The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. Good evening, and the headlines this Friday, President Reagan came home with good words about his European trip and the Senate's approval of a budget plan.

Secretary of State Schultz met with Israeli leaders to try and revive a Middle East peace move. 40 people died and 100 were injured and a wave of bombings in New Delhi, India, and wholesale prices went up for the second month in a row. Robin? Here's our rundown for the news hour tonight. After summarizing the news of the day, we focus on what President Reagan got and didn't get from the Senate on the budget and what he's likely to get from the House. Elizabeth Brackett takes us through the second day of the Johnson Webb rape appeal in Illinois, and Charlene Hunter-Gault examines the impact of 25 years of the birth control pill. The McNeil-Lera news hour is funded by AT&T, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and this station and other public television stations. President Reagan is back in Washington tonight after a 10-day trip to Europe. He called full and challenging.

It took him to an economic summit with fellow leaders of the industrialized free world to a German war cemetery in the site of a concentration camp to the European Parliament in France, to Spain, and finally to Portugal. Vice President Bush, Cabinet members in the White House staff, greeted him when he returned this afternoon, and Mr. Reagan had a few words about the trip, and the Senate vote this morning on a 1986 federal budget. We've had a fine trip, a full and challenging trip, and as I said this morning, a successful trip, and we've agreed returning home mission accomplished. I know you've heard that because there were a few demonstrations, some things might have been going wrong, but every time I noticed who was demonstrating, I felt reassured that we were saying and doing the right things. Well, we feel good about what's been done, and after every summit leader agreed that steady economic growth means each government getting spending under control, how sweet it

is to return with a 50-49 Senate victory role. Spending restraint and no tax increase, and thank them all for a budget resolution that moves Congress toward real spending restraint and significantly lower deficits. This was a courageous and a politically difficult action. In these discussions with our economic allies, concern was voiced that projected budget deficits threatened world economic growth. Well, this Senate budget resolution represents the savings of almost $300 billion over the next three years, and reflects the Senate's willingness to bite the bullet to help sustain our economic expansion. It's easy for some to attack individual elements of the Senate package, but I'm convinced that this was the only serious deficit reduction package that could pass the Senate.

Our commitment to America's security is determined by the threat posed by our adversaries. If we conclude that our national security is jeopardized, I will not hesitate to request and the Senate leaders have assured me they will consider supplemental funding for fiscal year 86. I know Americans agree with us that we must restrain the growth of this federal establishment. The Senate has made an important commitment to cut excessive spending. Now it's up to the House to do a good job reducing the deficit by cutting spending and not raising taxes, and we urge the House to pass a responsible budget resolution as soon as possible. The Senate budget vote was to trim spending by $56 billion. It does a lot of things Mr. Reagan originally did not want done by calling defense spending to the inflation rate increase, freezing social security costs to living increases, and not eliminating all funding for Amtrak, the Small Business Administration, and other federal

agencies on his hit list. The architects of the 50 to 49 vote victory were Senate Majority Leader Robert Dool and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici. I think it puts a lot of proper pressure. I don't mean political pressure, but pressure on the House, Republicans and Democrats to come up with a budget package. So that Senator Domenici can go to conference. I view it as a very significant step, and one that I think we should have taken. We are the majority party. We do have a Republican president, and I think Democrats could say, well, if you guys can't put it together, don't worry about us. You can see the trend lines on domestic spending changing over the next decade dramatically if this kind of fiscal policy is followed. Now there was no alternative other than to do that, unless you want $300 billion deficits, or unless you want to raise taxes on the American people anywhere from 15 to 30 percent. I mean, you can't get rid of that kind of deficit unless you change the policy, and the

way to change it is as we did it, or just raise taxes and take care of it. The Republicans passed their budget the only way that they could, and that was in the middle of the night. We're going to insist that the Republicans vote on the Social Security time after time until they keep their promise to the elderly people of this country and to all Americans. We move the budget story to the House, among other things, and our lead focus segment right after this news summary. Robin? The government today warned U.S. citizens to exercise extreme caution in traveling to Poland after the arrest and overnight detention of four American visitors there last week. State Department said the travel advisory was issued because of recent erratic and arbitrary behavior by Polish security officers in Krakow. On May 3, they arrested two members of a U.S. basketball team and a middle-aged couple and charged them with throwing stones at police. The U.S. said the charge was preposterous.

The Polish government claimed today that the U.S. and other Western countries were stepping up efforts to undermine Poland's stability. That claim came as parliament gave the court's new power to combat political dissent. Secretary of State George Schultz was in Israel today discussing possible peace talks with Palestinians, but Israeli officials sounded negative. Here's a report by Keith Graves of the BBC. Suddenly, what had been planned as a ceremonial visit had taken on a new significance, Mr. Schultz's first task was to sue the over Israeli anger and President Reagan's visit to the Bitburg Cemetery where some SS soldiers are buried. He was reminded of that anger when he went straight to Yad Vashem, the memorial in Jerusalem to more than six million Jews who died in the Second World War. Israel's defense minister has described President Reagan's visit to Bitburg as an historic mistake that Jewish people will not forgive him for. Mr. Schultz, by words and deeds that Yad Vashem, did his best to cool the anger.

