim, Larra and I will be back on Monday. Good night. <v Robert MacNeil>Good evening. The United States Senate today rejected the arguments of President Ford

<v Robert MacNeil>and Secretary Kissinger and voted to cut off secret U.S. <v Robert MacNeil>military aid to two factions in Angola. <v Robert MacNeil>The president immediately made a statement saying the decision would profoundly affect <v Robert MacNeil>the security of this country. He asked the Senate to reverse the decision. <v Robert MacNeil>The decision was a setback to the Ford administration, which had argued strongly that the <v Robert MacNeil>United States needed to aid the forces in the former Portuguese colony fighting against <v Robert MacNeil>another faction backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba. <v Robert MacNeil>The issue has been brewing ever since the disclosure recently that the CIA had secretly <v Robert MacNeil>funneled some 33 million dollars in arms and equipment to counter Soviet efforts. <v Robert MacNeil>Many members of Congress feared the country was sliding into a new Vietnam. <v Robert MacNeil>For more on the moves in Washington, here is Jim Larra. <v Jim Lehrer>The Senate, 54 to 22 vote. <v Jim Lehrer>Cutting off that military aid to anti Soviet factions in Angola came on <v Jim Lehrer>an amendment to one hundred and twelve billion dollar defense appropriations bill. <v Jim Lehrer>Some senators favor delaying action until after the Christmas recess. <v Jim Lehrer>One Appropriations Committee Chairman John McClellan had promised not to allow

<v Jim Lehrer>funds to be reprogramed for use in Angola without the Senate's approval. <v Jim Lehrer>But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seeking passage of a military appropriations <v Jim Lehrer>bill, urged an immediate vote. <v Jim Lehrer>And then the Senate vote went against the administration. <v Jim Lehrer>Now the bill must go to the House, which also has to endorse the cut off amendment if it <v Jim Lehrer>is to become law. <v Robert MacNeil>Thank you. Angola is nearly twice the size <v Robert MacNeil>of the state of Texas and 14 times the size of Portugal, which governed <v Robert MacNeil>it for 400 years. Angola has six million people at best. <v Robert MacNeil>30 percent can read and write. <v Robert MacNeil>There's a joke told in Luanda, the former colonial capital. <v Robert MacNeil>After the creation, the Angolans ask God. <v Robert MacNeil>Tell us, Lord, why have you blessed us so? <v Robert MacNeil>Other countries have desert and we have lush lands where others are poor. <v Robert MacNeil>We have diamonds and oil and coffee. Why? <v Robert MacNeil>And God is said to have answered. Just wait until you see who I'm sending to colonize <v Robert MacNeil>you. Portuguese rule was cruel and unenlightened.

<v Robert MacNeil>It encouraged splits in the independence movement and left a legacy of civil war. <v Robert MacNeil>Angolans have been fighting for independence for 14 years. <v Robert MacNeil>Last November, eleventh, when the Portuguese left the country was divided into three <v Robert MacNeil>factions. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, or the MP <v Robert MacNeil>L A. It controls central Angola and the oil producing enclave <v Robert MacNeil>of Cabinda in the north, where Gulf Oil has leases that give the MPLA <v Robert MacNeil>a half a billion dollars yearly. <v Robert MacNeil>The Soviet backed MPLA is led by Agostino Naito, <v Robert MacNeil>a poet and militant socialist and has attracted the bulk of the educated classes. <v Robert MacNeil>The National Front for the Liberation of Angola is led by Holden Roberto, brother <v Robert MacNeil>in law of the ruler of neighboring Zaire. <v Robert MacNeil>Both China and the United States have helped the National Front, which recently formed <v Robert MacNeil>an alliance with the third revolutionary group, the National Union for the Total <v Robert MacNeil>Independence of Angola, or UNITA, led by Youngness Savimbi, <v Robert MacNeil>a onetime follower of Roberto.

