The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The stock market leads the news this Thursday. The Dow Jones careened downward, losing 77 points, as President Reagan prepared to speak to the problem at a televised news conference. And Iran fired a Silkworm missile into Kuwait's main oil terminal. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After our news summary, stock market aftershocks lead our NewsHour. We have the head of the American Stock Exchange and the chairman of a major Wall Street investment firm. Then, the latest on the Persian Gulf from a man who's just been there, Energy Secretary John Herrington. Next, some new voices in the Bork battle. And options for women with breast cancer.News Summary LEHRER: This was a down day for the roller coaster stock market. In New York, the market opened down at first bell this morning, and stayed that way all day. The Dow Jones industrial average closed off 77 points. Fifteen hundred forty six stocks lost ground while 337 rose in price. Trading was heavy, with 393 million shares changing hands. The day's downer follows a two day climb of 288 points, after Monday's historic 508 point lost. Analysts varied on the specific causes for today's results, other than to agree confidence remains shaky after Monday's debacle. Several major banks weighed in on the side of lower interest rates today. The nation's largest bank, Citibank of New York, lowered its prime rate from 9 1/4 to 9 percent, and many others followed. The cuts were announced before the stock market opened for business this morning. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: In Washington, President Reagan is expected to face tough questions tonight about the stock market during his first White House news conference in 7 months. He's also expected to be asked about the role of the budget deficit in the stock market problems. Earlier today, he said he wants to meet with bipartisan congressional leaders as soon as possible on ways to cut the deficit, adding, ''everything is on the table, with the exception of social security. '' Another major item on tonight's news conference is expected to be today's Silkworm missile attack against Kuwait's main oil terminal. The blast badly damaged the terminal and wounded three workers. Kuwaiti sources described the attack as retaliation for an earlier U. S. attack against an Iranian oil rig. In Washington, Pentagon officials said the missile was definitely an Iranian Silkworm. Meanwhile, two American flagged Kuwaiti tankers were safely escorted by U. S. convoy through the Strait of Hormuz and out of the Persian Gulf late today. The ships were headed for the Gulf of Oman. LEHRER: The terrorists holding American hostages in Lebanon were heard from again today. A typewritten statement from the pro Iranian Islamic Jihad said thousands of suicide bombers were being prepared to launch attacks against U. S. and European targets in the Persian Gulf. The statement was delivered to Western news agencies in Beirut. With it were two black and white photographs, one of American hostage Terry Anderson, the other a French hostage, Jean Paul Kauffman. The statement said the suicide attacks will be patterned after the 1983 bombings of U. S. Marine and trench paratrooper facilities in Lebanon. Those attacks were carried out by suicide drivers and trucks filled with explosives. Three hundred people were killed. HUNTER-GAULT: In Moscow, Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze held three meetings on the pending Soviet U. S. Arms Accord. Spokesmen on both sides said obstacles remained, but Shultz said, ''We are here to solve problems, and we are here to do serious business. '' The Soviet Foreign Minister added, ''We are natural optimists. '' Shultz is expected to meet with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tomorrow. LEHRER: Back in this country, First Lady Nancy Reagan came home to the White House today. She had a smile and a dance jig for President Reagan and others who welcomed her back after successful breast cancer surgery. Representatives of her favorite charities were in the crowd. She and the President both thanked the welcomers.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: In view of all this, I'm trying to see if I can't scare up a little something that I can stay in the hospital for. God bless you all, and thank you very much. And wouldn't you like to thank all these wonderful people? NANCY REAGAN: Well, I don't know what to say. Thank you very, very much. I'm very touched. The Foster Grandparent Program people and Just Say No kids and everybody else, and I'm very, very happy to be home. HUNTER-GAULT: In other news, the government today imposed a record $5. 1 million fine on contractors involved in the construction of a Bridgeport, Connecticut, highrise that collapsed last April, killing 28 workmen. The apartment complex was being erected by the lift slab method when the upper floors suddenly gave way, burying workers in concrete and rubble. An Occupational Safety and Health Administration report issued in Washington said the disaster was triggered by the failure of a jack system used to lift concrete floor slabs into place.

