The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, President Reagan repeated his pledge to keep open Persian Gulf sealanes. A CIA agent testified behind the closed doors of the Iran Contra hearings and the government's main economic forecasting figure dropped dramatically last month. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: Right after the news summary, we analyze President Reagan's evolving policy in the Persian Gulf with his statement, excerpts from today's Congressional hearing, an update by national security reporter, John Barry, and the debate between two senators, Republican, Richard Lugar, and Democrat, James Sasser. Next, a documentary report on the rapidly changing business of cable and its wider effects on the television industry. And we close with a Roger Mudd essay on the odds against dark horses. News Summary LEHRER: President Reagan defended his Persian Gulf policy today. He said it was in the national interest of the United States to prevent either Iran or the Soviet Union from interrupting shipping through the Gulf. Mr. Reagan made the statement to television cameras in the White House briefing room this afternoon.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Mark this point well. The use of the vital sealanes of the Persian Gulp will not be dictated by the Iranians. These lanes will not be allowed to come under the control of the Soviet Union. The Persian Gulf will remain open to navigation to the nations of the world. I will not permit the Middle East to become a choke point for freedom or a tinderbox of international conflict. LEHRER: Mr. Reagan spoke amidst continued calls from members of Congress to reassess the Persian Gulf commitment. There were varied comments on the issue today from senators and house members. Here's sampling:

Sen. WILLIAM BROOMFIELD (D) Michigan: I have, obviously, some serious reservations regarding the risk that's involved here. It's a situation that could be very dangerous in view of what's happened in the last couple of weeks with the frigate U. S. S. Stark. Sen. CLAIBORNE PELL (D) Rhode Island: By wrapping the American flag around Kuwaiti tankers while knowing of the enmity of Iran for Kuwait, the ally of Iraq, I believe we are headed for trouble. Sen. DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN (D) New York: We cannot let the Persian Gulf become a Russian lake and the Kuwaitis have done us no great service by inviting the Russians in. LEHRER: There were some words of peace today from Iran. Iranian President, Ali Khomeini, said his country would cooperate in keeping the Gulf open to shipping. He said the Iran Iraq war can continue on the battlefield but it can end in the waters of the Persian Gulf. The U. S. team investigating the Iraqi attack on the U. S. S. Stark 12 days ago finished its work in Baghdad, Iraq today. The navy admiral in charge said he had worked out a new coordination system with the Iraqis but he said he could never guarantee such a tragedy could not happen again. Thirty seven U. S. soldiers were killed when an Iraqi pilot apparently mistook the American frigate for an Iranian ship. Robin? MacNEIL: The public Iran Contra hearings went private today with a former CIA official testifying in secret. John Fernandez, former CIA station chief in Costa Rica, and known by the alias, Tomas Castillo, was being questioned about his work with Nicaraguan Contra leaders. The next public witness will be Assistant Secretary of State, Elliott Abrams. The State Department said today that the Cuban Air Force general who defected to the U. S. with his family yesterday possesses significant political and military information. Brigadier General Rafael del Pino Dias told U. S. officials he'd recently been appointed Deputy Chief of Staff at the Cuban Armed Forces Ministry. But the Cuban government, denouncing his treacherous conduct, said the general had been demoted to run the Air force Museum. LEHRER: There was some bad new on the U. S. economy today. The Commerce Department said its index of leading economic indicators fell . 6 percent in April, the steepest decline in two years. It had risen . 8 percent the previous month. The index measures nine economic factors from hours worked in manufacturing plants to unemployment claims; five of the nine declined in April. MacNEIL: Four thousand residents of northeastern Indiana were returning to their homes today after a chemical fire finally burned itself out. The blaze broke out in a seed plant in Woodburn last night and spread to an area where pesticides were stored. Firemen donned special clothing to enter the plant but were unable to use water on the fire because of the fear the runoff would contaminate a nearby river which empties into Lake Erie. Because of potentially toxic fumes, fire officials ordered the evacuation of two neighboring towns while waiting for the fire to burn itself out. In Oklahoma today, the rains finally let up after ten straight days. At least two deaths have been blamed on floods caused by the rain. In one case, a two year old girl was killed when floodwaters swept her family's car off a road. Some bridges and roads in the state remained closed. Up to 1,000 persons are homeless and the state of emergency is still in effect. LEHRER: A jury in Los Angeles today cleared movie director, John Landis, and four others of involuntary manslaughter charges in the deaths of actor, Vic Morrow, and two child actors. They died when a helicopter was engulfed in flames during the 1982 filming of the movie, Twilight Zone. Landis and his four associates were accused of negligence that led to that accident. The verdict was returned late this afternoon.