<v Robert MacNeil>UNITA represents the largest ethnic group in Angola. <v Robert MacNeil>The Ovimbundu, who are 38 percent of the population. <v Robert MacNeil>The MPLA, which denies its tribal base, primarily represents <v Robert MacNeil>the Kimbundus, who are 28 percent of the population. <v Robert MacNeil>The National Front are the Bakongos, who are only 13 percent of the population. <v Robert MacNeil>UNITA's observer at the United Nations is Jeremias Chitunda <v Robert MacNeil>who is the Minister of Natural Resources in the Short-Lived coalition government of last <v Robert MacNeil>January. First of all, Mr. Chitunda, how do you feel about the rejection <v Robert MacNeil>by the Senate today of aid for the two factions, one <v Robert MacNeil>of which you represent? <v Jeremias Chitunda>I think any time that a source of assistance and <v Jeremias Chitunda>aid is uh cut off <v Jeremias Chitunda>or not available to UNITA, <v Jeremias Chitunda>particularly during this critical period,

<v Jeremias Chitunda>definitely the situation represents more problems, <v Jeremias Chitunda>more pressures, the whole struggle. <v Robert MacNeil>Is it going to be fatal for your struggle? <v Robert MacNeil>Will that mean you will lose the struggle against the MPLA? <v Jeremias Chitunda>No, I don't think so. <v Robert MacNeil>It will not be fatal to it. <v Jeremias Chitunda>Yes, other efforts will be made. <v Robert MacNeil>Where will they come from? <v Jeremias Chitunda>Well, it's very difficult to elaborate on it now, since <v Jeremias Chitunda>there's a Senate vote. <v Jeremias Chitunda>This news has just come out now. <v Robert MacNeil>It's just come to you and you haven't had a chance to get in touch with your people. <v Robert MacNeil>Yes. In Angola. Yes. <v Robert MacNeil>Do you agree with those people in the United States, including <v Robert MacNeil>the administration, who argued that if your opponents, the MPLA <v Robert MacNeil>who control the Rwanda area in the north, if they win that that would <v Robert MacNeil>result in the Soviet domination of Angola? <v Jeremias Chitunda>I think the whole concept of trying to resolve

<v Jeremias Chitunda>the Angolan problem, by the armed way, <v Jeremias Chitunda>has been rejected. <v Jeremias Chitunda>We have been striving for a political <v Jeremias Chitunda>solution in which the three factions must <v Jeremias Chitunda>be taken into account for lasting peace. <v Jeremias Chitunda>And I don't think that. <v Jeremias Chitunda>By need a takeover by any one of these factions we have going <v Jeremias Chitunda>to have peace in Angola. <v Robert MacNeil>But what happens if that is the result and the NPLA wins? <v Robert MacNeil>The Soviet backed NPLA. What happens if they win a military struggle? <v Jeremias Chitunda>First of all, it's not possible for any of these three factions <v Jeremias Chitunda>to win militarily, to have an absolute victory in Angola. <v Jeremias Chitunda>These victories may be only temporary, but the <v Jeremias Chitunda>struggle will go on. Fighting will not stop. <v Robert MacNeil>You mean there's going to have to be negotiations and negotiations and a compromise

<v Robert MacNeil>sometime? <v Jeremias Chitunda>I definitely think so. <v Robert MacNeil>What difference has the U.S. military aid that we've just learned about made <v Robert MacNeil>to your group? And Holden Roberto's group. <v Robert MacNeil>The other one fighting the Soviet backed forces. <v Jeremias Chitunda>I don't know exactly the magnitude of these assistance, but I'm quite sure that <v Jeremias Chitunda>UNITA has been assisted <v Jeremias Chitunda>by Western countries-. <v Robert MacNeil>Other than the United States? <v Jeremias Chitunda>Yes. <v Robert MacNeil>Do you care to name which ones they are? <v Jeremias Chitunda>It's not necessary. Western countries. <v Robert MacNeil>You're saying the United States is not the only Western country sending aid to your <v Robert MacNeil>forces? <v Jeremias Chitunda>It's not the only one. <v Robert MacNeil>There is because there is, you're in the same area of Angola <v Robert MacNeil>to the south, which borders on southwest Africa, Namibia <v Robert MacNeil>and the Africans are the South- south Africans are sending forces <v Robert MacNeil>in to defend their interests there.