JOHN PENDERGRASS, Department of Labor: We found serious disregard for basic, fundamental engineering practices, a factor directly related to the cause of the collapse. We found obvious and unacceptable designed deficiencies in the concrete lifting system that could have been detected with rudimentary engineering analysis. As a result, early this morning, OSHA issued the stiffest penalties in its 16 year history. HUNTER-GAULT: And in Belleville, Illinois, a jury awarded $16. 2 million in punitive damages to 65 residents of a Missouri town who sued the Monsanto Company for a 1979 chemical spill. The spill contained less than one teaspoon of dioxin. The plaintiffs said they suffered headache, fatigue, joint pains and other illnesses after a tank car ruptured in Sturgeon, Missouri. Monsanto's attorneys said they will appeal today's judgment. LEHRER: Soviet born poet, Joseph Brodsky was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature today. Brodsky is 47 years old. He was forced into exile from the Soviet Union in 1972, after spending time in a Soviet labor camp. He emigrated to the United States and became an American citizen in 1977. He lives in New York, but was in London when notified of the award. He said, ''It was a big step for me, and small for mankind. '' The Swedish Academy called Brodsky's poetry, ''rich and intensely vital. '' HUNTER-GAULT: That's our news summary. Still ahead, Wall Street's aftershock, Energy Secretary Herrington's Gulf trip, more debate about Bork, and options for treating breast cancer. Aftershocks HUNTER-GAULT: Leading our program tonight, as it has every night this week, is the continuing turmoil on Wall Street. We look further at that and other developments today through the eyes of two men who hold top positions on Wall Street. Donald Marron is Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Paine Webber, a major New York investment firm. Arthur Levitt is Chairman of the American Stock Exchange, which trades stock of over a thousand midsize high growth companies. Gentlemen, welcome. Starting with you, Mr. Levitt, the New York Stock Exchange is closing early tomorrow. Is the American Stock Exchange following suit? ARTHUR LEVITT, American Stock Exchange: Yes, we are. HUNTER-GAULT: Why? Mr. LEVITT: Well, we, both of us, felt after the unprecedented volume of the past several days that it was important for member firms that have great clearance issues in terms of matching up trade should have the time to work that out. So we wanted to give them a few extra hours over the course of the next several days. The clearing of the great trading volume which started on Friday, really begins today, and that comparison process will continue through Monday and Tuesday of next week. HUNTER-GAULT: So that there's great coordination between the New York Stock Exchange and the American Stock Exchange? Mr. LEVITT: Oh, yes. HUNTER-GAULT: You're talking all the time? Mr. LEVITT: Absolutely. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Earlier this week, the Chairman of the SEC, Mr. Ruder, suggested that the Fed may have to intervene and close the markets altogether. Is there a rationale for that? Mr. LEVITT: No, I think he didn't say that the Fed would, I think he suggested that the Exchanges themselves had the power to do that. I think that that would be a mistake for the Exchanges to close, and as a matter of fact, the ability of the Exchanges and the specialists and the people who work there to withstand this tempestuous market over this period of time I think is one of the most remarkable chapters in the history of the economy. HUNTER-GAULT: Why would it be even thought of to close the exchange, and why do you think it would be a mistake? Mr. LEVITT: I think closing an exchange is something that's done only in the most extreme circumstances. When President Kennedy was shot was the last time that had ever occurred. I think to suggest that we had to close the exchange would do two things. In the first place, a lot of that business in internationalized market -- could go to London, could go to other international exchanges. But secondly, it would suggest that the greatest marketplace in the world, the most resilient and the deepest and broadest, didn't have the strength in terms of its overall breadth to handle the kind of business and the kind of volatility that we experienced this week. We handled unprecedented volume, unprecedented volatility. I won't say there weren't strains, but I'd say it's a great tribute to the system that the major exchanges in this country did it and did it as well as they have. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you agree with that, that the markets shouldn't be closed down? DONALD MARRON, Paine Webber: I think the basic premise in our business is it is a continuous market. And a continuous market allows people liquidity, and I don't think the market should be closed down except in the most extreme circumstances. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, these circumstances to a lot of people around the world look pretty extreme, and in fact, the market going down today and after two strong days -- what's causing today's down turn? Mr. MARRON: Well, you know, nobody really knows what makes the market move in any single day. But what I think happened is the market's getting a little bit exhausted. After the three days this week of extreme action and extreme volatility, things are slowing down just a little bit. People have a little more chance to look at what's happening, and you can't make a judgment based on one day. Except to say that from a business point of view, things were a little bit simpler today -- if you can use that term in a very relative sense. HUNTER-GAULT: Meaning that there weren't all this -- well, meaning what? Mr. MARRON: Just meaning lower volume, more calmness in the market, perhaps a little more thought going into people buying and selling. Mr. LEVITT: I think the market reacted remarkably well today in the face of three major events which could have called for a different kind of reaction. This morning, before the market opened, a major market analyst called for the markets to fall to test the lows. Secondly, there was the problem in the Persian Gulf, and thirdly, there were a large number of margin calls resulting from business of the past several days. In the face of that, to see the market down less than 100 points, I think, was remarkable, and showed a great deal of stability. And I regard it as a fairly affirmative sign in the direction of stabilization. HUNTER-GAULT: A number of leading firms called a halt to the program trading -- without getting too technical about it -- as I understand it is instantaneous ability to trade -- is that right, instantaneous ability to -- ? Mr. MARRON: Computer driven trading. HUNTER-GAULT: What do they hope to accomplish with that? Was that a good idea? Mr. MARRON: Well, program trading was started as a very good idea -- that institutions mainly would use the computer executed trades very quickly and probably against hedges on the other side. The trouble is the volume of exchange has gotten so big, and things are so complicated that computers can't