FOREMAN: The jury, in the above entitled action find the defendant, John Landis, not guilty of involuntary manslaughter as charged in count two of the amended information, signed this 29th day of May, 1987, Laris M. Rogers, foreman. JUDGE: The defendants are discharged. DEFENDANT: Thank you. [applause by court] MacNEIL: That's the news summary. Ahead on the NewsHour, the controversial Reagan policy in the Persian Gulf. The Cable television business, and the Roger Mudd essay. Gulf Risks LEHRER: We go first to the Washington end of the Persian Gulf policy story once again tonight. President Reagan addressed the subject today. So did other officials of his Administration and members of Congress. A reporter who has been covering this story is with us. So are two key Senators with different views of the situation. First, what the President said. He spoke this afternoon from the White House briefing room.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I want to speak directly this afternoon on the vital interests of the American people, vital interests that are at stake in the Persian Gulf area. It may be easy for some, that after a new record 54 month economic recovery, to forget just how critical the Persian Gulf is to our national security. But I think everyone in this room and everyone hearing my voice now, can remember the willful impact of the Middle East oil crisis of a few years ago. The endless, demoralizing gas lines, the shortages, the rationing, the escalating energy prices, double digit inflation, and the enormous dislocation that shook our economy to its foundations. This same economic dislocation invaded every part of the world, contracting foreign economies, heightening international tensions and dangerously escalating the chances of regional conflicts and wider war. The principal push for peace in the world, the United States and other democratic nations, were perceived as gravely weakened. Our economies and our people were viewed as being captives of oil producing regimes in the Middle East. This could happen again if Iran and the Soviet Union were able to impose their will upon the friendly Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Iran was allowed to block the free passage of neutral shipping. But this will not happen again. Not while this President serves. I'm determined our national economy will never again be held captive. That we will not return to the days of gas lines, shortages, inflation, economic dislocation, and international humiliation. Mark this point well. The use of the vital sealanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians. These lanes will not be allowed to come under the control of the Soviet Union. The Persian Gulf will remain open to navigation by the nations of the world. I will not permit the Middle East to become a choke point for freedom or a tinderbox of international conflict. Freedom of navigation is not an empty cliche of international law. It is essential to the health and safety of America and the strength of our alliance. Our presence in the Persian Gulf is also essential to preventing wider conflict in the Middle East and it's a prerequisite to helping end the brutal and violent six and a half year war between Iran and Iraq. Diplomatically, we're doing everything we can to obtain an end to this war and this effort will continue. In summary then, the United States and its allies maintain a presence in the Gulf to assist in the free movement of petroleum to reassure those of our friends and allies in the region of our commitment to their peace and welfare, to ensure that freedom of navigation and other principles of international accord are respected and observed. In short, to promote the cause of peace. Until peace is restored and there's no longer a risk to shipping in the region, particularly shipping under American protection, we must maintain an adequate presence to deter and, if necessary, to defend ourselves against any accidental attack or against any intentional attack. As Commander in Chief, it's my responsibility to make sure that we place forces in the area that are adequate to that purpose. Our goal is to seek peace rather than provocation, that our interests and those of our friends must be preserved. We're in the Gulf to protect our national interests. And, together with our allies, the interests of the entire Western world. Peace is at stake. Our national interest is at stake. And we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. Weakness, a lack of resolve and strength, will only encourage those who seek to use the flow of oil as a tool, a weapon