<v Robert MacNeil>There is a strong suspicion that the South Africans are aiding you. <v Robert MacNeil>Is that the case? <v Jeremias Chitunda>Well, South Africans are in Angola. <v Jeremias Chitunda>It is true. There are four aspects <v Jeremias Chitunda>for explanation to the presence of the South Africans in Angola. <v Jeremias Chitunda>First of all, is, of course, the Kunene River Dam project, which <v Jeremias Chitunda>they have wanted to safeguard. <v Robert MacNeil>That's their hydroelectric project. <v Jeremias Chitunda>It's a hydroelectric project. <v Jeremias Chitunda>It was initially safeguarded by Portuguese troops. <v Jeremias Chitunda>Once Portuguese troop- forces were withdrawn from the country. <v Jeremias Chitunda>And the three liberation movements, armies were unable to safeguard <v Jeremias Chitunda>the project jointly <v Jeremias Chitunda>South Africa moved in and mounded and set <v Jeremias Chitunda>up somewhere near 1000 troops to safeguard <v Jeremias Chitunda>it. Of course, we also had that problem as rebel fighters. <v Jeremias Chitunda>[inaudible]

<v Robert MacNeil>So the freedom fighters within South West Africa who were fighting against the South <v Robert MacNeil>African government. <v Jeremias Chitunda>Yes for the liberation of Namibia. <v Robert MacNeil>Yes. <v Jeremias Chitunda>They are most concentrated in southern parts of the country. <v Jeremias Chitunda>And, of course, South Africa makes several incursions in its efforts, trying <v Jeremias Chitunda>to track them. <v Robert MacNeil>Trying to track down its own guerrillas. Could I just ask you this question, though, <v Robert MacNeil>simply, is the South African government helping you? <v Jeremias Chitunda>It is not. <v Robert MacNeil>It is not helping you. <v Jeremias Chitunda>South Africa is there for its own interests. <v Robert MacNeil>But they coincide to some extent with yours do they not? <v Jeremias Chitunda>South Africa doesn't want to have in Angola, in the <v Jeremias Chitunda>hostile regime. <v Jeremias Chitunda>South Africa, since it's to its own interests <v Jeremias Chitunda>to fight the Cubans and the Russians in Angola. <v Robert MacNeil>And they're doing that. <v Jeremias Chitunda>They're doing that. Maybe they're doing that. <v Robert MacNeil>Just finally, Mr Chitunda, why when the MPLA the Soviet <v Robert MacNeil>backed group has won the recognition or of many countries <v Robert MacNeil>in the rest of black Africa, why do you not regard it as the

<v Robert MacNeil>legitimate government of Angola? <v Jeremias Chitunda>I don't think the recognition is the legitimization <v Jeremias Chitunda>of a government, not for the case of Angola, with a situation is much <v Jeremias Chitunda>more complex than that. <v Jeremias Chitunda>We think that. <v Jeremias Chitunda>The official position of the OAU has been since the very beginning. <v Jeremias Chitunda>To support the formation-. <v Robert MacNeil>That's the Organization of African Unity. <v Jeremias Chitunda>Yes, sir. To support the formation of a government of national unity. <v Jeremias Chitunda>In that government, the liberation movements should naturally participate. <v Robert MacNeil>And there was such a coalition at first last January. <v Robert MacNeil>And it fell apart. Why did it fall apart? <v Jeremias Chitunda>Well, there were so many differences, first of all, the [inaudible] Summit <v Jeremias Chitunda>conference, which was held in Portugal and during which <v Jeremias Chitunda>the formation of this transitional government was established.

<v Jeremias Chitunda>But the conference didn't resolve the basic problems <v Jeremias Chitunda>among the three liberation movements. <v Robert MacNeil>Without going without going through all the differences there were among the liberation <v Robert MacNeil>movements, which I'm sure would take us a long time. Can I ask you this one question? <v Robert MacNeil>Finally, did the United States, politically or through <v Robert MacNeil>covert operations, contribute in any way to the breakup of that coalition? <v Jeremias Chitunda>Not that I know of. <v Robert MacNeil>Not that you know of. Mr. Chitunda, thank you very much indeed for coming this evening. <v Robert MacNeil>Leslie Gelb, who is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times, has devoted- <v Robert MacNeil>covered the diplomatic angle of the Angola story. <v Robert MacNeil>Mr. Gelb himself, once with the State Department, is in Washington with Jim Lehrer. <v Robert MacNeil>Jim. <v Jim Lehrer>First Mr. Gelb out did this Senate vote today surprise you? <v Leslie Gelb>Yes, it did surprise me. <v Leslie Gelb>It surprised me in the sense that the administration pushed for it, knowing it was almost <v Leslie Gelb>certain to lose. And it surprised me in the extent to which, too, <v Leslie Gelb>there was such large opposition to our involvement in Angola.

