The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The major news of this day happened in Alaska, where a U.S. president and a pope met and exchanged messages of peace and friendship. Also today an angry Reagan administration official said U.S. auto executives have ruined their own chances for protection from Japanese imports. And the three Democratic Presidential candidates moved on to Texas after two more primaries where everyone except Gary Hart had something to cheer about. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: On our NewsHour tonight we'll examine several stories, starting with that latest ruckus brewing over import quotas on Japanese cars. We'll also look at why the devastating war between Iran and Iraq just goes on and on. In our final series on people and places along Route 3, we'll witness a family feud on an unusual battleground, and we'll find out about a little girl who grew up to be the first lady from Plains, a talk with Rosalynn Carter.

President Reagan capped what he called his mission of peace to China with a meeting today with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska. The northern crossroads meeting occurred as the President returned from his six-day journey to China, and as the Pope began a tour that takes him to South Korea and Thailand. The Vatican sought to downplay any political benefits that might accrue to Mr. Reagan in his re-election bid, saying the session was at the President's request. Mr. Reagan had stayed overnight in Alaska in order to be available for the Pope's refueling stop. A crowd of about 10,000 turned out in a freezing rain for the greeting ceremonies on the airport tarmac. It was the second meeting between the two leaders, the first one since the U.S. and the Vatican established formal diplomatic relations this year. In a cordial exchange of remarks, both men spoke of the pursuit of world peace.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: But no one knows better than Your Holiness that the quest for human rights and world peace is a difficult, often disheartening task. In the face of turmoil and tragedy in our world we must always remember the central message of your own ministry, that the quest for peace begins with each of us. We must never underestimate such efforts. Far more can be accomplished by the simple prayers of good people than by all the statesmen and armies of the world.

Pope JOHN PAUL II: To achieve this aim requires a constant openness to each other and the power of each individual and group, an openness of heart, a readiness to accept differences and an ability to listen to each other's viewpoint without prejudice.

HUNTER-GAULT: After the arrival ceremony the President and the Pope went inside to a specially designed airport lounge, where they met for about half an hour on a range of foreign policy issues. Secretary of State George Shultz, meanwhile, has made stops in South Korea and Japan to brief officials there on the China visit. Jim"

LEHRER: There was agreement, disagreement and, as always, more discussion over Central America in the House of Representatives today. The agreement came on the Contadora peace effort. The House voted 416 to zero on a resolution backing efforts of Panama, Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia to negotiate a regional agreement. The disagreement came in the House Appropriations Committee. It voted no to an administration request for more military aid for El Salvador. Committee Chairman Clarence Long, Democrat of Maryland, said the aid bill can wait until after El Salvador's new president is inaugurated in June. Some Republican congressmen said they will try to restore the funds when the aid bill comes to the full house. The discussion came when a State Department official testified before a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee. Undersecretary of State Langhorne Motley defended administration policy in Central America and expressed his dismay over the way Congress is dealing with requests for Central America aid.

LANGHORNE MOTLEY, asssistant secretary of state: I am evidencing to you an element of frustration of trying to get some of the wherewithal in which to attack this problem or be told, "Forget it, there is no economic assistance, there is no military assistance." As they say, I believe Murphy's Fourth Law is "to delay is the deadliest form of denial."

Rep. GERRY STUDDS, (D) Massachusetts: You've had a series of questions from a variety of members, myself included, that in one way or another applied to the on-going series of exercises -- joint exercises -- between the armed forces of the United States and those of Honduras. When is this series of exercises scheduled to terminate?

Sec. MOTLEY: If you were to ask me when would the exercises in Europe with NATO terminate, I couldn't give you the same answer, because exercises are planned and then announced, then taken -- and then take place. And this is a continuing effort. Exercises in Central America is nothing new. Twenty years ago today I personally participated in exercises not only in Honduras but, interesting enough, one in Nicaragua. So, I mean, we've been at this game for a long time, and where there is a U.S. stategic interest you can expect to have a military exercise for a long time to come.

Rep. STUDDS: Bearing in mind that answer and your answer to Mr. Barnes, how would you define the word "indefinite"?

Sec. MOTLEY: Oh, I think the word speaks very much for itself. It's a continuing process. It is not a permanent presence.

LEHRER: Motley was also asked about the possibility of a military coup in El Salvador after Sunday's run-off presidential election. He said there are no signs of any such activity. And there was an inside-outside debate over steel quotas today at the Capitol.Speaking inside was the secretary of commerce, the U.S. trade negotiator and the head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, each opposed to the steel industry's demand for import quotas. Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige said the quotas would give the steel industry a false sense of security. Outside, steel workers signed an unusual petition in their effort to get a quota bill passed. They're supporting an effort to limit imported steel to 15% of domestic needs for the next five years. More than 140 congressmen have co-signed the pro-quota bill. Three explained why.

Sen. ROBERT BYRD, (D) West Virginia: A long list of nations has been violating the trade laws of the United States by dumping government-subsidized steel into the American market at cutthroat prices. The result has been increased unemployment in the American steel industry.

Sen. JOHN HEINZ, (R) Pennsylvania: While the auto industry was having the best year in its history last year, the steel industry had its worst year, and that's because of dumped and subsidized foreign competition, and that problem continues to this day.

Rep. JIM WRIGHT, (D) Texas, House Majority Leader: Ours is the only major industrial nation on the earth which does not heavily subsidize its exports, particularly its prime exports of such vital ingredients as steel. I don't think there's a question on earth that, if we put our minds and our imaginations to it, American industry can be supreme once again in the world. Should Quotas Go?