to cause the American people hardship at home, incapacitate us abroad, and promote conflict and violence throughout the Middle East and the world. LEHRER: The President spoke after a meeting with his National Security Advisors. He was briefed on various military options available to protect U. S. naval vessels in the Gulf. We get our own such briefing now from John Barry, National Security Correspondent for Newsweek Magazine. First, John, what was the purpose to the President making this statement this afternoon? JOHN BARRY, Newsweek: Well, I think he's got a selling job to do. The United States was engaged in a fairly straightforward foreign policy initiative to reassure Kuwait by putting Kuwaiti tankers under American protection when the Stark literally blew up. And suddenly, he's got a very worried Congress and a fairly worried public saying, ''What do we do and why are we getting involved?'' and he has to, somehow, create a constituency for continuing U. S. involvement in the Gulf. And so, what he was trying to do, I think, today, was to cast the issue in sufficiently large terms for U. S. interests so that Congress and the public will go along with what he wants to do. LEHRER: All right, the issue of putting U. S. flags on the Kuwaiti tankers. Where does that rest at this moment? He didn't say anything about that directly in his statement but, what's going on? BARRY: Well, it was a day interspersed with briefings -- LEHRER: Right. BARRY: And one of the briefings was given by Frank Carlucci, the National Security Advisor to the President. And what Carlucci said was that this process, this rather legalistic process, of billing the tankers, the 11 Kuwaiti tankers, under the American flag, is proceeding in its bureaucratic way and would be finished in two or three weeks. And, he said, until that process was complete, and also until the arrangements were in place to protect the ships, that the convoy arrangements, the protection arrangements wouldn't start. LEHRER: And, of course, it's that specific thing that has raised -- that's triggered the questions from Congress. Carlucci say, ''Hey, we've put this a little bit on the back burner until we get -- until Congress understands it a little better. '' BARRY: No, he's specifically denied that there'd been any critical decision to delay it, he was asked about that. He said, ''No, any delays were entirely technical and to do with reflagging. '' And he also hinted what, in fact, is the case, that the delays are to enable the U. S. Navy to get its ships and its aircraft organized for the sort of protection operation they think they need to do. LEHRER: All right, let's go to the phrase the President used was ''adequate forces -- U. S. forces in the Gulf to carry out this protective mission. '' What is -- where are we on that? What are they considered to be and what are they talking about in terms of options? BARRY: Well, Carlucci was reflecting what the Joint Chiefs are telling the White House when he was trying to downplay the magnitude and imminence of the military threat in the Gulf at his briefing today. And what the Chiefs say, basically, is that they think that American warships, as long as the warships are of like kind and are on alert, can essentially protect tankers against any plausible Iranian either navy or air threat. But air cover of some kind or air support would be nice to have and useful. LEHRER: And does not exist now? BARRY: It doesn't exist at the moment. What we have it air support from AWACs planes based in Saudi Arabia which gives the ships on the surface early warning of approaching aircraft --as it happened, uselessly, in the case of the Stark, but what the navy basically wants to do is to put a carrier just off the southern mouth of the Persian Gulf and to essentially provide military capability in a hurry, if it's needed. They want to beef up the U. S. Middle East force, at the moment, five frigates in the Gulf with -- LEHRER: And that -- those five included the Stark. BARRY: There were six with the Stark in operation. LEHRER: Six with the Stark. BARRY: Plus the command ship. LEHRER: Okay. BARRY: The five, they want to beef that up with at least three much better air defense cruisers, conceivably and Aegis class cruiser -- an Aegis type cruiser which has got the best kind of air defenses in the world. And they want to basically run convoys of Kuwaiti tankers, perhaps one convoy every ten days of three or four ships, up and down the Gulf -- LEHRER: Excuse me, three or four Kuwaiti ships protected by these five frigates and the cruisers --the U. S. cruisers. BARRY: That's