<v Leslie Gelb>I think it showed the extent to which Vietnam is still such a raw <v Leslie Gelb>nerve in American politics and still so close to the surface. <v Jim Lehrer>Is there any evidence at this point as to why Rumsfeld did what he did today and <v Jim Lehrer>brought this thing to a head when he could have delayed it until after Christmas? <v Leslie Gelb>I really can't figure that out. I don't see the advantage. <v Jim Lehrer>Well, what about these stories that number one the- the administration <v Jim Lehrer>itself was not even unified on this particular issue, that there were a lot <v Jim Lehrer>of lot of discrepancies and a lot of disagreements within the administration. <v Jim Lehrer>Is that true? <v Leslie Gelb>That's absolutely true. There is always a gap in every administration <v Leslie Gelb>between a handful of policy makers in these areas, specialists <v Leslie Gelb>in the intelligence community that the State Department or the Pentagon. <v Leslie Gelb>But I've never seen a gap so unbridgeable wide between <v Leslie Gelb>the specialist on Angola and Africa and the policymakers who made <v Leslie Gelb>the decision to get us involved in this covert operation.

<v Jim Lehrer>Now, what were the policymakers telling? <v Jim Lehrer>I mean, what were the experts telling the policymakers that they didn't <v Jim Lehrer>go along with? A lot of things? <v Leslie Gelb>First, they argued that the balance of power in Africa did not hinge on <v Leslie Gelb>the outcome of the civil war in Angola. <v Leslie Gelb>They that if the United States stayed out of it, the nations of Africa <v Leslie Gelb>would not look only to Russia as the only outside power that counted in Africa, <v Leslie Gelb>that the Africans have shown great sophistication in being able to ward off outside <v Leslie Gelb>power influence and would do so again. <v Leslie Gelb>They also disagreed that this was somehow an important test case of American <v Leslie Gelb>credibility in Moscow, that if we didn't act to oppose the Russians <v Leslie Gelb>in Angola, somehow they would begin to test us elsewhere. <v Leslie Gelb>It was a domino like rationale. <v Jim Lehrer>Well, who carried- who carried the day? Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. <v Leslie Gelb>Yes. <v Jim Lehrer>Senator Dick Clark, Democrat of Iowa, who is a member of the Senate

<v Jim Lehrer>Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of that committee subcommittee on African <v Jim Lehrer>Affairs is also here. <v Jim Lehrer>Senator, what's your reading of what happened up there today? <v Jim Lehrer>Do you agree with Les that it was all a- a reaction to Vietnam <v Jim Lehrer>or what? What happened? You led the fight. <v Dick Clark>Well, I think it was a combination of things. <v Dick Clark>I agree with Mr. Gelb. <v Dick Clark>And I think what we saw was an indication that the administration had not <v Dick Clark>made a good case for continuing overt covert activity <v Dick Clark>and in a civil war or really a tribal war in central Africa. <v Dick Clark>That's a pretty hard case to make in itself. <v Dick Clark>But we got so many different stories, really, from the secretary of state on the one hand <v Dick Clark>and from the CIA on the other hand, as to the justifications that I think even <v Dick Clark>those people who would normally support the administration could not in good conscience <v Dick Clark>do it on this occasion. <v Jim Lehrer>Senator, you know, the president really took out after you guys in his statement this <v Jim Lehrer>evening and said that this vote hurt the interests of the United States and implied <v Jim Lehrer>America's honor was involved. How do you respond to that?

<v Dick Clark>Well, I think the president feels that we're justified in being in that civil war, that <v Dick Clark>he ought to be willing to come to the American people and tell us what to tell him, what <v Dick Clark>the deposit is, to tell the Congress, what our involvement and what our interests there. <v Dick Clark>It ought not to be done in a secret way without advising either the Congress or the <v Dick Clark>American people if he feels that it's an honorable kind of thing and that he wants us <v Dick Clark>involved there. That's the least that he could do. <v Dick Clark>All this amendment does is to say no more secret, or if you wish to <v Dick Clark>come before the Congress and make a case for this war, we'll take it into consideration. <v Dick Clark>But we're not going to do it anymore in secrecy. <v Dick Clark>That's really all the amendment judges. <v Jim Lehrer>All right. Was that the basis of your opposition rather than the specifics of Angola? <v Jim Lehrer>It was just the basic concept of a secret war not being <v Jim Lehrer>fought without Congress knowing about it and acquiescing. <v Jim Lehrer>Is that what the basis of your opposition? <v Dick Clark>Certainly. I think one has opposition and many others have opposition on two levels. <v Dick Clark>But the motion that I offered, for example, and the Tonnie emotion <v Dick Clark>as well, did not prejudge whether we ought to be in Angola.