LEHRER: A Reagan administration official had some tough words today on another kind of import quota, those on Japanese cars. U.S. Trade Representative Bill Brock served notice on U.S. carmakers to forget it. After the current quotas expire next year there will be no more. Brock said the U.S. companies blew it themselves by paying their executives unbelievable bonuses this year. He pointed to General Motors paying out $181 million in bonuses to its executives, Ford Motor Company, $80 million. "I don't understand how they can pay these bonuses and wages and then ask the government to provide them with protection," Brock told reporters. The Japanese, under pressure from Brock and others in the administration, agreed to a four-year voluntary quota system in 1981, which is now 1.85 million cars a year. It was done originally to help the then-financially troubled U.S. auto industry, now recovered. There are few except those in the auto companies who defend the bonuses and the import quotas. Both Ford and Chrysler do, but they would not play with us tonight. General Motors have already said the quotas need not be extended. But the restrictions on the Japanese do have other defenders, among them Senator Dan Quayle, Republican of Indiana, a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.

Senator, are the quotas still justified?

Sen. DAN QUAYLE: Well, I think that they are, and I certainly share Bill Brock's outrage and indignation at the exorbitant bonuses paid to these executives. But I think we need to put it in perspective, that the voluntary restraint agreement which was put in effect back in 1981, not only to help out the auto industry in a period of very bad times, but also to recognize a tremendous trade imbalance that we have with Japan. Japan's deficit -- Japan's surplus in trading with the United States on a bilateral basis today is $19 billion. Almost 40% of our total trade deficit comes with Japan, and I believe that the auto situation ought to be taken into its entire package. That's why I really disagree in the remedy that Ambassador Brock puts forth, to do away with the import quotas. I think that we've got to look at the entire trade picture with Japan. They stop our products going in there; they've denied us to our agricultural products, they denied us on communications, they denied us on timber. They've even denied us trying to get baseball bats into the country of Japan. And this ought to be a two-way street. If we're going to have free trade, it out to be fair.And I don't think it is fair right now, and I think that's one of the reasons that the import quota legislation was put on, and I think right now that that's the reason that we ought to continue it.

LEHRER: Not necessarily to continue to protect U.S. auto industry from Japanese competition? You don't think that reason still plays?

Sen. QUAYLE: Well, I think that the protection part of it was in fact to help the auto industry get back on its feet. I think originally it was anticipated to take about five years for the auto industry to begin to recover. Obviously they've made very great gains, and maybe it's only going to take two or three years.But I'm not willing to give up something that has in fact worked, and I'm also not willing just to sort of kiss goodby the U.S. auto industry, because I think that the Japanese are certainly laying back and if, in fact, we just sort of do away with it, they'll say, "Well, we have a one-way street with the United States. We'll go ahead and pump all of our exports in there," and what does that leave to jobs in this country? What does that lead to our trade balance, and what does that say about the overall economy of the United States? And I think that we have had a fairly good working relationship with this voluntary. It's not done by Congress like what the steel is talking about. It's done on a voluntary basis.It has worked and I think it's been effective.

LEHRER: But it really wasn't a voluntary, was it? I mean, wasn't it pretty much -- didn't Brock have to sit down -- in fact, we did a program at the time that he came that close to admitting that he sat down with the Japanese and said, "You either do it voluntarily or Congress will do it for us."

Sen. QUAYLE: Well, I think that that corollary applies today, that if we don't have some sort of a voluntary restraint agreement, if we don't deal with the trade issue on a voluntary basis, what is the answer? Is it going to be mandatory quotas by the Congress? Is it going to be domestic content legislation that's being talked about by the Congress? Are we going to get the Congress involved in all the trade issues? Or is the executive branch -- as I think is the proper function -- going to take the lead in this and get a more equitable balance of trade? And I don't think we have a fair free trade policy being articulated today and its full enforcement.

LEHRER: What do you think of the fact of Ambassador Brock's making this statement so strongly today?

Sen. QUAYLE: Well, obviously, as he said, he's sending a message, and I certainly hope that the message has been received, because it's very ill-timed to have these huge bonuses come out right before they go into negotiations with the union. I can imagine what the union leaders and the union membership in Indiana is saying tonight, looking at these exorbitant payouts there.And it's really somewhat indefensible, and obviously that there is not too much of a defense; otherwise they might be here discussing it here tonight.

LEHRER: But for those --

Sen. QUAYLE: But that's a different issue --

LEHRER: I know, but --

Sen. QUAYLE: -- than the voluntary restraints.

LEHRER: -- does what they have done put you all who support the quotas in a difficult situation?

Sen. QUAYLE: Well, let me tell you, it's not helpful to have that kind of action. I'll be the first to admit that.

LEHRER: Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Someone else who will probably admit it too is our next guest, where some of the most vocal opposition comes from. It comes from consumer groups that worry about the effects on the carbuyers. We get that view now from Ralph Nader, a leading consumer activist and director of the Center for the Study of Responsive Law. Mr. Nader, briefly, why do you oppose the auto quotas?