But perhaps more important than smoothing ruffled feelings are the talks Mr. Schultz is having with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Perez and other ministers to try and get Israel and her Arab neighbors together around the peace talks table. The Americans have said that they will now meet with Palestinians, though not the Palestine liberation organization. Mr. Schultz has defined influential Palestinians who are not PLO members, no easy task, and sell them to the Israelis as representatives of the Palestinians as a whole. In India, Reuters reports that 40 people were killed and 100 injured in a wave of bombings in New Delhi and Northern India. Police blamed the violence on Sikh extremists. There were 13 bombings in the capital that killed 20 people, mainly on buses, and six died when a bomb blew up a train 50 miles from New Delhi. Kathleen Crowwebs stuck to her new story today, telling Illinois Governor James Thompson she lied six years ago when she said Gary Dotson raped her, Thompson, a former prosecutor,

pressed her on why she could not remember the details of her original story. I don't have a photographic memory, she said. Later Dotson's lawyer, Warren Lupell said Mrs. Webb had no reason to tell anything but the truth this time. I mean, how can you suggest that a woman who has been brutalized by a rapist and who is now a married woman living a thousand miles away with her husband and two small children, comes forth and suddenly says that the man who did that, I want him free so I'm going to start telling this lie. This two outrageous, it's just two outrageous, find me emotive. Don't suggest to me that she's a religious nut or don't suggest to me that she's mentally unstable or don't make all these other suggestions to me show me because there is no suggestion. You saw she was put in this chair for many hours.

If that doesn't evidence mental stability and intelligence and purpose that I don't know what does, you've got to be the judges of this but there isn't any evidence to suggest that she's being anything other than completely candid when she says I was not raped by Gary Dotson on July 9th, 1977 and unless I missed the point that's what this board has to decide was she raped by Gary Dotson on July 9th, 1977, nothing else. Nothing else is important. Mrs. Webb has joined with Dotson and asking Governor Thompson to pardon or otherwise free Dotson. Elizabeth Bracket will have a full report on today's hearing later in the program. In the other ongoing headline criminal matter, a judge in Providence Rhode Island today denied a motion to dismiss an attempted murder charge against socialite-class von Buolo.

Von Buolo is being retried on charges he tried to kill his wife with insulin injections which left her in a coma. Von Buolo's lawyers asked for the dismissal on grounds the prosecutors had withheld evidence from the defense during the first trial in 1982. Von Buolo was convicted then but an appeals court ordered a retrial on state constitutional grounds. In economic news, higher prices for gasoline and heating oil caused a small rise in wholesale prices in April. They went up three-tenths of a point, making a total rise of only seven-tenths of a percent in the last twelve months, meaning that inflation continues subdued at a wholesale level. Wall Street showed a strong rally today on news that the Senate had agreed on the deficit-cutting budget plan. The Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks went up nearly 14 points to close at 1274-18. It happened at 308 this morning the United States Senate with three of its members missing

began a vote on a budget deficit plan. The count showed 49 against it, 48 for it. But then came Senator Pete Wilson, a Republican from California, to cast vote 49 in favor. Wilson had had an emergency appendectomy. Wednesday night at Bethesda Naval Hospital still in a row and sitting in a wheelchair, he cast his vote. Vice President Bush then broke the 49 to 49 tie and the plan was passed. It cuts $56 billion from the deficit next year by increasing defense at the inflation rate only and freezing the Social Security cost of living increases for next year. It was a compromise worked out over a period of days and nights that also backed away from eliminating Amtrak, urban mass transit subsidies, the small business administration among other things. It now goes to the House, as does our focus tonight, with two House leaders, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Bill Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and Minority Whip and the Minority Whip, Congressman Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi.

Congressman Gray, can you support the Senate package that was voted on this morning? No, I cannot. I certainly cannot support a package which at the same time, and it's giving 4% growth to the Pentagon, is asking senior citizens to take $22 billion in cuts in Social Security and $16 billion in cuts in Medicare payments at the same time. I think it doesn't have the balance and the equity that's needed in order to build the kind of consensus in the House of Representatives that would make it viable. Congressman Lott, can you support it? Well, I would have some different priorities too, but I think the Senate has to be commended for moving this budget effort forward. The President took it to first base. The Senate has now moved it to second base. The question is, can the House keep it moving around the horn, so to speak? It won't be easy in the House because we have a different set of priorities too. But I think it's time that the House join the battle. We have our self-imposed deadline of May 15th when we're supposed to have a budget in place in the House.

We're not going to make it. At least now, the House is forced to begin to discuss and debate how we're going to deal with the deficit problem. What bothers you? Congressman Grace told us what bothers him, what bothers him. Well, I think the House Republicans generally are opposed to the proposal on Social Security, the freezing of the Social Security column. I take a little different view on defense, for instance, whereas he thinks that they didn't cut it enough. I think the Senate has gone below what I thought they would in defense, and I'm concerned that the House will take it even further. And really, we're in dangering national security if we start going to the types of levels he's talking about. And one other area, I think the Senate did a commendable job in dealing with programs that could be frozen or reduced, but they left some on the table that they should have cut or eliminated, preferably, as the President had proposed. And I've got a list of some of those, I think, we can still cut further. All right. We'll come to your list in a minute, but let's go back to the question of defense. How much more do you want defense cut, Congressman? Oh, I don't have a specific number. I'm talking about equity and balance, and I'm simply saying that as I look at what came