work alone any more. Human beings and good minds have to get involved. So I think it is a good idea to reduce substantially program trading, because you need a sense of reason in the market right now, and while computers can help with that, they can't provide the reason and the balance that are needed now in dealing with the whole marketplace. So it's a good idea. HUNTER-GAULT: There are those who say if it didn't contribute to, it caused the 500 point downturn on Monday. What do you think? Mr. LEVITT: I don't think we can really tell at this point. I think the major issue of the past several days has been one of volatility. Volatility that has hurt a great many investors. A lot of small investors. I think that we're certainly going to have to give very careful study to the impact on that volatility caused by program trading. There are all kinds of program trading. There are so called insurance protection programs, and there are options on indexes and futures indices, and I don't think we really know the answers to it. But I think the self regulatory organizations and the firms and the SEC are going to give very careful study to the impact of program trading on the market. HUNTER-GAULT: One of your colleagues said today that every disaster has to have a villain. And he was afraid that program trading was going to be the villain in this instance, simply because it was politically expedient. How do you see it? Mr. MARRON: Well, I think a market like this shows up all the strengths and all the weaknesses in the system, across the way, both in the market system and in the economy. And clearly, one of the things that has to be looked at is computer driven trading. And the trading on the futures exchange. So what I think should happen is regulatory authorities ought to study very quickly whether or not these things really contributed to the decline. I think that they probably did -- at least in the short term. And if they did, consider what they would do to make the system work better. HUNTER-GAULT: Did your firm halt your -- Mr. MARRON: We slowed down and halted our program trading today. The Exchange asked all the major firms to slow down their program trading. HUNTER-GAULT: When will you go back? Mr. MARRON: Well, we'll go back as soon as the markets are calmer and in conjunction with all of the other major firms. HUNTER-GAULT: When's that going to be? Mr. MARRON: Well, no one knows that except I think that the exchange and the marketplace has worked very well at this time. It's obviously been a disastrous decline, but the system has worked, the exchanges have stayed open, it's been record volume by a wide, wide margin, and yet business is still going on. HUNTER-GAULT: Arthur Levitt, what's your guess as to when the market -- Mr. LEVITT: Well, I think the best thing to restore confidence in our markets and a measure of stability would be to respond to what I think has been a kind of global election, voicing no confidence in the ability of the Congress and the Administration to meet the economic problems. And I think what the President says tonight will be of critical importance, in terms of how these global voters are going to react to our market. HUNTER-GAULT: What does he have to say? Whatdo you think? Mr. MARRON: Well, I think he's got to say that everything has got to be reviewed in terms of reducing the budget deficit. Remember in 1982 he met face to face with the Congress -- with the leaders of the Congress -- and he came out with a program called TEFRA. That was the beginning of this bull market. And I think that an agreement that he announces following his statement tonight, if it's an open, nonpolitical commitment to meet this question, meet this issue, will do more to restore confidence in the market than anything else I can think of. HUNTER-GAULT: Will that alone reverse the psychology that's at work now? Is it just the perception that he has to do this, or does he then have to do something really hard, fundamental, and serious? Mr. MARRON: Well, I think what you have here, this is the first time there's been a major global decline in the markets. America is no longer isolated. There's three major economies -- Asia, Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. All the markets are interrelated. A few years ago, we wouldn't have been worried about what Tokyo'd been doing the night before. Now we are. So he's talking not just to us, he's talking to the whole world. I think the second thing is there's an alliance here -- Washington and Wall Street and Main Street that needs to be thought about here very, very strongly, because there are a lot of people out there -- millions -- who are looking at this decline and saying, ''What's it a signal of in the future? Is it a signal of recession? Is it a signal of a change in things?'' Now, sometimes markets predict these things, sometimes they don't. But they certainly could contribute to a loss of confidence, and that in turn could create problems for us. So the President, I think, has to be in control, he has to recognize and communicate this as a global market, and that we have to work -- not just the United States, but around the world -- and he has to make sure there's a sense of confidence, and I think he does that in part by saying that Washington understands. These are key issues that they're working closely with Wall Street, the banks are involved, and that they understand that they need to protect the interests and the investments of all the individuals. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Stay with us we'll be back. Jim? John Herrington Interview LEHRER: Oil anxieties over the Persian Gulf. As Arthur Levitt just said, that was one of several reasons cited by analysts to explain today's tumult on Wall Street. Secretary of Energy John Herrington is here to speak to those anxieties. He has just returned from an extended visit to the Gulf region in the Middle East. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Is the market right to have the oil jitters? JOHN HERRINGTON, Secretary of Energy: Well, as you've heard, there's a lot more going on here between computer trading and deficits than what's happening in the Persian Gulf. My guess is that divestment decisions this morning were made long before the news came over the wire. Interestingly enough, the price of oil has been fairly stable this week, hovering between $19 and $20. So I would disagree a little bit with what has been said on that. LEHRER: But an Iranian Silkworm missile hit the Kuwaiti oil facility today, which is a major oil facility. First of all, can you add anything to the news reports on that, as to how serious it was and how disruptive it might be to Kuwait? Mr. HERRINGTON: No question it's disruptive. And I think we have to recognize that right from the top. And I don't like the implications of being a first attack on a shore facility. But beyond that, we ought to note that this attack took place at a pretty long range. Silkworm missile has about a 90 mile range. It's a big explosive, thousand pounds, which is substantial, and -- hit a target pretty far out. How does it affect what's happening? It's a shore facility that loads supertankers. So at