RALPH NADER: Because the auto quotas simply raise auto prices. Auto prices have given an increase of 40% since 1980 -- twice the rate of consumer prices generally. They lead to enormous gouging of consumers who are paying $5 billion more a year for new car prices, and are paying higher prices for used car prices --

HUNTER-GAULT: How does that --

Mr. NADER: Finally, when new-car prices go up, usually the used-car prices also go up. And it's not very good for workers because the auto companies are not taking these massive profits and passing them on later in terms of lower prices to consumers. They're keeping them for themselves, especially the executives. This will leave the autoworkers to ask for more, naturally, because the auto executives have gotten so much more. This will lead the auto companies to demand the continuation of the Japanese import quota, and the Japanese and the U.S. auto companies love it because it ends up with a kind of auto price cartel. Both the Japanese auto companies and the U.S. auto companies are making out like bandits, and they are competing less and less over price. So the workers are not getting the jobs because there are fewer cars sold, and the consumers are paying through the nose.

HUNTER-GAULT: Can you give me some example or some idea about the kind of prices that the consumers -- the leap in the prices that the consumers have had to pay since the imposition of the quotas?

Mr. NADER: Yes. The average price of the Japanese car has gone up about $1,100. That doesn't count the premium that some Japanese cars are selling at over sticker price, sometimes one to two thousand dollars. U.S. car prices have gone up 40% since 1980. That's double the general price range. And what you're seeing here is something very interesting. You're seeing the development of collusion based on this import quota between the Japanese auto companies who are selling more expensive cars at a price $1,500 higher than the cars they're exporting to other countries in the world where there are no similar quotas. On the other hand, you're seeing General Motors, Ford and Chrysler making enormous profits and not passing the benefit of the Japanese auto import quota on to the consumer. Finally, look at this statistic. In 1978, the U.S. auto companies made $2 billion less than they made this year, even though they sold 2.4 million cars more in 1978 than in 1983. So what's happening is that the consumers are getting ripped off, there are fewer cars being produced. Used-car prices are going up, fewer workers producing cars, and the General Motors-Toyota combine laughing all the way to the bank.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what do you say to Senator Quayle's point that this has to be seen, the whole issue of quotas, has to be seen in a larger context, that the total picture trade balance between Japan and the United States is unfair?

Mr. NADER: Well, there are unfair trade practices that the Japanese have hurled against our exports, to be sure. But you don't deal with these practices by skewering American consumers and developing an auto industry that makes exorbitant profits selling fewer cars, thereby employing fewer workers. What you do is you look at the end dollar differential, you look at the differences in productivity between the two companies -- the two industries in the two countries, and you try to get better products out there. I mean, the way GM can beat Toyota is to give the American people a better product at a better price, a safer product, a more fuel-efficient product. We can't allow this kind of protectionism to go on and let the American consumer be ripped off while 150,000 autoworkers will probably never get their jobs back.Walter Reuther, right after World War II, urged the auto companies to lower their prices, to sell more cars, create more jobs. And 20 years ago Walter Reuther said at a conference in Italy there should be an international autoworker wage standard, a uniform standard. That's what the UAW's got to start looking for -- the more basic approach. This approach will only lead to a higher inflation spiral and more protectionism for fat General Motors.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Jim?

LEHRER: Senator? Other than that he thinks they're a great idea. What do you say to his basic thing that everybody -- quotas help everybody except the U.S. consumer, who is paying through the nose"?

Sen. QUAYLE: Well, I think -- let's look at the consumer, the consumer that make the argument that in fact they're paying more for an American car vis-a-vis a Japanese car. The Japanese --

LEHRER: He says they're paying more for both.

Sen. QUAYLE: They're paying more for both because of the quotas.

LEHRER: That's right. That's your position, right?

Sen. QUAYLE: You're saying that they are paying more. I'm not going to dispute the fact that the price of automobiles have gone up, but you have to look at what has happened. During '81, '82 and the first part of '83, we reduced capacity. We were in a recession. There was not a lot of consumer purchasing. As a matter of fact, to entice the consumer to go out and to purchase, there were a lot of discounts, there were a lot of very favorable rates. Now that we have some money, we've had an economy that's expanding, there's a pent-up demand, and also, as Mr. Nader points out, there's fewer cars today being made in America. Well, the reason there's fewer cars made in America is not only because of the recession but because of the tremendous amount of imports that had come into this country. And I believe that the auto industry has done some right things. They have reduced the capacity, they have gotten some givebacks and there has been some giveups in the contracts in the past. But I think that the consumer -- you've also got to look at the entire American people, and the auto industry is really intricately related to the entire economy. Every recession that we've had in the past two decades, the leader of the decline has been the auto industry. Now, we feel it in the Midwest first, and when that starts to go there is a ripple effect, and the ripple effect carries out through the whole country. And I believe that we've got to have an auto industry. I think it's very important to have that industry. I think that in the total balanced picture that the voluntary restraint agreements have worked, and you get back -- and Mr. Nader also mentioned the value of the yen versus the dollar. The dollar is either over-valued or the yen is under-valued by about 25%.

Mr. NADER: If that's a legitimate thing you put a tariff on so you keep the Japanese competing in the marketplace rather than putting a freeze, which of course also benefits the auto companies. You see, what triggered all this, it was the greed of the auto executives. For example, you must know this figure, Senator. The auto executives -- the top auto executives earned 30 times more than the assembly line worker in the U.S. The top auto executives of Toyota and Datsun earn about seven to nine times more. In other words, the auto industry rots from the head down. When they set such an atrocious example, how is anybody going to say to the autoworker, give back, don't ask for more in the July negotiations. It's difficult, and the key has got to be responsibility at the top of the auto industry. Roger Smith at General Motors, Caldwell of Ford, Iacocca at Chrysler. They have got to restrain themselves.