forward, I am finally happy to see that the Republicans, who are the majority party, who did get the mandate in November, after four or five tries have been able to come up with a budget and an economic prescription. Now that they have, we're going to move quickly as the loyal opposition, and that's why next week, we're going to have markup in the Budget Committee, and I'm hoping to be on the floor by the week after that in order to present an economic package, a budget resolution, which I hope can be bi-partisanly supported. With a freeze on defense spending? I believe that the key to getting a good deficit reduction package is to make sure that everyone has a fair share of the load. I don't see that. I've got to commend the Senate, though, really, for challenging the President on his original 7% request, as they did on the 12% request, as well as not cutting down some of the programs, which they refuse to cut down. I believe we're going to come up with a package that is going to be a package that will have higher deficit reduction than this package, and we will not have to penalize elderly

people at the same time. I'm here by sure. All right. I have one too, but go ahead. Well, how does he plan to do that? The answer is, I fear, as is always the proposal in the House, where as a matter of fact, they're not the loyal opposition, they are the overwhelming majority, is to raise taxes. I think that's what's cooking in the House. And it bothers me. Is that what's cooking in the House? No, it is not. There will not be any revenues in the deficit reduction package coming out of the budget committee. And the gentleman from Mississippi knows that. He and I have talked about it on several occasions. I've said that what we're going to try to do is come out with a spending cut package that is strong and is equitable and fair. And all I'm simply saying is that as I look at the package that's coming out of the Senate, it's a good beginning. I applaud Pete Domenici. I applaud Bob Dole for finally, after the fourth time, getting something together and not going to first, but even coming to third. And what we hope to do is bring it on in home. Now, might not be any taxes. Am I here in New Corrector when you say that if you're going to free Social Security,

you've got to freeze defense to or no deal? Well, I think that there are many people in the House who would feel that way. It seems to me, but I'm not saying that that's where we're going to come out. That's where they come out. Will you buy that? No. I am opposed personally to freeze in Social Security colors. I think that is generally the position of the Republicans in the House. I think we should look at reducing spending responsibly in the defense area and in the non-defense discretionary area and entitlement programs. So I don't think Social Security should be on the table. I have to say that. I just said that all year. I'm a question. He's asked me one. Let me ask him one. I'm supposed to freeze in Social Security, which is what the Republicans in the Senate did, and also $16 billion of cuts of Medicare. But at the same time, he's for greater spending in the Pentagon than what the Senate did his colleagues there. I would like to know how is he going to have a strong deficit reduction package with those two conflicting goals?

You can't be for everything in this business. You've got to be for one thing or the other. I think he's going to go to his list. You're right. You can't have all of your brothers. We've got to face some tough choices and decide on some priorities. I think one of the things that we've been missing lately is the way the whole debate has shifted. And I commend Bill Gray for that, because we're not now arguing over creating new programs or increasing spending in most programs. We're trying to find what the priorities are and how we can reduce the spending, reduce the deficit. President Reagan has fundamentally shifted the debate in what that is in our Congressman and the President. No, he's not. Nope. I would not disagree. What has happened is that President Reagan has become the biggest spender with the biggest debt, with the biggest deficits in American history. He has driven us to a situation where we now have deficits over $200 billion a year. And as he pointed out in his own speech, our total debt of this nation will be $1.8 trillion at the end of this fiscal year. When he took office, it was only 914 billion. Now, regardless of the fact that he did that to the country, through his spend, spend,

borrow, borrow, or buy-now pay later philosophy, the fact is that as a responsible representative, I've got the task of somehow trying to reduce that debt and those deficits before they hurt this economy, like the slow arsenic, they are in an economy, which is causing a strong dollar overseas, hurting our farmer, causing us to export over 3 million jobs last year with a record trade deficit of over $100 billion. So no, I am talking about this problem because he has created a problem. It's sort of like saying, well, you know, he cut off this gentleman's arm and now we're both working to patch it on. That's not how you see it. That's not how I see it. I think that the debate has fundamentally been changed, and we're trying to decide how we can control the deficits, but the problem has been this year in the Senate, and we'll be in the House as it has been in the past in the Congress. We like to create new programs. We like to prime the pump. And that's why it's so hard for us to reduce or eliminate programs, and the Senate lets them things on the table.

Amtrak, we're still going to have Amtrak going, and if you don't terminate some programs, if you look around in two or three years later, they're back up where they were. A small business administration was not terminated mass transportation operating subsidies. You go right down the list here. There are some places where we can find some additional savings in the House, but I want to emphasize here. I don't think that the chairman of the budget committee, Bill Gray, and I are as far apart this year as it might appear. We have been talking privately trying to see where there are areas we can agree, and I still believe, and I still hold out hope that when the smoke clears this year, it won't be a list of priorities that I necessarily totally like, or one that the bill would like, or the president. But I believe we're going to cut the deficit this year by $50 billion or more. That's important, and that's good. Congressman Gray, do you think things like Amtrak, the urban mass transit grants, small business administration, are going to stay where they are as far as, in other words, will the House pass a bill that also has them also funded? I think the House will pass a bill that will have them funded, simply because if you're