right. LEHRER: We see a map there, so it would be, on the monitor, and you say, they would go every ten days from Kuwait down through the Strait of Hormuz, correct? BARRY: Yes, the cycle is that the tankers would be available about every ten days. And the job takes about --it takes about two days to get down from the top to the bottom of the Gulf aroundto the open sea, so the Chiefs say that's an intermittent and limited requirement and they say they can do that reasonably comfortably. The problem comes if Iran does take action. The Chiefs think that the likelihood is low of Iran taking action, essentially because the pilots would be committing suicide, but it's not -- LEHRER: Why would they be committing suicide? They'd be blown out of the sky? BARRY: That's right, because U. S. air defenses are very good. The Stark's didn't work because they weren't switched on, but the U. S. air defenses are really very good. LEHRER: Are they turned on now? BARRY: Eh, yes, they're turned on now. They're not on automatic. That's one of the problems. They're not on automatic because if they were on automatic, they will literally blow anything out of the sky that comes within range which includes civilian airliners, photographers' planes, the occasional sheik taking a joyride. So, the -- a fleet on alert will cope. There is, however, one -- LEHRER: I'm making sure everyone understands this. The reason the rocket hit and damaged the Stark so badly was that not only was it not on automatic, because if it had been on automatic, the Iraqi plane would have been blown out of the sky before it fired the rocket, but it wasn't even on a defense system that would have destroyed the rocket after it was fired, correct? BARRY: Sort of. LEHRER: [laughter] Everything is sort of. BARRY: Okay, what happened to the Stark is still a muddle. People are not quite clear. It looks as if one of the main radar sensors may not have worked which is what really worries the navy. It also looks as if the main gun, the Phalanx gun, probably couldn't fire because the ship was in the wrong position. And there are worries about the degree of alertness of the crew, to put it no higher than that. LEHRER: Okay. But under the new -- the new orders for those five that remain, and the cruisers, and anybody else, any other U. S. ships, that a higher rate of alert that would now fire that rocket -- BARRY: You betcha. LEHRER: Theoretically, before it got to the ships. BARRY: Sure. LEHRER: And, as we speak, that's the state of alert that they're on. BARRY: Yes, it is. LEHRER: Okay. Now, have the decisions been made to do what you outlined? BARRY: What President Reagan approved today, what he's told, is a concept of operations, that is, a broad outline plan presented by the military for what they could do. What the military haven't done is to dot the ''I''s and cross the ''T''s and there are two big decisions that remain to be fixed. The first is the rules of engagement for the ships --what can they shoot at under what circumstances, and also, another key question --if they are attacked by, let us say, land based Libyan, land based Iranian missiles, can they then go and destroy the Iranian missile sites, particularly sites who have a kind of a missile called Silkworm. LEHRER: That decision hasn't been made? BARRY: That decision has not been made. The second thing is that the navy, looking ahead to things that might go wrong say, ''Well, if we do have to run air cover,'' that is, actual airplanes overhead, ''we can do it off one carrier, if we really have to, although we'd like two, but the problem is refueling the things. It's a long way up to the top of the Gulf and we would like to get tankers into some Gulf nation. '' And those are the rather delicate negotiations that are still going to have to go on. Everyone thinks that the logical candidates are either Kuwait, its airships, after all, we're protecting, or Saudi Arabia, the regional power, or conceivably, Oman, which already allows U. S. planes to operate under some constraints. LEHRER: All right. John Barry, thank you very much. MacNEIL: Meanwhile, the U. S. plans in the Persian Gulf have created an uproar on Capitol Hill. Earlier today, Administration officials appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to respond to Congressional complaints about lack of consultation. Some senator said the President should be invoking the War Powers Act which gives Congress a greater say in sending American troops into hostile situations. Committee chairman, Claiborne Pell, warned the officials that the Administration must learn to think before it acts.