Sen. QUAYLE: I don't dispute that we have to have responsibility in management, you have to have a responsibility in labor.But if you wanted to go ahead and put a tariff on, well, that's fine. That's similar to an alternative to a voluntary restraint agreement. Go ahead and put a tariff on. People are going to be paying a lot higher price, so therefore the consumer argument's going to fall flat, that they really are in fact paying more for the car because it is unfair trade that's coming into this country in the first place.

Mr. NADER: Just for the differential on the end dollar --

Sen. QUAYLE: You make the differential 25%. That comes out about $1,500 per car. That's what we're talking about.

Mr. NADER: It isn't that high, but the money -- my money at least goes into the Treasury to try to reduce the deficit rather than go into the pockets of the auto executives. Secondly, it'll allow competition to continue whereas an import quota freezes it and drives all prices up.

Sen. QUAYLE: I think our auto industry is far more competitive today than they were in 1980 and 1981, and I think that the voluntary restraint agreement has had a definite impact on creating competition.As far as getting more money to the Treasury, I'd also point out that by having General Motors and Ford and Chrysler profitable there's more money -- they're now in a taxpayer-type situation rather than being a consumer. But I think again the issue, Jim, is that we've got to look at this trade issue. We have a huge deficit; 40% of it is with Japan. And we just simply can't idly sit back and say, "Oh, well, they can go ahead, and they do have favorable tax laws, export laws, unfair trade competition coming into our country that's hurting our jobs and opportunities, too."

Mr. NADER: But you can't do that by sacrificing the American consumer. You're going about it the wrong way, Senator. You can't make the American consumer pay that multibillion-dollar bill.

Sen. QUAYLE: When I think of the American consumer I'm thinking of everybody.

LEHRER: We have to leave it there. Mr. Nader, Senator, thank you very much. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Parents of sexually abused children presented moving testimony today to members of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice. The parents, along with legal and psychiatric experts, told committee members that children face extreme emotional trauma when they must confront their alleged molesters in court and testify against them. Today's session included the testimony of a parent whose identity was concealed.

Mrs. SMITH, mother of abused child [voice-over]: The courts won't listen to me or my children or to the expert medical witnesses I have to back up the alleged sexual abuse of two very minor children. My daughter walked in from a visitation; she could not stand up straight, she was doubled over, she was rolling back and forth on the floor, she could not urinate, and she was laying there writhing in pain saying, "Daddy hit me, Daddy hurt me." And I said, "Where did Daddy hit you?" At which point my daughter showed me. She laid back and she spread her legs apart and she took her finger and she showed me exactly how Daddy was hitting her. And then she just started screaming. The children have had a terrible problem disclosing what's happened. It's come out that they have been threatened that if they talk, Mommy will be taken away, Mommy will be killed, they will be physically hurt. I was unable to take any action at the time because I was advised by my attorney that if I reported this incident it would be totally ignored.

DONALD BERSOFF, attorney for Mrs. Smith: The principle with regard to testifying is whether children have sufficient intelligence and ability to give reliable and relevant testimony that can be of assistance to the court. And I believe, on the basis of my knowledge as a pyschologist and also my experience as an attorney, that young children, in fact, can give accurate descriptions of what they've experienced if the questions that they're asked are direct, they're simple, if they're framed in the language of the child.I think we have not taken children's ability to perceive, to testify seriously enough, and I think that that is a major problem in the courts around the country.

Mrs. SMITH: It seems to me that everybody is terribly concerned with the abuser's rights and no one seems to be concerned with the children's rights. You mentioned that it was unfair for a child to be questioned without the abuser present, and what about the father's rights? What about the rights of the child not to be emotionally terrorized and not to be physically abused. So we are victims, and we are victimized again and again and again.

Sen. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) Pennsylvania: I would suggest to you that you persevere in bringing the evidence to the decision-makers, that you keep pressing to bring the testimony of the children who have first-hand knowledge to the attention of the judges who have to decide these cases and to the attention of the prosecuting attorneys. Evidence is the decisive factor in our judicial system -- what people say happened to them. And, if you are discouraged by your attorneys who tell you that the evidence won't be heard,

HUNTER-GAULT: Last week Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida shocked her colleagues by revealing at a national conference on sexual abuse that she had been molested as a child.Today the Miami Herald reported that the resulting publicity encouraged a nine-year-old Fort Lauderdale girl to tell her parents she had been molested by a paraplegic suspected of abusing more than 50 children.

Newport socialite Claus Von Bulow collapsed in his New York City apartment this afternoon and was taken to a nearby hospital. His condition is said to be stable. Von Bulow was convicted in 1982 of twice trying to murder his wife with insulin injections. Last week the Rhode Island supreme court overturned the conviction on appeal. Today prosecutors asked the court for a rehearing of the appeal argument.

[Video postcard -- James H. Floyd Park, Georgia]

HUNTER-GAULT: In Beirut today Lebanon's new unity government faced two major political crises.The most recent involved the Syrians' capture of three Israelis on Lebanese soil today. Syria arrested the three Israelis in northern Lebanon, and claimed they were members of a terrorist squad trying to infiltrate Syrian forces in the area. The Israeli government claimed the men were on a pleasure trip when they lost their way and were picked up by Lebanese troops 12 miles north of Tripoli. It is unclear how they ended up in Syrian hands. Israel is reported to be extremely worried about the incident, and has appealed to Washington and France for help. A State Department spokesman said today they were exploring the request. There was no immediate comment from France.

The other problem facing Lebanon's new unity government involved the absence of three men nominated to the 10-member cabinet. Nabih Berri, the Shiite Muslim leader, Walid Jumblatt, the Druse chieftain, and Abdullah Rossi, a Christian, were all in Syria for a second day of meetings with Syrian officials. Syria is reportedly trying to persuade the three to join the new government in Beirut.