going to eliminate Amtrak in the president's right, we do give a $35 subsidy to everyone who rides Amtrak, but the fact is, we also give over $33 subsidy to everyone who flies in the plane. Now, if you're going to pick one, why don't you reduce the other? Why don't you look at both of them? And I think that's why the members of his own party in the Senate refused to eliminate certain programs. And I think that's the problem that we're going to face on the House, and I think working together what the debate is among Democrats or Republicans, if I might say, is not whether deficit reduction is needed. This president has created more debt than any other president in the history of this country. The issue is, how do we do it, what are the choices, since we don't have revenues on the table? And I'm simply saying that unlike the Senate, I am not willing to take $38 billion out of it in terms of senior citizens, which his party was willing to do. But you're saying, you're not going to support that either, right? I am not going to cut support personally if I have the opportunity under the procedure that

comes before the House, freezing social security coldest. I want to talk about how is it going to, where is it going to come from? Well, we're going to have to find, I didn't notice that, but I'll take your word. We're going to have to find some other places where we can have some savings, and I think there are some. But he says, no, he says, Amtrak is going to stay. Urban mass transfer. He's got a list of other places where we can make savings, and I'd like to look at his list, and we'll compare, and maybe there'll be some we can't agree upon, some we can't. But about on defense. Well, I want to talk about defense in a minute, because we just hit it very lightly. What worries me, again, I think the Senate did the best they could on a very difficult circumstances, that's obviously one by one vote. The freeze that they came up with bothers me because, if no other reason, what may happen now is the House is going to be reaching for a lower figure. That's traditionally what happens in Congress. The one body will go for a higher figure, and the other body will go for a lower figure, and then we go to conference and come out between the two. And I fear that now the House is going to feel compelled that since the Senate has already

come to a freeze, which is substantially more what the President asked for, not once, but a couple of times, figures above that, now we're going to go for a much lower figure, perhaps in the House, and I really do think we are at the point where important programs and national security are in jeopardy. Well, the Senate knew that when they passed that figure, they knew exactly what Trent Lott was talking about, but apparently the members of his own party in the Senate, very prominent people, people like Barry Goldwater, who no one could call a flaming liberal, certainly felt that we had to bring the budgetary scalpel of austerity to Pentagon spending as well. So I would just simply say that we are going to probably end up debating where we cut, how far we cut, where we fully fund, and I think the difference that you will find is that those of us who are Democrats will look at something like a $16 billion additional reduction in Medicare, remembering that they have been, which is putting an extreme burden on senior citizens, and at the same time with holding the cost of living adjustment is

a double hit, and maybe that's a little too much, not quite fair, and that's where I think he and I have agreement, and I think that we ought to perhaps even get together and maybe he will support the budget resolution in the chairman's mark that will be out next week. We'll see, don't go away, Robin. The Senate's treatment of the Reagan budget package was one of the things the political cartoonists dealt with this week. They tended to see it very much connected with the European trip in Bitburg. Here's a sampling. You lost the contra-aid vote, Bitburg was a disaster, and your budget is in shambles, so we brought in Billy Martin to replace you. It's a Reagan advance team. He wants to make an official visit to patch up relations. Excuse me, sir, I'm taking a poll. Could you give me a little of your background?

I'm conservative, registered Republican, graduated in the upper third of my class, make over $75,000 a year, and I'm deeply religious. What are your feelings about Reagan and Bitburg? He bit a bird. Well, I certainly support him on that, considering all the Nambi Pambi leaders we've had lately, it's nice to have a present with enough guts to bite a bird. Another yuppie. It's just a little case of the Jimmy Carter's that I expect a bounce back in no time. With us to assess the budget outcome politically and give us some insight into Mr. Reagan's way of seeing it, we have David Gurgen. He was communications director at the Reagan White House.

He is now a nationally syndicated columnist. David, first from picking up that last cartoon, is the president suffering from a small case of the Jimmy Carter's? Well, I guess there were those in this town who thought that prior to last night. He has been losing altitude. There's no question about that in this city. I mean, he had Bitburg, he had the contrified, he had some bumps along the way in Europe. But I'll have to tell you, I think with the budget victory last night that Reagan presidency pulled out of its nose dive, and I think it was a, well, he had to give up a lot in order to get there. He had to give up a lot on defense and on social security on some other issues. I think that it was an important victory for him, and I think it helps him politically. How can it call it a victory and be so positive about it, a budget that makes him accept things that he so adamantly oppose? Well, the critical thing here is that, yes, he did have to make some concessions, and I'm sure he was unhappy about the fans there. The word in Washington is it's Cap Weinberger is furious about it. But the, I think the critical point is this, had he lost last night, the budget process could easily have fallen apart.

That we would have had no budget this year, and then with the consequences, it might attend that in terms of the economy. There would have been some serious threats not only to the economic situation, but also to his presidency. So he put, he had to concede a lot last night. There's no doubt about that. But I think that he gains something back in return. He pulled himself out of his nose dive as I say, he's got a victory. I think it greatly enhances the prospects from this, as you just heard from this last dialogue. I think it greatly enhances the prospects now for his substantial package of deficit reductions this year, and it also clears the decks for his next major initiative, and that's tax reform. He hopes to go back on the offensive with tax reform. That's the issue that he thinks it will carry him through much of the next three or four years. It's an issue which he thinks will help to realign the country politically and a greatly strengthened Republican Party in the long run. Just let me understand what you're saying. Did he get a victory, or is he just calling a victory what was in fact avoiding a defeat? Well, as you might imagine, as you might imagine, concessions are often cast as acts of statesmanship when they're made in these circumstances. There's no question, I think, that on defense,