least two of those tankers that have been reflagged, Bridgeton and the other one, will have trouble loading. Shore facilities and the small tankers I think are still in pretty good shape. But there's no question, it hit the biggest facility and the middle facility. LEHRER: And once having demonstrated that that can and will be done, is it now just common sense to say, ''Wait a minute, this thing may be taking a different turn,'' in terms of possible interruption of the oil flow through the Persian Gulf? Mr. HERRINGTON: Well, I think every time one of these things happens, somebody says, ''Is it gonna escalate, is it gonna happen more?'' Secretary Weinberger was very clear this is -- as the last incident was, we take this incident at a time. The important thing is to note the U. S. Navy is there on a peace mission, trying to convoy freighters that are doing nobody any harm, in international waters, in an environment where heretofore a belligerent nation has been going at will, machine gunning targets of opportunity, and that's closing down because of the seven countries that are there helping us in that patrol activity. So I think we have to take it one step at a time to see where we are. LEHRER: Now you have personally advocated the imposition of an oil embargo, or an oil boycott on Iran. What's the progress of your push at this point? Mr. HERRINGTON: Well, as you know, the Senate voted 98 to nothing, and it's tough to get the Senate to do anything. I wish they could fix the deficit 98 to nothing. House -- LEHRER: Well, they will, it just takes -- never mind. Mr. HERRINGTON: We just heard about that from the other two visitors tonight -- LEHRER: Right -- Mr. HERRINGTON: The House has also passed a resolution -- it's under consideration by the Administration. I'm not the only one who favors it -- the Secretary of Defense the Secretary of State, National Security Advisor -- we expect the President to make a decision imminently. But I think an oil embargo can only be effective insofar as we get cooperation by other countries. Because we have seen in the past, these are difficult things to enforce. A tankerload of oil, for instance, changes hands six or seven times during progress from the Gulf to the market. It's tough to -- LEHRER: Is it even realistic to expect that something like that could work? Mr. HERRINGTON: It is realistic if we get cooperation of countries like Japan, West Germany, Italy, some of our allies. I don't know whether you know it or not, but a third of the oil that goes out of the Gulf -- in fact, some countries UAE, 34% of the production -- goes to Japan. And we have to have support on this type of -- LEHRER: Are we getting it? Mr. HERRINGTON: Well, I think we're going to have to see. It's very important that we get support with the role that we're taking over there from our allies and from other countries. LEHRER: Aren't all the precedents the other way, Mr. Secretary? Has there ever been a successful oil embargo of any kind? Mr. HERRINGTON: Well, you have the Olympic embargo and the South African sanctions, the grain embargo, you can go on and on. You have a history. These are very difficult things to carry out and make effective. But American people on a moral stand can't be feeding money into that economy that's turning around and buying weapons that may be used against American personnel. And I don't see -- I think we'd rather walk than use Iranian oil. LEHRER: There's some economists here in this country have -- as I'm sure you're aware -- criticize your proposal, saying why should the American consumer pay more for oil, which is what would be the end result of an embargo against Iranian oil. Mr. HERRINGTON: I disagree 100%. It would not be the result. First of all, there's over two or three million barrels of excess capacity in the oil market today. If we cut off Iranian oil imports, it won't have any effect whatsoever. Sure, they'll try and sell it some other place, but you're putting economic pressures on Iran. We can buy oil -- other sources for the United States. LEHRER: I read some figures today in the Wall Street Journal, which suggested that two years ago the United States was getting 27% of its oil from foreign sources. Now that's risen to 40%. What's happened, Mr. Secretary? Mr. HERRINGTON: I would say about 38% is the figures we have at the Department. I'm not going to argue with 40%. What's happened is we're using more oil, because it was cheaper. Two years ago it was $26. 50 a barrel, now it's about between $19 and $20. We're using more oil because it's cheaper. And of course, our domestic production last year is the sad thing -- fell 800,000 barrels. It's going to fall 400,000 barrels a day this year, and probably another million barrels a day between now and 1995. LEHRER: Because the price is too low? Mr. HERRINGTON: We are not replacing American reserves of oil, and that's a sad state. We need to find more oil in the United States. So we're importing that increment of oil that we are not getting here. But the thing people don't realize is, number one, the biggest supplier of imported oil today is Canada. Second is Mexico, and Venezuela. Those are not insecure sources of oil for the United States. So we're not in the same shape we were in 1973, 1979. And there's one other factor, the strategic petroleum reserve that we've accumulated since 1980, has 530 million barrels of oil in it today. That's over 120 days of protection for this country. LEHRER: But also in my vast reading today, I saw where your predecessor, Donald O'Dell, who is now the Secretary of the Interior, predicted recently that within two years we could have gaslines again in this country, we could have high prices, and we could return to a real oil crisis if we don't do something about this imported oil question. Mr. HERRINGTON: Well, I think Don is concerned, just as I am, with replacing U. S. reserves. But I certainly don't agree with there'll be gas lines in two years. Because the policy of the Administration is to take that 530 million barrels and put it in the market immediately. And we've run tests on that, and we can put almost 4 million barrels a day in the U. S. refining system. And you won't find a national security analyst anywhere who'll predict we'll lose all sources of foreign oil. And so what happens? We aren't going to lose Canada. We're not going to lose Mexico, Venezuela. But we're only dependent on the Gulf to about 3% to 5% of our import, which is much better than they were. LEHRER: Well, what do you say, then, to the people on Wall Street, like Mr. Levitt and Mr. Marron, who every time a bomb is lobbed into a tanker in the Persian Gulf, that there's always a reaction on Wall Street whenever that happens. Whatever -- we could argue endlessly about what it should be or what it should not be, but there is a reaction. What do you say to those folks? Mr. HERRINGTON: Well, first of all, I'm not an expert on Wall Street, and these gentlemen are, and I have been fascinated by their discussion here. But most of the oil in transit between the Gulf and its final markets has been sold and is being traded. I think your reactions on the market are very short term on something like that. I