Jim? War Without End

LEHRER: And Iraq today claimed another sinking of another Iranian ship in the Persian Gulf. The ship was not identified by government officials in Baghdad, but they said it was headed toward and Iraqi port at the time. Iraq has claimed hits on dozens of enemy naval targets in recent months, hits the Iranians never confirm or deny. All that is known by nervous observers on the outside in that part of the world as well as places called Washington and Moscow, is the war between Iran and Iraq goes on and where or when it will stop nobody knows. Judy Woodruff has a background report on why so many have so much reason to be nervous. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, late last month the Reagan administration dispatched a highlevel team to Saudi Arabia and to several smaller Persian Gulf states. Its mission: to explore contingency plans for U.S. use of military facilities there in case of an Iranian victory or an Iranian decision to expand the war. But the Gulf states have been fearful of a radical backlash if they openly cooperate with the U.S. military planning. And there's been no public comment about the success or failure of the U.S. mission. We talked recently with several experts about the Iran-Iraq conflict, about what, if anything, the U.S. can do to avoid a serious foreign policy crisis.

[voice-over] It has been dragging on for more than 3 1/2 years, a war characterized by an appalling loss of life -- more than 300,000 dead -- and the inability of either side to win. Now the Iranians are massing an estimated quarter of a million troops along the border while Iraq bolsters its defenses for what could be the decisive battle.The war began in September, 1980, with an Iraqi invasion hoping to seize Iran's rich oil-producing province of Khuzistan and to secure undisputed control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, Iraq's only outlet to the Persian Gulf. The Iranians fell back, but then regrouped and nine months later drove the Iraqis out. Iran has since blocked all oil exports from Iraq's only port, Basra. And at times threatened to seize the city. It has become a war of attrition, devastating in the toll of dead and wounded and in its effects on the economies of both nations. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, realizing he can neither overcome nor outlast the Iranians, has long wanted to end the war. But Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini has rejected

WILLIAM OLSON, U.S. Army War College: Iran feels, as perhaps as analogy, as the way the United States felt when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The Iranians feel that this was a sneak attack and that they have a perfect right then to punish the Iraqis.

RICHARD HELMS, former U.S. Ambassador to Iran: I am convinced that Ayatollah Khomeini believes that he got the shah. He believes that he got Jimmy Carter. And he certainly wants to get Saddam Hussein, who first attacked his country and then another time threw Khomeini out of exile. You remember, he was exiled in Najaf and, at the shah's request, he finally said, "You've got to leave, Khomeini." and I think Khomeini bitterly resented that. So that he obviously has a personal blood feud with the president of Iraq.

SHIREEN HUNTER, Georgetown University: He would like to see an Islam-ized Iraq which, together with Iran, would join hands in the spreading of his Islamic message, perhaps first around the Persian Gulf region, but beyond that to all the Islamic lands. And, of course, obviously, he will be the spiritual leader and the guiding light, if you would, of this Islamic movement.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Twenty percent of the non-communist world's oil flows through the Persian Gulf. That oil is the lifeblood of Western Europe and Japan, less so for the U.S., which now imports more oil from Mexico, Venezuela and other non-Gulf nations than in the past. Though most U.S. analysts say an attempt by Iran to cut off the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be a desperation move, none will dismiss it altogether. Using its French-supplied Super Etendard jets and Exocet missiles, a beleaguered Iraq might try to destroy Iran's main oil facility on Kharg Island or tankers in the vicinity. In retaliation Iran could try to halt all oil traffic through the Straits of Hormuz at the southern end of the Gulf leading into the Arabian Sea by either mining the Straits or attacking tankers in the Straits. Could the U.S. keep the Straits open? Opinion is divided.

THOMAS McNAUGHER, Brookings Institution: Well, we have the naval forces in the Gulf. We'd take four or five tankers at a time as they were stationed outside the Strait of Hormuz, move them in fairly quickly to a docking facility in the southern Gulf, at the same time declare to all powers in the Gulf that if anyone tries to stop us we'll eliminate the capability. There is a chance we would simply go in pre-emptively and try and take out what's left of Iran's air force and navy. I don't think it's a terribly difficult operation. It could be messy, but I don't think it would require the deployment of ground troops, for example. I think we can pretty much handle it with the power we have out there.

Mr. HELMS: It seems to me the concept of closing the Gulf gives one the impression that you've got barriers or ships or vessels or something that is actually closing. This is not what they're talking about. They're talking about keeping shipping out of the Gulf, the tankers that take the oil. And that wouldn't be so difficult to do if you simply put a large -- for example, large artillery piece on one of the islands near the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to shoot at any tanker that came through. I think there are very few that would come through. It's just a question of jacking up the insurance rates or insuring a captain that he is going to be incinerated in that tanker.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Would the U.S. need the assistance of Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf nations? The consensus is their assistance would be helpful but not essential. And their involvement might provoke terrorist retaliation by Iran against them.

ANTHONY CORDESMAN, Hoover Institution: Everybody is focused on the Straits, but, you know, it's like taken a glass bottle and assuming it can only be broken at the neck.You know, the most vulnerable areas, the most lethal scenarios would be, for example, small terrorist raids on key facilities elsewhere in the Gulf, to pressure the other Gulf states to cease their support of Iraq. There are key water facilities there.There are very fragile oil installations, areas where sabotage might do a great deal more than air attacks.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: When it comes to the actual ground combat between Iraq and Iran, analysts agree the U.S. does not want Iraq to be defeated, but can do little to prevent Iran from winning.