the president gave a lot more away than he ever wanted to. After all, he's saying, how painful is that at the White House, do you think, and in the defense department? I think it's very with him personally and with the Secretary. Let's remember, he started off asking for 6% real growth in defense. He then made a compromise to 3%. At 3%, he was calling for less than what Walter Mondale called for in the campaign. Now we're down to 0 in terms of real growth. The Democrats in the House, as we just heard, want to go blow even that. They've come along. The Democratic Party's going to even further multi-monndale than the president has. I think that from his perspective, he really had no alternative that he saw that the larger issue, the more important issue, the more immediate issue was to get this budget package together, move it over to the House, and get something done about these deficits. He can come back to the defense issue after all he's agreed to a one-year freeze. He's also agreed to 3% increases after that in real terms. He can come back also with this supplemental. I think he feels he can, even if he has a

pause now in defense, he's got the opportunity to continue his rebuilding program thereafter, and that's very important to him. The critical issue, as I say for him, let's get the deficits done this year. Is this the open window? Is this evidence that Mr. Reagan, in spite of all the seemingly ideological rhetoric, is basically a pragmatist? I think this is evidence that just as he was in the first term, Mr. Reagan is very much a realist. Someone who wants to work with the Congress, there is a pragmatic streak to him. There's no question about that. I must say too, his new team, his new staff, and Bob Dole had both been coming under fire here recently. I think they deserve a lot of credit for having put this package together and getting it through the Senate. This is something which is a substantial step forward from Reagan's perspective, even though we had to give up a lot to get there. Why is it a step forward to deliver this package into the hands of the Democratic controlled House, where the prospect is that he's going to face getting even less than he wanted,

or face even more destruction of the package? If the process had followed the part in the Senate, there would have been almost no incentive, frankly, in the House to get together and pass a package. The House, for better words, and I think they will change the package, as I think the dialogue, we just heard indicates that. The House is now in something of a political box. It has to move. It can't, with the Republicans in the Senate now having bitten a bullet on the deficits, the Democrats in the House have no choice, but to do something serious about the deficits. They cannot walk away from this problem now, because then, if they walk away from the problem, if there's no solution in the House, and the deficits remain out there, and the economy then goes down, the Republicans can turn around and say the Democrats in the House refuse to act, the deficits drove us into this recession, they're responsible, and the Republicans gain that issue. I don't think the Democrats want to leave themselves in that position. David Gurgen, thank you, Jim. Congressman Gray, are you in your fellow Democrats on a political box?

No, not at all. I just thought there was very interesting rewrite of history. In the last four years, the House Democrats have been first out of the box with a budget each one of those years, 81, 82, 83, 84. I think it's very interesting how people can turn a defeat into a victory, particularly this administration, and its supporters. I would point out that on this show, back in January, I predicted that his own party would not support the 12% growth that he was talking about, then, let alone in defense, and that they would not make the elimination. Right here in front of you, and it just seems to me, if anybody can claim a victory, it might be the Democrats who said back in February, Mr. President, your package is a balanced listen to your own party members who were telling you then, and that is why the Senate on the Dominican wrote a budget in March. And I would just simply say that we have been cooperating. This is the first time we've waited for the Republicans in the Senate to do a budget, and I believe that we are going to respond.

Congressman, is this a victory for President Reagan? What happened last night? I think it is. I think that, as I emphasize again, I mean, the debate is all on how we reduce the deficit, and we are concentrating on the budget issue, and it had to be moved beyond the Senate. So, yes, I want to agree with Dave Bergen that if it had not passed the Senate this morning, the whole process would have fallen upon as real jeopardy, and it still could get into that kind of condition in the House. Right now, I don't know where the votes are for any package, and I remind the distinguished chairman that just a few years ago, the House went through, I think, seven or eight budgets one time before we finally passed one. I've been worried all year so far that we might collapse in exhaustion in July or October of this year with no budget. How quick is this going to happen? I think it's very interesting that just this week, 40 members of Mr. Locke's party, and the President's party announced the budget was called a 90-second class budget, and it had an interesting time, something that we've been talking about the last three months, it's a balanced budget, and they were talking about having the balances

in that budget, they called for a B.A. freeze, not Democratic, a budget authority freeze, which would be about $10 billion below what the President approved today. So, the President has approved cutting defense spending substantially. His party has over the Senate, and 40 Republicans have come out just the other day, yesterday, with a budget that goes lower than what the Senate is done. How in the world could that be a victory, David Gergen? Well, I'm not trying to suggest that the elements of the package are a victory for the President clearly, they're not. I mean, let's discuss about the cap one burger. I mean, people today in this town, the rumor mill is running, you know, rampant today that the one burger mine was mine. Well, the one burger is reevaluating his position. I can't believe it. I don't think there's any chance to whirl frankly that he will. But that's the rumor you're saying. Well, sure, yeah, it is. And I think he was fails. What does he feel the President let him down? No, I'm sure he doesn't feel anything. I think he understands the President's position. I just think he feels that the whole build-up program, perhaps,

has been undermined and perhaps his credibility is suffered in all of this, his whole commitment to defense. But nonetheless, he's a, I think we have put that aside because I just don't think it's going to serious possibility. It does indicate the degree to which the President had to compromise here. So, sure, that's not a victory in that sense. But the important thing was what was always important from the Reagan White House's point of view. And from a political point of view was to get some budget out of the Senate that was large scale and would make a serious reduction in these deficits. Because that's terribly important to the future of the economy. You know, I've heard the defense area that I'm afraid that the Congress is running wild. I think we've become so consumed with all of the talking Washington about cut defense, cut defense, until now it's out of control. What if the President had originally come in and said, okay, Congress, I can live with a 3% increase. My goodness, we'd probably be at a 12% cut by now. And I mean, I'm very worried about that. Let me, we got to go here. Let me ask Congressman Gray a quick question. What is your timetable for when you think a budget will be out of the house?