PELL: Frankly, it seems the Administration is drifting towards a deeper, more perilous involvement in the Gulf without a thorough assessment of the implications of that course and without a realistic, informed plan. If we're not careful, we could be setting the stage for sort of a naval Charge of the Light Brigade. The United States should not be drawn into a shooting war in the Persian Gulf if it can be avoided. It may not be able to be avoided, but if it can be, it should be. Nor do we want to become a party to the Iran Iraq war, a bloody conflict that has, reportedly, cost more than half a million lives already. It's imperative we proceed carefully. RICHARD ARMITAGE, Assistant Secretary of Defense: The President has made it clear, and our officials have made it clear, in discussions with the Kuwaitis, that nothing moves, until we're satisfied that we have a protection regime that reduces the risk to the minimum level possible. And finally, the President has said further that ''it's not going to go, nothing is going to go until we have completed our consultations with the Congress. '' Sen. JOHN KERRY (D) Massachusetts: Isn't it a fair assumption that there's an expectation, particularly in the wake of what the President said. I think the President said we're going to shoot back. We're going to shoot ahead of time. Did he not say that? ARMITAGE: He said we are going to -- at the sign of hostility, shoot back and ask questions later. KERRY: Doesn't that on it's face, in simple, common laymen terms, say to us, there is the possibility of imminent hostilities? And who are we kidding here? ARMITAGE: The other side of that coin, Senator Kerry, is the -- KERRY: Tell me about this side of the coin. Isn't that a real -- ARMITAGE: Well, I -- the other side, so you see both, both of these in the same daylight, and that is that U. S. ships, whether they're merchant ships, which do ply the Gulf, U. S. warships have not been targetted in the past, ever. And your question is, do we think that they're going to be targetted again? I don't know. I told you I'd be a fool to sit here and tell you there's no risk in what we're undertaking in the Gulf. KERRY: I don't understand what you're afraid of, with respect to the War Powers Act. Why not say, ''Yes, let's get together on this''? Why not consult and be ready to submit to its provisions? Why do you lose by that? What does the country lose by that? What's the fear of this War Powers Act? I'd like to hear from the policy makers. RICHARD MURPHY, Assistant Secretary of State: What we are doing is everything short of War Powers. Coming to you publicly, coming to you privately, Senator, to consult fully and there will be no hidden agenda, no secrets will be kept. We know by the Congress that those issues such as the rules of engagement have to be preserved for the safety of our fellows, but the consultations under the present situation, we think that the present situation simply does not call for invoking War Powers. Sen. NANCY KASSENBAUM (R) Kansas: There is, I believe, strong consensus on the committee for the objectives that you outline, Ambassador Murphy. I think there is certainly concern, however, about just how we reached this particular point and where we wish to go because certainly I think everyone understands there are risks involved and the only success in such an effort is the will and commitment, not only here but in the rest of the country to support the policy and be willing to take those risks. Sen. LARRY KESSLER (R) South Dakota: Many of us have to sell this policy, so to speak, back home, if we support a military presence in the Persian Gulf, we have to give sort of a capsule two minute statement to a room full of constituents as to why we're spending the money there, exactly what it is they're going to get out of it. If you were facing a room full of constituents in South Dakota, what would you tell them? MURPHY: I'd tell them you don't want the Soviet influence to -- the Soviets to get a handle on a vital lifeline of the United States and its free world allies, that what I think is driving us principally at this point in time. Speaker: Senator Moynihan. Sen. DANIEL MOYNIHAN (D) New York: Thank you, John. What you see is the deep distrust of the Administration that has emerged from the Iran Contra deception. Senator Adams mentioned that for four years, I was Vice Chairman, Senator Goldwater was Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and we worked so hard to build a relationship of trust with the intelligence community, the hot mistake, and then, of course, it turned out with respect to something so important, we were continually lied to. But Bud Midsall testified in public the other day about, he said, ''the cycle of deception deepened,'' and here you are, it seems to me, open and above board and in pursuit of a policy that every President of the United States since Harry S. Truman would have endorsed, but you must accept the cost of having deceived the Congress. And we must try to get beyond that and that's -- and we are. Can I ask you two things? One is, Kuwait. Now, Kuwait doesn't have the highest per capita income in the world, but just about, what did they think they were doing asking the Soviets into the Gulf? MURPHY: They had that as a policy, that there should be some balance between the super powers, as they see it from Kuwait, and they championed