Mr. HELMS [voice-over]: The logical thing, if you wanted to help Iraq, would be to send her more arms. Well, Iraq has got more arms than she can use now. Her problem is to find pilots to fly her planes well enough that she can obtain the objectives that she wants to obtain. And we have no way of being able to train their people, and no desire to do so. So there's a very limited about the United States can do except enthusiastically hope that they don't lose. And we've also got some moral problems in connection with this. I mean, there isn't much doubt that Iraq has used poison gas. So, you know, they're not really very enticing allies for us.

WOODRUFF: Why did the Iraqis use the gas?

Mr. McNAUGHER: Well, I think that may be a sign that they are getting desperate. They're facing a country which seems to have limitless reserves of teenagers willing to die for the cause. The traditional ways in which you would deal with those kinds of attacks, use airpower, and yet the Iraqi air force has been singularly unhelpful in this war, and I think that's been one of their weakest military points. So, barring the ability to use air-to-ground munitions effectively, they've turned to a capability that seems to be pretty effective -- gas.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Thanks to the French and Soviets, Iraq has more and better tanks, planes and other equipment than Iran. But Iran has blunted this advantage with its manpower, hurling waves of soldiers at the Iraqi front. Iranian casualties have been heavy.But Iraq's defensive capability has been severely strained. Military analysts warn that if Iran can overcome its supply and logistical problems, and if it attacks simultaneously at Basra and at other points along the front to Baghdad, Iran could score a breakthrough and a decisive victory this time. Such a victory, possible but not probable, would be ominous for the U.S.

Ms. HUNTER: The collapse of Iraq and the Iranian victory obviously would create a situation that would weaken America's Arab friends in the Gulf region. But what would this mean? That all of these countries would have to accommodate themselves to Iranian, if you would, wishes in the Gulf. Secondly, I think that if you do indeed have an Islamic republic in Iraq, that would also change the situation for countries such as Jordan and Egypt, and the whole Middle East balance of power will shift.

WOODRUFF: What's to stop Iran from taking Kuwait or any of the other smaller states around?

Mr. HELMS: There isn't anything to stop them unless Iraqis can hold on, and that's why all the other Arab states, principally Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, have financed Saddam Hussein's war. It may be that we'd even put some American troops in one of those countries with the thought in mind that if the Iranians were going to attack then they would be literally attacking American troops. I just say that's a possibility. I don' say that's the policy of the administration. I don't even want to get into what their policy is. But that is a possibility, and I think it would cool the Iranian ardor to take on the United States.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Like the U.S., the Soviet Union, which borders Iran to the north, has no interest in a Khomeini victory, but can do little to prevent it.

Mr. CORDESMAN: I think the Soviets originally tried to exploit the situation in Iran and were absolutely and totally unsuccessful. The Khomeini regime demonstrated it didn't like the Russians any more than it liked the United States. So they tilted back to Iraq, where they're still providing about 65% of the arms. But it's not getting them any particular influence. They're selling arms, they're providing advisers, but over the years Iraq has shown a strong capability to simply ignore Soviet pressure or, indeed, Soviet policy.

Mr. McNAUGHER: I think the Soviets are quite worried about an Iranian victory because the Iranians have made quite clear that once they finish with Iraq they're going to turn to Afghanistan and start dealing with the Soviets there. And, in fact, that's been a consistent strain of their foreign policy since 1979.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even if the impending Iranian offensive is called off or fails, there is no outlook for peace, only more violence, but at a reduced level. And Iran might step up its campaign for Islamic revolution elsewhere in the Gulf. In the end it all comes down to the Ayatollah, the implacable Shiite leader and his defiance of all those who oppose his vision of Islam.

Mr. HELMS: And if there's one thing that Khomeini has learned it's by being stubborn, instransigent and arbitrary he's got almost everything he wanted. So I'm sure in his head he says to himself, "As long as I stay there I will get what I want."

LEHRER: And from Libya today an accusation the British planted a spent rifle cartridge which Scotland Yard then discovered during its search of the Libyan Embassy in London.It's charge the British deny. London police also said they found another handgun today during their check of the Libyan building, the seventh gun found during the three-day search. The head of Scotland Yard's antiterrorist branch says there is positive proof someone from inside the Libyan Embassy fired the shots that killed a policewoman April 17th. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Now from our medical beat, The New England Journal of Medicine reported today that a widely used treatment for psoriasis causes skin cancer. The treatment, called puva, which involves both a drug application and an exposure to ultraviolet light, has been linked to the growth of tumors. Medical researchers say the tumors do not spread and can be cured by surgery or radiation. Doctors say patients receiving the puva treatment should now be closely monitored. Jim?

LEHRER: The three Democratic candidates for president do their debate act on television again tonight. This time it's from a hotel ballroom at the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport, and the target audience is Texas and its most important caucus vote on Saturday. Walter Mondale and Jesse Jackson will come with a bit to crow about tonight. Mondale won the Tennessee primary yesterday with 41% of the vote to Gary Hart's 29 and Jackson's 25. For Jackson, yesterday's big one was in the District of Columbia, where he came in first with 67% of the vote, but that hardly was a surprise since more than 70% of D.C. voters are black. This race for the Democratic presidential nomination is just one of several things Charlayne Hunter-Gault is going to discuss now with a special woman who knows all about races for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Charlayne? Rosalynn Carter Interview

HUNTER-GAULT: That special, all-knowing woman is Rosalynn Carter and why she knows so much, of course, is that for four years she was one of the most active first ladies in the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt. She observed in Cabinet meetings, had regularly scheduled meetings with the President, during which they discussed official business, and she also took an active role in helping deal with such problems as mental health care and care for the elderly. Mrs. Carter was also known as an indefatigable campaigner and a fierce defender of President Carter's policies. Now she's written a book about how she grew up as a shy girl in modest circumstances in rural Plains, Georgia, married the brother of her best friend, became first lady, then when it was over went back home. The book is called First Lady from Plains, and its author, Rosalynn Carter, is here with us now.