Well, we're going to go to Markov, hopefully this coming week in the committee. And then, if we are successful in that Markov and finish and have a product at the end of the week, I will go to the Rules Committee and seek a rule to bring it up immediately the following week. I agree that we got the 20th. Yeah, I think that we ought to send a good strong signal that we can control these deficits. The issue is about how do we do it? What's the fair and balance way? And I think that we've got a lot of ideas on our side of the aisle and you're going to see them come out. And I think they're going to win some bipartisan support. Congressman Gray, Congressman Lont, David Gurgen. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Problem. Still to come and the news are tonight, Elizabeth Brackett has an extended report on the second day of the Dotsen web rape appeal hearings in Illinois. And Charlene Hunter-Galt examines the social and medical impact of 25 years of the birth control pill. Kathleen Craw Webb couldn't remember the details of her earlier rape story, but she maintained.

It was a lie, anyhow, and Gary Dotsen should be free. It was day two of the most unusual hearing to determine whether Dotsen does go free with Illinois Governor James Thompson, the man who must make that decision, asking the questions. Elizabeth Brackett has our focus report from Chicago. Holding hand with her husband, surrounded by friends and the ever present TV cameras, Kathy Craw Webb made her way back into the new state of Illinois building for a second day of testimony. Today, Illinois Governor Jim Thompson, a former criminal prosecutor, and other members of the Prison Review Board questioned Webb on inconsistencies in her previous testimony. Yesterday, Webb told the board she had scratched her stomach with a beer bottle, the night of the alleged rape. But sketches of marks on Webb's stomach draw on the night of the alleged rape by medical and police personnel conflict with Webb's description of her injuries. And I believe you testified that these marks on your abdomen were made by you with a piece of

broken glass in a darkened secluded place. Yes. And to form letters like that on your abdomen, the way you described it, you would have had to write in essence upside down and backwards. Is that right? I didn't know I intentionally tried to write letters on my abdomen. You did not write upside down and backwards. I was not trying to write letters. Today Thompson and the board were still concerned about the marks on Webb's stomach and about a large semen stain found in her underwear on the night web once claimed she was raped. Yesterday, the panel saw the head of the Illinois Forensic Laboratory describe that stain. The first two photographs are the front and rear of the inside of the panties, taken under visible light. And the stain will appear as a yellow or in the photograph, the yellowish brown stain. This portion of the crotch panel is entirely semen stain. Today Webb and her lawyer again explained to a member of the board the possible origin of that stain. I believe your explanation to that was that this probably was still the result

of the sexual experience that you had with your boyfriend several days previous. Is that correct? And the exertion involved in your job? Well, first of all, I didn't say it was several days before I didn't know whether it was a few days, whether it was the day before, whether it was four days before or five days before, could have been up to a week. But what I did say was that although I'm not an expert, my personal opinion is that seminal stain could have been on my panties from most definitely from David Burns, because that's the only one I was with prior to that. Dr. Stollerall did not examine these panties until eight years after the incident. I think that's important. I think it's important how those panties were stored, whether there was any heat, how they were pressed together, seems to be a significant thing. Things also significant that when Dr. Labrador testifies before you, it's my understanding that he will testify that there was absolutely no semen found on Kathy immediately after the incident. I can't understand

how so much could be on her panties and none on her body. So the inconsistencies about what happened to Kathy Crowell web on July 9th remain. But the critical question here has now become, no matter what happened to Kathy Webb on that night, Rose Gary Dotson involved. In an emotional plea to the governor and the board for a full pardon for Gary Dotson, his attorney Warren Lupell claimed that nothing links Dotson to Webb the night of the alleged rape. That there isn't a single stroke of evidence. I mean nothing, absolutely nothing that puts Gary Dotson in the presence of Kathy Crowell on July 9th, 1977. I don't care how many experts you listen to. You're not going to find it. If God's semen stains, what the semen stains is each of you know could belong to two-thirds of the white male population, 78% of the

non-white population. Yeah, it includes Gary Dotson, but nobody's going to convince me that puts Gary Dotson at the scene. Critical to Gary Dotson's guilt or innocence are his whereabouts the night of July 9th. Two friends of Dotson testified today that they were with Dotson on that night. But even their stories didn't make quite match. And I know I started to make dinner after it sounds silly, but the love board had been on for half an hour because I was watching it. And I got up and it was 8.30 and I started to cook dinner. Gary, Gary, and I did eat and I didn't add serve dinner until quarter after nine. You eventually left the house that night, right? Yes. What time? Approximately 8.30. And with whom did you leave? With Bill and Gary Dotson. But Lupel says, despite the time discrepancy, the critical fact is as many as five alibi witnesses say Gary Dotson was with them

the entire evening of July 9th. And Lupel again appealed to the board for a full pardon for Dotson. And people do get wrongfully convicted. It happens. We'd like it in that too, but it happens. Give me a reason and tell me why you won't grant Gary Dotson a pardon by a reason of innocence other than what you think or feel or have a hunch about. None of those reasons are valid to deny him the right. Think instead about the destruction of this man's life and the agony, the pain, the torture of an innocent man, 20 years old being wrongfully accused in a 22 being sent to the penitentiary in the prime of his life. Think about that. Let your heart, your guts, and your brains think about that and not about anything else that you might have heard or read about. Think about the substantial likelihood that he's innocent. Think not about the fact that he was a wild kid or that he got into trouble or he wasn't the kind of kid that you like.