don't think it meets the same criteria, say, as the currency transaction, where 98% of your market is psychological. LEHRER: If all the oil through the Persian Gulf as the result of war, suddenly stopped, what would be the end result for the U. S. economy? Mr. HERRINGTON: That can't happen -- for two reasons. One is -- one of the things I found out on this trip is there are three or four major countries over there that are working hard on pipelines. And it's news that by 1990 or 1992, about seven to eight million barrels of oil will be traveling out of the Gulf by pipelines -- not by tanker. And that is a big change in the geopolitical implications of what that oil means to us. Also, I don't foresee a scenario where the Straits of Hormuz can be closed for an indeterminate period. The 120 days that we have in the strategic petroleum reserve today is far longer than any interruption we experienced in 1973 and 1979. So I don't buy that proposition. LEHRER: All right, let's go back to Mr. Levitt and Mr. Marron. Mr. Levitt, are you going to pass the word on what you've just heard? There's nothing to worry about? Mr. LEVITT: Sure, I think the -- it's not so much the disruption in terms of oil supplies being interrupted, but more what it implies in terms of a possible international confrontation. It's just another piece of disruption that causes uncertainty, and causes some measure of concern. LEHRER: But how does that translate -- give me -- how does that translate into a transaction on Wall Street? The idea that a tanker today -- I mean, I facility in Kuwait is hit by an Iranian bomb, who turns to whom and does what on Wall Street? Mr. LEVITT: You have to put yourself in the frame of mind of an investor, either on Wall Street or some place at a trading desk elsewhere in the world. And he sees a market which has been in a great state of disruption, he sees uncertainty in terms of a direction in the economy, he sees a budget deficit and international trade deficits. And he sees a possible confrontation in the Middle East. What's he going to do? Is he going to feel impelled to issue orders to buy or sell or sit on the sidelines? There are no other alternatives. And I think his view, generally speaking, would not be enhanced by that kind of disruption in the Middle East, and he might take an action which would sell into a market which was already skittish and trending downward. LEHRER: Mr. Marron, what's your reading of that? The impact of the oil anxieties, as I called it, what it's doing or not doing to the market right now? Mr. MARRON: Well, I think the market overreacts on oil. The fact is, as you say, small changes in oil supply is not going to make a big change in this country. But the market always tries to focus on a few things that are simple. When they were in a time of particular anxiety, and we've had more than our share of anxiety in the last three or four days. I do think that what people feel, though, is the government has to do something. And I thinkour market would understand economic war much better than a real out and out shooting war. The idea of an oil embargo or something that has an impact on Iran from an economic point of view is what the market is looking for. I think what a lot of American citizens are looking for. But I think the market itself overreacts in the short term swings on oil. LEHRER: Yes, I guess you agree with that, right, Mr. Secretary? Mr. HERRINGTON: I would think that -- I agree with what these gentlemen say -- I would say that the biggest reaction would happen on the oil stock market, not on the common stock market, and I think that would be a true reflection. But I think it is very short term and it is psychological. LEHRER: Arthur Levitt, what do you think of the Secretary's idea of an oil embargo on Iran? Mr. LEVITT: I think it's a good idea. I might even carry it a step further and call for a tax on imported oil, as a matter of fact, both to stimulate our own producers here in this country. We can do it at a time when prices are much lower than they've been before, and I think it would be of great benefit in terms of our national defense effort. LEHRER: You mean the revenues that would be raised? Mr. LEVITT: Yes. I think it would be a revenue raiser. I think it also would tend to stimulate domestic production rather than importing from abroad. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, that very point Arthur Levitt just made has been raised just in the last two days as a result of the market problem. What's your position on that? Mr. HERRINGTON: I'm surprised to hear Art say that, because the study is in -- last February with the private sector input, and it shows a loss of 450,000 jobs and a decrease of $32 million in the GNP of the United States with a $10 oil import fee. It simply doesn't make sense to raise the price of energy artificially in the United States. And the oil import fee to me is an idea whose time has passed. Mr. LEVITT: When was it? Mr. HERRINGTON: Never. LEHRER: Mr. Marron, you wanta weigh in on this one? Mr. MARRON: Well, I'm not in favor of an oil tax. I don't think it would work first of all, and secondly, I think more importantly than that, we basically need a general review of our tax situation and picking out one thing to tax is neither fair, practical, nor would it work. We have a broad base of deficit problems in this country, as we all know. There needs to be a very careful review of them, and there needs to be a package of things offered to the American people, not a tax on oil. LEHRER: Mr. Levitt, you're outnumbered. Mr. LEVITT: Well, I think everything's going to have to come to the table. I think that we're going to be considering a whole host of revenue enhancers and it seems to me that an oil import tax would be a very useful kind of tax in that it does more than raise revenues. I think that it accomplishes a number of other objectives. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, finally, the President is speaking tonight, and he's going to be talking about these very general problems in the economy, etc. , and that the word out of the White House this afternoon is that everything is going to be on the table. If it's on the table that you end up sitting at sometime and something like an oil import tax comes up, what are you going to say? You're going to say forget it? Mr. HERRINGTON: I've worked for Ronald Reagan for 22 years. I'm his man. What he wants to do, I want to do. And he's a wise man, and an historic president, and I don't want to prejudge this one way, but I -- LEHRER: If he says Arthur Levitt's right and you're wrong, John, you'll say, ''Yessir. ''? Mr. HERRINGTON: I know what he's going to say on an oil import fee, and so I'm pretty confident (chuckle). LEHRER: He's going to say, ''You're right, John. '' Is he going to say that about all taxes, do you think? Mr. HERRINGTON: I just don't foresee a scenario -- now, look, I run an agency that has a $24 billion budget, and I've seen the fraud and waste that goes on in this process. And these gentlemen are quite right -- we have to get at these trade deficits and deficits in spending. But we must hit the hard decisions on government spending. We've got to get into some of these sacred cows, pork barrel programs. Raising taxes isn't the total answer. And the President said many times the problems are not because we are not taxed enough. And I'm with him. LEHRER: Okay. Mr. Secretary, thank you, Mr. Levitt, Mr. Marron, thank you both in New York. Battling Over Bork HUNTER-GAULT: The Senate spent a second day debating the Robert Bork nomination to the Supreme Court. Our special coverage is in the hands of Judy Woodruff. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: It was early this morning when the Senate resume its formal debate over Judge Bork, after statements went on late into the evening last night. And statements is a more accurate description than debate. Because so far, almost all the time has been taken up with one Senator after another reading lengthy, prepared comments. Today, with Bork's wife and son again looking on from the gallery, Bork's opponents insisted that the judge has been given proper consideration in the Senate, while his supporters accused his critics of waging a political fight. Sen. PHIL GRAMM, (R) Texas: We have had an effort to refight the 1980 and the 1984 election. Judge Bork has not been attacked because he lacks experience or because he lacks integrity. He has been attacked by exactly the same groups who opposed Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, who opposed Ronald Reagan's election in 1984, and they are trying to win in the Senate what they could not win at the ballot box. They are trying to prevent the democratic process from working in terms of the person who was elected as a conservative, as a strict constructionist of the Constitution. They are trying to prevent by redebating those issues a person who reflects his judicial philosophy from going to the bench. And the reason is that the American people through the election process have reflected in the appointment process, have started to change the direction of the Supreme Court. Now, I don't think this serves the process. I don't think that this serves the process, because we are seeing the injection of political debate into the confirmation process. UNIDENTIFIED CHAIRMAN: The Senator from Hawaii. Sen. DANIEL INOUYE, (D) Hawaii: Politics is an essential element in a democracy. No one has ever described the Russian Prime Minister as being a politician. Or members of the Politburo as being politicians. You don't find politicians in a communist country. You find politicians in a democracy, where men and women are able to stand up, debate, discuss and disagree. There's nothing evil in being a politician. Mr. President, the hearings were fair, just, open, candid, and very democratic. If this is what politicizing means, I hope that we continue to politicize all of our hearings. I thank you, sir. UNIDENTIFIED CHAIRMAN: The Senator from Wyoming. Sen. MALCOLM WALLOP, (R) Wyoming: Most within this chamber, virtually without exception, have conceded that Judge Bork is a powerful intellectual man of honesty, morality, integrity. Scholarly, legal and judicial credentials go unchallenged. Most who have met him like him. Most concede he is qualified by virtually every standard to which one can hold him. The more moderate of his opponents used to preface their statements and opposition with praise for the judge. If they argue that they fear he will turn back the clock on civil rights, that he does not concede equal protection to women, that he has not changed from his scholarly writings of 25 years, though all of these senators have changed from their writings of 25 years, or that he does not demonstrate the necessary, in their view, human kindness and sense of fairness or sensitivity of spirit, or that he is not predictable, the while predicting dire consequences from his nomination. Or that he lacks proper temperament, or that he doesn't understand the Constitution the way most Americans do, but Mr. President, these are not reasons for opposing the confirmation of Judge Bork, they're excuses. The junior senator from Louisiana said, ''This decision, Mr. President, cannot be a political decision, it cannot be a popularity contest, it cannot be decided by adding up numbers in a poll or merely counting the mail we receive. My decision must be based on whether this nominee is and of himself is, the right person for the job. '' Yet the Louisiana newspapers, including the Bill Platt Gazette, the day after the senator spoke those words on the Senate floor, quote him in the very political statement, ''Those who helped us get elected, black voters, are united in their opposition to Bork, and don't think for a moment we're going to ignore that. '' And the Washington Post on the same day ran a lengthy story on how the South was swayed, describing the senior senator from Louisiana, telling a meeting of colleagues, ''You're going to vote against the nomination, because you're not going to turn your back on the 91% of the black voters, and I know how you're going to vote, and you and you and you. '' A political decision, therefore, Mr. President, is what we have precisely before us. Surely, if this nomination turned on whether in and of himself, Judge Robert Bork qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, there would be nothing to debate. But regrettably, it is not the case.

WOODRUFF: Senator Bob Packwood, one of the few Republicans to oppose Bork, zeroed in on the controversial abortion issue and Bork's criticism of the hallmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which made abortion legal. Sen. Bob PACKWOOD, (R) Oregon: I was in the committee room in 1981 -- in it -- when Judge Bork testified on Senator Helms' Human Rights Bill, in which he said, ''I am convinced, as I think most legal scholars are, that Roe v. Wade is itself an unconstitutional decision, a serious and wholy unjustifiable, judicial usurpation of state legislative authority. '' Now, Mr. President, you had to be in the room. The cold transcript was not enough. You had to hear the passion. Mr. President, he hates that decision. He may think of all of the privacy cases, that is the worst, I don't know. That decision he hates. And he told me -- he may have said it publicly, he certainly told me privately -- had he been on the court at the time of Roe vs. Wade, he would have voted no. He would have voted with the minority. But I don't think that's news to anybody, I think he probably says that publicly also. So I've got to think to myself how would he come out on the privacy cases? How is his personal feeling? And I know the personal feeling from the passion about how much he dislikes that case. Well, his personal feelings affect the decision. And here I quote from what Judge Bork said in a California Law Journal in May 1985: ''No judge can completely get his own morality out of a decision, because the way we understand the world has changed unconsciously by our moral framework. '' (unintelligible), I think he's right. It's an unusual person that can so separate their feeling from their actions that their feelings can be utterly denuded, separated. It's like separating the spirit from the body. I don't think you can do it, and I don't think Judge Bork thinks he can do it.