<v Dick Clark>It simply said we're going to end the covert activity. <v Dick Clark>If you think you have a case, bring it to the Congress and to the people in the open and <v Dick Clark>we'll consider it. But we're not going to consider secret war now. <v Dick Clark>I'm very confident that if the president were to do that, to come publicly <v Dick Clark>to the Congress, that he'd be turned down. <v Dick Clark>And I think the president knows the. And that's why we've got a secret war rather than an <v Dick Clark>open war. <v Jim Lehrer>Do you think that this vote is too much to interpret this vote as a signal that <v Jim Lehrer>covert actions of this type, no matter where they are, are through as far as the United <v Jim Lehrer>States is concerned? <v Dick Clark>Well, I think it's too early to make that kind of judgment. <v Dick Clark>But I think for the first time, the members of the Senate got a very good idea of the <v Dick Clark>difficulty of carrying on a covert activity and at the same time having any reasonable <v Dick Clark>kind of control over it. <v Dick Clark>I think the two are contradictory. And my own judgment, you cannot carry on particularly <v Dick Clark>a major kind of military covert activity at the same time, have the member, all <v Dick Clark>of the members of Congress advised of it. <v Dick Clark>They're contradictory. I think that we cannot continue that kind of covert <v Dick Clark>activity for a great variety of reasons.

<v Jim Lehrer>Senator, thank you. <v Robert MacNeil>Thanks, Jim. The MPLA. <v Robert MacNeil>representative at the United Nations is a Elisio Figueiredo, <v Robert MacNeil>to figure it out. How do you react to the vote in the Senate today? <v Robert MacNeil>Is that does that mean a great victory for your side since you're getting aid from the <v Robert MacNeil>Cubans and the Russians? <v Elisio Figueiredo>Well, we're simply delighted to know that here in America <v Elisio Figueiredo>there are there is a group of senators and members of Congress <v Elisio Figueiredo>who seem to be quite objective about the realities that exist <v Elisio Figueiredo>in Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Therefore, the vote today in this country <v Elisio Figueiredo>simply represents the once. Once again that <v Elisio Figueiredo>there are American interests in Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>And therefore, I hope that this Sort of opinion can continue. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Indeed. <v Robert MacNeil>I see. <v Robert MacNeil>If your side wins the fear of those who wanted to continue aid

<v Robert MacNeil>to the other side, if the MPLA wins, they feared that that would <v Robert MacNeil>lead to something like Soviet domination or at least a stronger Soviet <v Robert MacNeil>foothold and presence in South Africa, southern Africa, than <v Robert MacNeil>the United States wanted. If you win, if you become the only government of Angola, <v Robert MacNeil>will you be dominated by the Soviet Union? <v Elisio Figueiredo>Well, definitely not. We are nationalists in Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We are patriotic. It is imperative for the American people <v Elisio Figueiredo>to know here that throughout the 14 years of our armed <v Elisio Figueiredo>struggle against the Portuguese, we appeal to Western nations <v Elisio Figueiredo>to give us help. But no country really would give us a grenade <v Elisio Figueiredo>to fight against the Portuguese at that time. <v Elisio Figueiredo>The socialist countries and also including Sweden, Denmark, Norway <v Elisio Figueiredo>and various progressive groups around the Western world helped <v Elisio Figueiredo>us. Now that we have attained our independence on the eleventh of November