That's not the point. The point is that he raped Kathy Crawlin, July 9th, 1977. Think about that. At report by Elizabeth Brackett, The Dotson Clemacy Hearing, continues tomorrow. The last two weeks have been full of anniversaries, most of them celebrating the end of wars in Europe and Southeast Asia, but yesterday there was a very different kind of anniversary, one some considered just as historic. Charlene Hunter-Gault has details. Robin, it was exactly 25 years ago that approval of the birth control pill touched off a revolution in the United States. Since then, the pill has been credited or blamed for everything from the sexual revolution to the advances of women in the workplace. When the pill was first introduced by a team of scientists led by Dr. John Rock of Harvard, it was hailed as a medical

breakthrough, giving women unprecedented control over their reproductive cycles. But by the late 1960s, evidence of serious side effects began to mount, including an increased risk of stroke and cancer. Still, over 100 million women worldwide have used the pill, and more recently, scientists have turned up some unexpected benefits. But the debate, as well as the revolution, the pill set in motion continues. As we see now with one of its defenders, Dr. Estelle Raimi, a professor of physiology at Georgetown University Medical School, and one of the pill's earliest critics, Barbara Seaman, author of the doctor's case against the pill. Starting first with you, Dr. Raimi, in retrospect, how important was the development of the pill? I think it has to be rated as possibly the most important breakthrough in terms of the ability of women to function, in the way that men have functioned since the beginning of evolution of the human species.

In the sense that, for the first time, large numbers of women, huge numbers of women, were able to control their fertility. They were not handicapped by unwanted pregnancies to the degree that women always have been, and that meant a totally different perspective for women in terms of what they might possibly do in the world outside of motherhood. But there were other contraceptives available. Why did the pill make so much? Well, let me point out what the situation was 25 years ago. The situation was the availability of really two barrier methods, the condom, which was really under the control of the male, and the diaphragm with spermicide. Now, the diaphragm then and now has remained a pretty much a middle-class technique used largely by people with stable sexual relations, because it must be inserted somewhere very close to the time of sex, which makes it a very difficult kind of procedure

to use unless it is a stable relation. There's one other thing that I think should be set about the 1960s at that time. If a woman wanted to be sterilized, which is now the most common kind of contraceptive device or technique used in the world, if she wanted to be sterilized, it required the consent of three physicians who agreed that it was medically indicated, plus her husband, plus she had to fit what was known as the 120 rule. She had to be her age times the number of pregnancies and children she already had had to equal 120 before they would agree to sterilization. So what was available to women was essentially the diaphragm and nothing much else, and the diaphragm has never been a technique with universal application. All right, let me see Ms. What's your sense of the impact of the pill on society? I agree with Estelle Raimi that the pill created an illusion of freedom for women, and I think she said an illusion. Well, I considered

an illusion. I think that it was important in that it made many women aware that they could control their fertility. The idea that there was a universal contraceptive. However, as it turned out, what women really got from the pill was they got blood clots. They got depressions. They got cancer of the cervix. They got sexually transmitted diseases. And men gave up the condom. And the truth is that side effects are so common that it's very hard to find a woman who stays on the pill for her whole reproductive lifetime. Most women give it up within two or three years, and most women give it up because of side effects. And since you wrote your book, the case against the pill, you don't feel that the efforts to make the pill safer have been effective. I think that the situation with the new pills is very confusing. There was a recent issue of medical letter which

is research report to physicians, which I trust very much, which said, and this was just a few months ago, that there is still no evidence that the new pills are safe. My impression, I get a lot of mail for women because of my reporting in my books. And of course, I'm a biased observer in that a woman who likes the pill is not going to write to me. The woman who writes to me is a woman who has a tragic story to tell. So you just don't see it as the bright picture that Dr. White is. No, I think that side effects may have changed slightly with the new pills. They have cholos, estrogen in them. And as a result, there seems to be perhaps less in the way of certain minor side effects like weight gain, nausea. However, there seems to be more of certain other side effects, such as depression and particularly breakthrough bleeding. One of the tragedies about the new pills that are being so promoted to women is that, in fact,

women get off them even faster than they got off the oil pills because they wreck havoc with a woman's menstrual cycle. What about all those things she just mentioned, Dr. Raimi? Do they concern you at all? Of course I'm concerned. I'm concerned with the fact that we don't do enough research on all women's ailments and problems, but I would like to correct some of some of the suggestions that Barbara has made. Barbara played a very important role in alerting women and the medical profession as well to some of these side effects. If you look at the statistics that have been gathered both here and in the United Kingdom and, in fact, in all of Western countries, they don't bear out the whole concept that the pill has been seriously damaging to women. For example, our own Center for Disease Control down in Atlanta has recently issued several reports on the pill. If you look at the number of age-adjusted deaths from myocardial infarction and