that. I don't think there are any illusions in any of those states about long term Soviet gains and interests in the Gulf. They know what the Soviets are looking for and they're very cautious and I don't expect them to open the dry docks, the ports, the facilities, to the Soviet fleet. MOYNIHAN: We have protected them. We've let those billionaires go to be multibillionaires and the minute that they're inconvenienced, they ask the Soviets in. MURPHY: Well, the moment -- MOYNIHAN: But that's the world, I guess. MURPHY: And was not coincidental, that it was November, 1986. MOYNIHAN: It was not coincidental that they, the Kuwaitis asked the Soviets in as the headlines, as it became to be known in the world, that we had been shipping arms to Iran. MURPHY: It's got to have been effective. MOYNIHAN: That could, in the end, be the largest geo political loss of the whole Iran operation. Gulf Options MacNEIL: With us now from Capitol Hill are two senators who played a part in pressuring the Administration to come forward with its plans. They are Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, until recently, its chairman. And Senator Jim Sasser, Democrat from Tennessee, who returned earlier this week from an investigative mission to Bahrain and Kuwait. Senator Lugar, we heard the President comparing the threat today to the oil crisis and the gas lines of the early 70s, is that a valid comparison? Is there an imminent threat to oil shipping such as to justify this new, expanded U. S. role? Sen. RICHARD LUGAR (R) Indiana: Well, it's an important factor. The Administration testified today that we are trying to keep the lanes open, that we're trying to bring an end to the war, that we're trying to keep the Soviets from having [unintelligible] in that area and, likewise, trying to keep Iran out. There are at least four points. The President illustrated one, I noticed, topically. Clearly, the Kuwaiti tankers themselves are not the entirety of those shipments, they're symbolic of this, and the President's statement, I suppose, would raise the question down the trail, of whether the protection of something more than the 11 Kuwaiti tankers is invasion. MacNEIL: Is it? LUGAR: Well, I would think that we have not made those commitments and one of the questions that I've been trying to raise is, before we get to the Kuwaiti tankers, we need to have a comprehensive plan that suggests precisely what we will protect and who will help us -- that is, what access the Arab nations will give to us, what assistance other maritime powers such as Britain and France will give to us, and that all this needs to be finalized before we get into harms' way. I would say the only thing that I heard today that deflected my opinion at all in the War Powers act was that we are not in harm's way yet, but at the moment that we begin to change flags, we will be, we'll be under fire, the War Powers Act should be invoked at that stage, if not now, and it just seems to me that the need for planning, but also the opportunity for planning is evident. MacNEIL: Senator Sasser, you agree that the threat to the shipping in the Gulf that the President pointed to today is valid and requires the kind of response that's being talked about by the United States? Sen. JAMES SASSER, (D) Tennessee: Well, there's a threat to the shipping in the Gulf but the truth is the threat has not changed over the past three or four years. As a matter of fact, there hasn't been a tanker sunk in the Gulf since 1984. The oil is getting through, there's been no diminishing in the flow of oil from either Iran, Iraq, or the other Gulf states since the Iran -- well, in the last few years. So, the oil is coming through. And, as a matter of fact, the President seemed to say that the Iranians were the ones who were the culprits, with regard to ship attacks. Now, I hold no brief for the Iranians, but the facts are that the Iraqis have made twice as many attacks on shipping in the last two years than the Iranians. And, let's not forget, it was an Iraqi aircraft that put the Exocet missile into the side of the Stark. MacNEIL: Well, what is the aim then? Some people are suggesting --Senator Moynihan, I think, was alluding to it there in the hearing --that the real aim is to stop the Russians from providing the coverage for the Kuwaiti ships, 'cause that would give the Russians a bigger naval presence there and the Kuwaiti asked the Russians 'cause they were mad about the U. S. arms sales to Iran. Is that the real goal, to keep the Russians out? SASSER: I think it is the goal and, clearly, the Iran controversy, the sale of arms to Iran, I do think played a role in encouraging the Kuwaitis to go to the Soviets and seek to charter Soviet tankers. Originally, the Kuwaitis went to the Soviets to reflag their tankers and the Soviets told them they had no procedure for that but they would lease them some tankers. MacNEIL: Senator Lugar, do you understand it this way, that what we're really seeing is less a new threat to the shipping, but a kind of fallout from the Iran arms sales? LUGAR: Yeah, I see it precisely that way. I think the question and answer that you had earlier tonight at the heart of the matter. The fact that we sold arms to Iran really shook up the Arab states. The Kuwaitis were fearful and they asked both the Soviets and us and while we were dead in the water during December, the Soviets made a