WOODRUFF: There is apparently still no agreement on when the full Senate will finally vote, nor any indication that any of the majority who have declared against Bork will change their minds. Only four Senators have yet to declare which way they'll go. Breast Cancer Treatment HUNTER-GAULT: As we reported earlier today, First Lady Nancy Reagan left the hospital this morning five days after surgery for breast cancer. On Saturday, Mrs. Reagan underwent modified radical mastectomy, an operation in which the left breast and the left lymph nodes under the left arm were removed. The next day her doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital said that tests showed the malignancy had not spread, and that she had an excellent prognosis for recovery. The White House says Mrs. Reagan is taking her recuperation day by day. Like Nancy Reagan, nearly 130,000 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. But not all will make the same decisions. Here to talk about breast cancer options in the wake of this well publicized case is Dr. Samuel Hellman, chief surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Dr. Hellman, there have been a lot of signals sent since Nancy Reagan's breast cancer, some of which we have inadvertently sent ourselves. But let's take some specific points and try to clear up some of the confusion. Mrs. Reagan made the decision to go forward with her operation at the same time that she had the biopsy. Is that how most women do it? Dr. SAMUEL HELLMAN, Memorial Sloan Kettering: Well, it has changed very much over these last few years. First of all, I don't think we should talk about Mrs. Reagan, since neither of us know all the details. But in general, the feeling of doing an immediate surgery following the biopsy denies people the consideration of alternatives. Now that alternatives are available, we believe it's much better to do the biopsy, make the diagnosis -- now the woman understands it's in fact the cancer she has, not just a lump that might or might not have been a cancer -- and can focus on the question of what are the treatment alternatives. She must participate in the decision making. It's hard to do that when you're not sure whether you have a cancer or not. HUNTER-GAULT: The psychological effect of making a decision under that kind of pressure. Dr. HELLMAN: Exactly. And you kind of hope that it's not really a cancer, so you can't focus on the treatment alternatives. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, as to the operation itself, it's being reported that a lot of women are thinking that because Mrs. Reagan undoubtedly got the best medical advice that this is the best option, and probably many of them didn't hear the presidential spokesman say that this -- she's made this decision because she thought it was the best for her circumstance, or something like that. What's actually wrong with thinking that if Mrs. Reagan did it, then it's probably the best procedure? Dr. HELLMAN: I don't think there is a best procedure. Again, we don't know what went into her thinking, nor the individual details. There are two options available today for women with breast cancer -- early breast cancer. One is to do the removal of the lump itself, called a lumpectomy, and then radiation treatment to the breast. HUNTER-GAULT: That's one procedure. Dr. HELLMAN: That's one procedure, one thing. HUNTER-GAULT: All right, while we're on that -- what are the advantages and disadvantages of that one? Dr. HELLMAN: The most important advantage is it preserves the breast in a cosmetically acceptable way so a woman can return as close as possible to the way she was before the treatment. And that's a real advantage. The disadvantages of it are it takes a longer period of time. Not only do you have to have the lump removed, but you need the radiation treatment. And these could be from five to seven weeks of daily treatment. HUNTER-GAULT: And does that have side effects? Dr. HELLMAN: Not very many side effects, because the treatment itself is to the portion of the body outside the central portion, so it's not very difficult. The major issue in this discussion is that treatment has been around for a much shorter period of time than the modified radical mastectomy, which has a longer track record. Thus far, in all the studies reported, they are equivalent procedures. HUNTER-GAULT: Equivalent, you mean in terms of the survival rate and cure rate? Dr. HELLMAN: Exactly. HUNTER-GAULT: You usually track it in terms of five year periods? Dr. HELLMAN: Right. And that -- those data are out to about fifteen years. HUNTER-GAULT: The lumpectomy has been available for that long? Dr. HELLMAN: It's been available longer, but the real comparisons with enough patients and so we can get some information now -- HUNTER-GAULT: All right, you said there were two main ones -- the other being -- Dr. HELLMAN: The other being modified radical mastectomy, which is around longer. We know a lot about it, it's a good operation to remove the tumor, but it takes the breast in so doing it. And when it does that, you lose the advantage of being as close to normal as you were before. They both are equivalent best. We can tell in terms of the survival. But the consequences of them are quite different. HUNTER-GAULT: But of course there's reconstructive work done -- Dr. HELLMAN: Right. There's an opportunity for that -- for having reconstructive surgery. But reconstructive surgery may make you look somewhat better, but it's not yourself, it doesn't feel like yourself, and it isn't as attractive. HUNTER-GAULT: What other kinds of things that factor into those decisions -- every woman is different -- I mean, age -- is age a factor perhaps? Or marital status? Or what kinds of things -- Dr. HELLMAN: Well, there are two kinds of factors. The first kind of factors are the ones that make us advise more toward one treatment or the other. Certain tumors look to be better treated by mastectomy. Other tumors are very good for the lumpectomy approach. Those are medical questions. Okay? That doesn't mean you can't use the other treatment on it, but they do favor one vs. the other. Then there are the patient's consideration. And age is a very complicated one. Some women will say, ''I'm very young, and therefore I have a terrible amount to lose in losing my breast at a young age, when body image is very important to me, and so I'm willing to take some uncertainty beyond 15 years. '' On the other hand, those are the women who are really exposed to a long term potential, because they're going to live beyond 15 years. The 70 year old says to me, ''The data are perfectly good for me. Fifteen years, that's a lot of good data for me. '' So it's a complicated question, not easily answered. The marriage question, I don't think it has anything to do with it. Certain women are comfortable with the notion of the mastectomy, and other women are quite uncomfortable with it. Some women are worried to have their breast remain on for fear it might be harboring something that they can't feel. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you suggest to women who have these questions and confusions? Dr. HELLMAN: I think the most important thing is for a woman to participate in the decision. There has to be an arrangement so that this kind of discussion goes on between the patient and the doctor. Having that discussion, then I think the woman will feel that either decision, whichever one she chooses, the reasoned one -- neither of them are wrong -- it is just -- they're both acceptable -- what she feels better with. HUNTER-GAULT: Okay. We've gotten through this whole operation. What started this whole process is the mammography, which is the sort of super x ray that can detect things that normal x rays can't. Are there any points of confusion that you feel need clarifying about that? Dr. HELLMAN: There's a major emphasis here. The most important message I believe for the public is that this tumor was found before it was clinically apparent, before the patient could notice it or the doctor could feel it. That kind of tumor, found that way on mammography has the best likelihood for cure. In studies that have been looked at, about 30% fewer patients die of breast cancer if their breast cancers are found in that way. So it's a real encouragement for women to have routine screening mammograms. HUNTER-GAULT: But mostly over 40. Dr. HELLMAN: Mostly over 40, because that's when the incidents of breast cancer really starts to pick up. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, Dr. Hellman, thank you very much for being with us and clarifying some of those points. Joseph Brodsky LEHRER: And finally tonight, Joseph Brodsky, a man who writes poetry for a living. That poetry won for him the Nobel Prize for Literature today. Brodsky is a Russian who survived a Soviet labor camp and was exiled from his country in 1972. He came to the United States and became an American citizen. He spoke seven years ago on a Public Television interview with Dick Cavett, and here's a brief excerpt.

DICK CAVETT: Is any part of America like Russia? JOSEPH BRODSKY: Quite a lot, I must say. Visually, to say the least. The Mid West is actually quite like Russia -- and that perhaps accounts for myself feeling like kind of (unintelligible) expanse, yeah? And also in New England, which I like very much. Because it really looks like the area around where I was born and grew up in. CAVETT: You have a long poem about Cape Cod. By the way, people probably assume that you were writing poems about bringing down the government and so on, and your poetry is not political. Mr. BRODSKY: Well, it's somewhat more complicated -- you see because a writer -- a poet especially -- he employs usually a slightly different idiom than the state does, yah? And in that country, the kind of idiom of writing, for writing, it's a centralized state, that for all the outlets of information, newspapers, TV or anything, radio is concentrated in the hands of the state. And therefore, it creates kind of a -- it turns willynilly the entire nation into a readership, yah? And so therefore, when you do -- when as a poet you -- well, in order to be read, in order to compete, to say the least with the newspaper, you have to employ, resort to slightly different order of words, yah? Therefore, you're getting immediately noticed (unintelligible) comfortable station for the poet, because he's getting noticed by the public, by the readership. However, simultaneously he is noticed by those who oversee the literature. Professionally, a lot is at stake, yah? And then you're in trouble. And therefore they regard you, simply because you're resorting to a slightly different idiom, as -- well -- as possible opposition, or at least a linguistic opposition. So in that sense it becomes political. It's the -- CAVETT: You must assume that Russians read poetry in vast numbers. Mr. BRODSKY: I've heard ever since I arrived here Russians read a lot more than Americans. And poetry especially. I don't think that's correct. Because, first of all, the quality matters what they read, and also I don't think numerically it's sound, because -- for instance, the exposure of the population to poetry in the Soviet Union is not that higher -- for all I know, it may be even inferior, because every given night, poets read on campuses and in communities here -- well, lots of poets. Well, such a thing doesn't happen in Russia quite frequently. Poets -- that kind of activity. But given to reading -- resorts mostly to the big industrial centers, actually to two places, frankly, Moscow and Leningrad. A little bit in Kiev. CAVETT: What kind of forced labor did you have to do in -- Mr. BRODSKY: All kinds of things. Actually, it was kind of a hired man situation. I was working out North in the (unintelligible) and it was collective farm, state farm, and I was -- all sorts of thing -- clearing the fields from stones, which is pretty hard. The manure in the stables. Well normal agricultural activities, except that I wasn't used to it, and yet I liked it, because to me -- more or less, I knew a lot about Robert Frost and to me, I was kind of patterning myself in a sense -- CAVETT: From Robert Frost? Mr. BRODSKY: The (unintelligible) farmer, if you like -- And still I'm not a gentleman -- CAVETT: How many readers do you need to feel successful? Mr. BRODSKY: Three. LEHRER: Brodsky was having lunch at a London restaurant today when told of his winning the Nobel. He said, ''I don't really know what it means to me. What I hope it will mean to the people is they will get around to read Russian poetry, mine as well as other people's, because it is in terrific shape. '' Recap HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the main stories on this Thursday. Wall Street underwent another downer, with the Dow Jones falling 77 points. President Reagan is holding his first televised news conference in four months. Iran fired a Silkworm missile into Kuwait's main oil terminal. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.