Mrs. Carter, welcome.

ROSALYNN CARTER: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: All of the Democratic candidates seem to be running around the country trying to show that they are not Jimmy Carter. What's your reaction to that?

Mrs. CARTER: I don't think it's true. I don't think Vice President Mondale has done that, for instance. John Glenn did, and you see what happened to him.

HUNTER-GAULT: But, I mean, Walter Mondale, when he's had the occasion, has distanced himself from the President's policies on various things, including the AWACs and so on. Hart has criticized Carter's handling of the Iranian hostage situation. I mean, it almost seems as if they're running against Carter.

Mrs. CARTER: No. They're not running against Carter, but I can understand why they do that, because Jimmy Carter lost the election last time. But Fritz Mondale has been in touch with us all of the time, wanted Jimmy to campaign for him. Joan wanted me to campaign with her. And Jimmy just thought that Fritz should win the nomination independently. And Hart, now, I understand because I haven't heard, is trying to link Mondale to Carter. I think that might be a good thing to do, especially on foreign policy because Jimmy had such a great record on foreign policy. He had brought the world closer to peace with peace between Egypt and Israel in the Middle East, with normalization of relations with China in the Far East, with the Panama Canal treaties that once again made the Latin American and Caribbean countries look to our country with respect, and he brought the hostages all home safely and free. So I think that that might be helpful to Mondale for Hart to link him with the Carter policy.

HUNTER-GAULT: You don't think that the Iranian hostage crisis cost Jimmy Carter the presidency?

Mrs. CARTER: I do. I do. Because people thought he looked weak, but what people don't know is that it took an awful lot of strength to withstand all the pressure to do something drastic that would have hurt our country and probably would have sacrificed the hostages. He withstood all that pressure -- it takes a very strong person to do that -- and brought them all home, so I think that was a great victory for him and for our country.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you think Hart's making a big mistake?

Mrs. CARTER: Well, I don't know. If Gary Hart wins the nomination, I'll campaign hard for him. But I think that -- I don't think it'll hurt Mondale for Hart to link him with Carter policy.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about Jesse Jackson's campaign? What kind of impact do you think it's having on the party now and maybe what kind of future impact do you think it's having, especially in the South, where he's been very strong against the run-off primaries and so on?

Mrs. CARTER: Well, I think we'll just have to see what happens in that, because a lot of people are, of course, support the second primary, are supportive of that primary.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are you?

Mrs. CARTER: I don't know. I would not want to do away with it totally, I don't think. I understand that there is some talk about making maybe 40% the threshhold, and that might -- I haven't thought about it totally. I don't want -- I don't want to do anything that will help the Republicans. Also, I think Jesse Jackson's brought an awful lot of people into the party that have not been -- into the political process that have not been involved before. And I think that can only help the party.

HUNTER-GAULT: If Walter Mondale, let's say, for the sake of argument, is the nominee and he does have the most delegates at this time, how much of a problem do you think it's going to be, considering that it was Reagan who beat the Carter-Mondale term? I mean, is that going to be baggage for him?

Mrs. CARTER: I don't think so. I think Fritz will win the nomination, and I think he'll make a good president.I've seen him under fire. I've seen him react in all kinds of situations, and I think he would be a strong, good president for our country. And I think, in another campaign, Jimmy Carter's record will certainly be exposed and debated back and forth, but I don't think that's bad because Jimmy Carter has a great record when you look at what he did for our country. And you will have to remember that he did not lose in a landslide in 1980. Ronald Reagan only got 51% of the votes back then. And he's alienated a lot of constituents in the country that voted for him, I think, so I don't think it'll be bad to debate Carter's presidency compared to Ronald Reagan's presidency.

HUNTER-GAULT: You reportedly were very bitter towards the Reagans when you left the White House. Why was that, and does that still persist now?

Mrs. CARTER: I was not bitter towards the Reagans. I was bitter because we lost the election. I had not conditioned myself for that because I always thought we would win. And when we lost I was bitter. I was bitter with the press, because I thought they were not fair to my husband in the campaign. I didn't think they took -- they exposed Ronald Reagan's vulnerabilities. I was upset because the anniversary of the hostage crisis came just right at election time, and the media was covered with it, which brought back all of people's frustrations about not getting the hostages home.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you think that Carter got so many bad breaks and Reagan seems to be having just the opposite kind of experience?

Mrs. CARTER: Well, I don't think he's having the opposite kind of experience. I think he's getting a lot of breaks in the press, and he has a remarkable ability to stay above the political scene. And that's good politics. He's a good politician. But it still doesn't make the things that he has done and the policies for our country good. I think it was a tragedy for him to be elected president, and I think that our grandchildren are going to be paying for his folly with a budget deficit that will go on and on and on, that the middle America will have to pay for because all of the tax base has been given away to business, and they have such lobbies that we'll never get those taxes back. And little America is going to have to pay for Reagan's folly.

HUNTER-GAULT: Let me ask you something about yourself. There are a lot of rumors going around that you might be considering running for the Senate. How much truth is there to that rumor?