these other diseases associated with the pill, curiously you find no increase in women on the pill or off the pill. What you do find is that women who smoke and who are over the age of 38 and take the pill have a higher incidence of disability. Let me just see if that's what you, is that that is true. However, the only side effect that seems to have been reduced because now women who are under 30 or 35 because women who are over 30 or 35 and who smoke or being advised not to take the pill is hard attacks. Women are being led to think that if they're under 30 or 35 and they don't smoke, it's safe for them to take the pill. That is simply not true because they're still getting blood-clots. They're still getting liver cancer. They're still getting strokes back in range. They're still getting depression. In the past two weeks, I just have to tell you this because it makes me so sad. I heard from two young women, one of whom was 24-year-old non-smoker who had a stroke and another of whom was a 29-year-old who had cervical cancer which

metastasized. It happens to you, Charlene, it's 100%. They can play all the games they want to with statistics but when there's a real live woman who's been seriously damaged by the pill and there are millions of them out there who have been. That's why pill use his drops so much because women have learned to trust with their friends, tell them what their neighbors, tell them what their mothers and sisters, tell them about their experience. The incidence of many other ailments and women has actually decreased in those women who are on the pill. For example, ovarian cancer, which is a disastrous cancer, perhaps one of the most serious of the reproductive organ cancers, is significantly reduced the longer the woman stays on the pill. What about the points that she made, the ones that she says are not reduced and account for a significant drop in use of the pill? Women who are not using the pill have about 58,000 hospitalizations per year in this country for various things associated with the reproductive system. The figures from the CDC show that

women who are using the pill have 9,400 hospitalizations, which means that there is a tremendous reduction. Now why is that so? Young women, for example, are very susceptible to pelvic inflammatory disease who are sexually active. That is markedly reduced by women who use the pill. There are a whole series, there are a whole series of other ailments that are reduced. Now excuse me, I think Ms. Seaman is saying that's just not true. That is very controversial and I don't think that you saw the latest studies in the last few weeks, which claim that the CDC findings are incorrect and that there's a great increase in climatia among pill users and in pelvic inflammatory disease. And I must say that it seems to me from reading those studies that they were comparing pill users with IUD users. Now IUD users have even more infections in pill users too, but if you compare pill users to women who are using barrier methods, they have a lot more

infections. The condom and even the diaphragm and poems help protect against infections, as we all know, but the condom particularly. And your pool pooling of the diaphragm made me very sad because in fact the barrier methods, as you know, is still, work very, very well if you use them every time. And the importance to persuade people not to leave them in the night table drawer, not to leave them in the purse, but to use them. I would like to establish one aspect of my attitude on this. I don't believe that we have a very good contraceptive procedure yet, and we need a lot more research. And I'm not indicating that any woman who becomes ill on the pill is a trivial matter. What I'm saying is we have a choice to make if a woman does not use the pill or does not use some of these other techniques, and we know certainly that there are many, many women, particularly younger women, who will not use the diaphragm method. And it has many,

many obstacles to their use. Certainly we should encourage them. As far as the condom is concerned, any barrier method is safer. Not having sex at all is the safest way to avoid many of these things, but it's obviously not going to happen. When you look at what we need to do to protect women right now against pregnancy, those women most susceptible to becoming pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant are probably the youngest women, and those young women have practically no other alternative that they will use other than the pill. Let me just get a brief response from you this evening. I think it's dangerous to give very young women the pill, because if you give a woman the pill before her menstrual cycles are fully established, and often that doesn't happen until 1820-21, she is in the group that's most apt to be made sterile by the pill. And that's a very, very sad side effect. Dr. Raymond, I don't believe the evidence supports them. Sorry, Barbara. You don't, okay. We don't have time for the rest of this debate. Let me just ask you briefly, Dr.

Raymond, how long do you expect this debate to continue? Well, not this one, but the debate over the pill. What's happening now, and we didn't have time to discuss why some of these problems occur with the pill, is a real breakthrough that may come in the next two or three years in terms of the use of steroids, as well as other other devices, but in the meantime. In the meantime, up until the time the implants are available, and I think that will come, and we have very good evidence that that will improve the situation dramatically. We need to use the pill for those women who will not use other devices. All right, well, I'm sure you don't agree totally with that, but we'll vote for those women who don't use other devices. And I do agree. I knew I couldn't completely disagree with someone I admire as much as a stalemate. Well, that's wonderful. We have to leave a lot of choice for those who can't use the safer methods on that note of agreement. We do have to leave. Thank you, Ms. Seaman and Dr. Raymond, for being with us, Jim. Again, the major news story is this Friday, President Reagan returned from his European trip. He said it was full in challenging and he praised the Senate for passing a budget deficit plan out of this morning. Secretary of State Schultz met

with Israeli officials in the attempt to get Middle East peace talks underway with the Jordanians and Palestinians, and wholesale prices jumped last month for the second month in a row. Good night, Robert. Can I, Jim? That's the news hour of tonight and this week. We'll be back on Monday. Good night. The McNeil-Lera news hour is funded by AT&T, reaching out in new directions, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and this station and other public television stations.