<v Elisio Figueiredo>and created a government of People's Republic of Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>All of a sudden, there is a break way in many Western capitals <v Elisio Figueiredo>accusing us of communists or a Soviet backed or whatever. <v Elisio Figueiredo>I mean, this suddenly does not fit the realities we do in the country today. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We are a non aligned nation. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We intend to establish diplomatic relations with various countries, <v Elisio Figueiredo>including the United States, as long as our territorial integrity <v Elisio Figueiredo>is respected. <v Robert MacNeil>I see. Why is the USSR backing you? <v Robert MacNeil>Why? Why have they now stepped up their aid? <v Robert MacNeil>I know they backed you for a long time during the long independence struggle against the <v Robert MacNeil>Portuguese. Why are they backing you now and what are they going to want in in thanks for <v Robert MacNeil>that? <v Elisio Figueiredo>Well, definitely not backing us. <v Elisio Figueiredo>No, we. They have established diplomatic relations with us. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We certainly have asked for some military armament <v Elisio Figueiredo>on the face of the South African invasion into Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>And therefore and it is important also to note that there are no Soviet

<v Elisio Figueiredo>military personnel in Angola. <v Robert MacNeil>But there are Cuban. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Yes, we have invited some Cuban instructors to train our militaries. <v Robert MacNeil>Only instructors? Are there not Cubans actually fighting? <v Elisio Figueiredo>There might be some in the war zones, but however, not as some of the <v Elisio Figueiredo>numbers that are some of your newspapers have reported here. <v Robert MacNeil>What is the correct number? <v Elisio Figueiredo>I have no figures with me at this particular time. <v Elisio Figueiredo>However, certainly not that exaggerated number that appears <v Elisio Figueiredo>in various papers. <v Robert MacNeil>I see. Why do you not support, as the other <v Robert MacNeil>factions do, a coalition of the three groups? <v Elisio Figueiredo>We're not a faction uh, Mr. MacNeil. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Of course, we were a liberation movement until the levels of <v Elisio Figueiredo>November we certainly became a party, the People's Republic of Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Its vanguard is the MPLA. This is the party in Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We represent a village, the people of Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We champion their aspirations and we have defended since 1961

<v Elisio Figueiredo>up to this particular moment. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Now, the two groups that you have spoke of, UNITA and the FNLA, they. <v Elisio Figueiredo>Are closely associated with South Africa. <v Elisio Figueiredo>The South Africans are in Angola due to the visit that Savimbi <v Elisio Figueiredo>paid to South Africa three months ago due to some representatives <v Elisio Figueiredo>of FNLA paid also to Namibia. The combination of all this made certainly South Africa, <v Elisio Figueiredo>even ss- put them in a position of strength to the extent that they are now in Angola <v Elisio Figueiredo>fighting against us 500 miles inside our country. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We presented some white South African regular prisoners in Lagos, Nigeria, <v Elisio Figueiredo>yesterday, and we saw their pictures. We have some in Angola. <v Elisio Figueiredo>And therefore, as long as South African army resists a man in Angola, <v Elisio Figueiredo>there won't be any sort of negotiations. <v Robert MacNeil>Thank you for the moment. Can I bring in Lloyd Garrison, who is with The New York Times <v Robert MacNeil>in the Congo and Angola in the 1960s and is currently working on a book on Africa

<v Robert MacNeil>called The Distant Drum. You've now heard two versions of the of the <v Robert MacNeil>political reality in Angola. One from Mr. Chitunda, and now from Mr. Figueiredo. <v Robert MacNeil>How do you how do you balance what they've said? <v Robert MacNeil>How do you assess what they've said? <v Lloyd Garrison>Well, I think that neither have said anything at the moment that would <v Lloyd Garrison>set off any sparks between the two. <v Lloyd Garrison>I, I would I would take a small exception <v Lloyd Garrison>to your assertion that the MPLA is a movement that represents all of <v Lloyd Garrison>Angola, an assertion that Mr. <v Lloyd Garrison>Chitunda from UNITA did not make. <v Lloyd Garrison>I think the MPLA historically is very strong among the. <v Lloyd Garrison>It's the Kimbundu people. <v Lloyd Garrison>And in Rwanda, I don't think any government or any <v Lloyd Garrison>faction or group in Angola can govern without you. <v Lloyd Garrison>By the same token, I don't think that you can effectively govern the rest of the country