Mrs. CARTER: It's not true, no. I never have even ever thought about it. I've got too many exciting things to do. I've finished my book now, and I'm working with Emory University officials on how I can continue my mental health work. I'm talking with them about how I can continue my mental health work from their institutional base.Jimmy -- the site of the library will be the Carter Center of Emory University. It will be a school of Emory, like the law school, the medical school, and I can do the things that I have been interested in in that center also. And I also have found that first ladies still have the resources at their fingertips because people will still help me with anything I need help with.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you don't miss Washington, the political life? You don't have any ambitions for going back to Washington under any circumstances?

Mrs. CARTER: Well, I tried to get Jimmy to run for president again because I think that he was a great president for our country, and I think he would be a good president again.

HUNTER-GAULT: Will he?

Mrs. CARTER: With all the experience that he had and all that he did. He was not even interested.

HUNTER-GAULT: How about you?

Mrs. CARTER: He's too caught up in what he's doing and the exciting things that he's doing. No. No.

HUNTER-GAULT: Not you either?

Mrs. CARTER: I wouldn't say that I would never run for anything, but I don't have any plans to.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, thank you, Mrs. Carter, for being with us.

Mrs. CARTER: I enjoyed it.

HUNTER-GAULT: Jim?

LEHRER: Again, the major news of the day was made in Fairbanks, Alaska, by President Reagan and Pope John Paul II. They made it by meeting for 30 minutes and saying nice things about each other and the prospects for world peace. Also, U.S. Trade Representative Bill Brock said unbelievably high bonuses to U.S. auto executives have all but killed future import quotas on Japanese cars.

Finally tonight, we come to the close of our now-famous miniseries, a trio from Route 3. Tales from Route 3

LEHRER: [voice-over] Route 3 is a state highway in Illinois which parallels the Mississippi River from East St. Louis down to where the Mississippi joins the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois. We've run two stories already about two very different people who live along it, weekly newspaper editor Joe Akers of Chester and Richard Horton, nicknamed Onion, a community activist in the St. Louis area.

Tonight our third and last story is about some young people in the Route 3 town of Red Bud, population 2,900, and its arch-rival 18 miles away, Sparta, population 5,000. The rivalry between their high schools is particularly intense, and particularly in an unexpected field of play.

RON NOGROSKY, Sparta high school team [voice-over]: I think we're going to be the team that ends up with the most points when the day is over. We're going to win. I know we are. I have the most talent here.

SANDY SPALT, Red Bud high school team [voice-over]: I have an exceptional team. They work hard, they practice hard, they take what they do very seriously, and they are going to be one of the best teams in the state today.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Several Saturdays ago, Ron Nogrosky and Sandy Spalt led their teams to one of the biggest high school competitions of the season. But the competition wasn't in a gymnasium or a stadium. It was in classrooms, and the tools of their sport were hand calculators. There are some of the best young mathematicians in Illinois, and both teams are aiming to win at the state regional math tournament. When Red Bud and Sparta meet the competition is particularly intense. Not only are the schools close together, but Ron and Sandy are brother and sister.

Coach SPALT: Ron's very intense, and, yes, I'm intense, too, but Ron's very much consumed by the winning. I suppose Ron does approach a certain mania with the math craze.

Coach NOGROSKY: She's not the dictator-type of person. In other words, anything I do, if I can't do the best at it I quit, do something else. If anybody beats me I'd rather keep it in the family. I would much rather my sister beat me than somebody else.

Coach SPALT [to team]: What I'm expecting of you guys on Saturday is that you at least hold your own.

When it comes to competition, I mean, it's sheer competition. We really go at it. It is really important because what this provides is a place in a school population, a niche that was never there for kids before. And kids in a high school our size are generally ignored or put down by their peer group for being good at academics. Because of the math team they have a place to be, they have a place to shine.

Coach NOGROSKY: I think I'm probably closer to my kids than any football coach has ever been, I spend so many hours in the day with them.

[to team] This is negative and this is negative and the product together is positive.

Like an athletic event there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure, and whenever I compete I don't care what it is, I want to do my best. And it doesn't bother me who I beat. It really doesn't. But I want to win against good competition.

LEHRER [voice-over]: One of Sparta's strongest team members is 11th-grader Laura Pintle.

LAURA PINTLE, Sparta contender: Mr. Nogrosky doesn't, you know, push "Win, win, win," but, you know, if you don't win people are going to lose interest. And the winning more or less, you know, motivates us all to do better because we want to win each year.

LEHRER [voice-over]: At Red Bud, 12th-grader Tom Doiron placed fourth, but he prefers the competition of math contests.

TOM DOIRON, Red Bud contender: You get all excited maybe the Friday before the test on Saturday, just like you would the baseball game or the basketball game or whatever sports activity you're in. And when it finally comes your stomach's kind of churning and you're in knots. But you go on and do the best you can.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The trophy for the best small high school in the state has always stayed in the family. Red Bud won the first championship in 1981; Sparta has won the last two years. On tournament day dozens of teams traveled to Southern Illinois University to compete in a series of day-long tests. Over 300 students were tested in general math, algebra and geometry with team and individual events. The team's overall performance was more important than any individual scores. After months of rigorous preparation, this was the day Red Bud and Sparta had been waiting for.

TEAM MEMBER: I knew how to do everything. I have known in the past how to do everything, but it just wasn't coming to me.

ANNOUNCER: Coming in second, Red Bud. In first place, Sparta! Nice going.

LEHRER: Our congratulations to all. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Good night.