<v Lloyd Garrison>without the assistance of the powers that be <v Lloyd Garrison>in those two other areas. <v Elisio Figueiredo>If you hear. Well, it just so happened that, as you know, Mr. Garrison, the MPLA <v Elisio Figueiredo>involves all the involves Bakongos, Ovimbundus, <v Elisio Figueiredo>Kimbundus, and Ambundus within the MPLA. <v Elisio Figueiredo>We are not a tribal party, really, but our party indeed tends <v Elisio Figueiredo>to agglomerate all these members of all this three <v Elisio Figueiredo>various groups. And of course, to state that <v Elisio Figueiredo>the MPLA is only strong in Rwanda, really. <v Elisio Figueiredo>It's somehow terminological inexactitude up there because <v Elisio Figueiredo>even in the southern part of Angola, Lobito, Benguela. <v Elisio Figueiredo>These are areas militarily controlled at the present time by UNITA and the FNLA. <v Elisio Figueiredo>But the people are certainly with the MPLA. <v Robert MacNeil> Mr Figueiredo, thank you. I'd like to ask Mr Garrison and then bring in Mr Gelb and

<v Robert MacNeil>Senator Clark in Washington to conclude. <v Robert MacNeil>What do you think should be our policy towards Angola? <v Robert MacNeil>If the issue is not at rest yet, the senators-. <v Robert MacNeil>The presidents ask the Senate to reverse its decision. <v Robert MacNeil>What should we do? <v Lloyd Garrison>Mr Garrison, I think we did the right thing in in in <v Lloyd Garrison>cutting off all aid at the moment. <v Lloyd Garrison>I think that there has to be a total reassessment of our position <v Lloyd Garrison>in Angola. I think that the association with South Africa, it was it was <v Lloyd Garrison>a major blunder on the part of Mr Kissinger. <v Lloyd Garrison>I think it was unpalatable in the Congress. You've seen the results of that. <v Lloyd Garrison>I think it certainly is certainly unpalatable in Africa and in much of the rest of the <v Lloyd Garrison>world. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why <v Lloyd Garrison>the United States would link its objectives with those of the South African government <v Lloyd Garrison>unless there is a longer range plan or policy <v Lloyd Garrison>to ultimately defend South Africa. <v Lloyd Garrison>Should there be African incursions from the North that don't happen to suit

<v Lloyd Garrison>the point of view of watching. <v Robert MacNeil>The particular anomaly it seems to me, the moral anomaly, is that the country bordering <v Robert MacNeil>Angola is actually Namibia. <v Robert MacNeil>And we have been one of those countries which has consistently urged South Africa to <v Robert MacNeil>divest itself according to United Nations regulations of Namibia. <v Robert MacNeil>Have we not? <v Lloyd Garrison>That's correct. <v Robert MacNeil>Can I ask Senator Clark, what do you think our policy should be from here towards Africa? <v Dick Clark>Well, I think we ought to get out of Angola and set that example. <v Dick Clark>I'm confident that the Soviets will have no long term advantage <v Dick Clark>in having done that. That they will not create a satellite state there anymore than they <v Dick Clark>have in other places in Africa, with one exception in Somalia, a very poor country. <v Dick Clark>They really had no success at that. So I think it'd be a great mistake for us to stay in <v Dick Clark>there for all the reasons that Mr. Garrison has just given. <v Dick Clark>So I think our attitude in Africa ought to be one of looking <v Dick Clark>at these independent individual African states, Ubben for themselves. <v Dick Clark>That's something we've never done. We've never had a president.

<v Dick Clark>We've never had a secretary of state who even has visited the continent of Africa. <v Robert MacNeil>Thank you, Senator. Mr. Gelb, a final word. <v Robert MacNeil>What do you think we should be doing? <v Leslie Gelb>Well, I'm surprised we got involved in the first place. <v Leslie Gelb>And I think, again, reflecting the views of the people in the administration who know <v Leslie Gelb>something about Africa and who have been following our relations with the Soviet <v Leslie Gelb>Union, that we still are chained to a mentality that somehow continues <v Leslie Gelb>to define our interests in the world in terms of what the Soviet Union <v Leslie Gelb>does or doesn't do. <v Leslie Gelb>What I would like to see hasn't happened yet, namely a strong initiative <v Leslie Gelb>from the Organization of African Unity calling on all outside <v Leslie Gelb>powers in Angola to leave and to let the people of that country settle the issue <v Leslie Gelb>themselves. <v Robert MacNeil>Thank you, Mr. Gelb. Sorry to interrupt you. <v Robert MacNeil>Thank you. And Senator Clark. Thanks, Jim. <v Robert MacNeil>Lloyd Garrison. Mr. Figueiredo. Thank you. <v Robert MacNeil>Jim Lehrer and I will be back on Monday evening. <v Robert MacNeil>I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.