decision. And we came to January, and we became fearful the Soviets would have a leg up that would be substantial and we began to move at that point. It just seems to me that we are having the fallout here. We're trying to regain the influence that we used to have. I think that we are going to do that, it just seems to me very important that we all know the objectives and that we know who the players are before we get into harm's way. MacNEIL: Okay, now you said last Sunday on Meet the Press that, although you followed these things very closely, you weren't sure that you understood the objectives in their entirety. Now, five days have gone by, are you -- do you know -- understand -- has the Administration consulted enough -- are you -- are you happy and satisfied? LUGAR: Yes, I understand the objectives. I thought they were quite explicit in the hearings today. Keep the Soviets out, keep the Iranians from winning the war and taking con[unintelligible] over the area, keep the shipping lanes open, I think those things are very understandable. The question now is precisely what kind of elements, that is, ships or aircraft cover or what will we have to do to do it, who ought to share that burden with us so that we are safe in doing it. MacNEIL: And the Congress voted almost over -- almost unanimously to require the Administration to explain itself fully before it began that. Are you satisfied that the Administration is going to do that? You will know and approve before they begin? LUGAR: The Administration's in process of doing that. The hearings have been important, the briefings of individual members, as well as the small groups of members on both sides of the aisle, various committees have commenced and that's been a very commendable procedure. But we're some distance from having a very good idea of our access to the Arab nations and what the British, French, Dutch, or Japanese will do and I think we've got to pin down all four corners of this agreement before we begin to ship the flags and offer that kind of protection. MacNEIL: In other words, the Senate, at least from your part, will not approve what's going to be done --the reflagging of the Kuwaiti ships and their escort by American naval ships --until you know what Western allies are going to cooperate and whether the Arab states are going to provide landing rights and things like that, right? LUGAR: Many senators will not approve. Now, the Administration, I think, will assert that whether the Senate approves or not, that the desire of the President, they're going to proceed. I think that this is why it is important when we get into imminent hostilities, Americans under fire because the Iranians have declared that they're going to fire at us, that we have the War Powers Act to resolution and that we abide by that. MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, Senator Sasser? SASSER: Well, I think the Administration has made -- has begun the process now of beginning to consult with the Congress, but we had to get the Administration's attention before they would do so. I'm not sure that a majority of the Senate will agree with the Administration after we get a full explanation. Let's remember that we only get 6. 8 percent of our oil out of the Persian Gulf by tanker. Our European friends get approximately 40 percent and Japan gets as much as 70 percent. And the question comes, why aren't they alarmed about this situation? They don't appear to be at this juncture? And I've seen none of them rushing forward to volunteer their help to convoy these Kuwaiti tankers through the Persian Gulf. MacNEIL: Is that, excuse me interrupting, we just have a minute or so left. If that is a condition, that and access to the Arab states, is it also a condition for Senate approval to know what the rules of engagement are? What the U. S. will do if Iran attacks one of those ships? SASSER: I think, yes, we need to know what the rules of engagement are. And we need to know what the contingency plans are. For example, if the Iranians install some of their new Chinese self war missiles that can command the Straits of Hormuz, that have a destructive capability, four times more than that of the Exocet missile that hit the U. S. S. Stark, what are our plans? Do we try to run the Straits of Hormuz with U. S. naval vessels? Do we take those missiles out with air? Where do we stop the escalation? Those are questions that'll have to be answered. MacNEIL: Let me ask you both: with all those questions still remaining, will the administration go ahead? Will there be a long delay before this starts? What is your view of it, Senator Lugar? LUGAR: I think the Administration will go ahead. I think there will be a substantial delay until everything is in place. And, I suppose, I have a slight difference than my colleague, Jim Sasser. I think it's important that we play a role in the Persian Gulf, but I think it's very important that we play it well, without adequate security for our people. SASSER: Well, there's no disagreement there. I'm not advocating getting out of the Persian Gulf. What I am questioning is whether or not we need to escalate there, whether or not we need to raise our profile any larger than it already is and the burden of proof is on the Administration to convince many senators of that and they've not been successful so far. MacNEIL: Well, Senator Sasser and Senator Lugar, thank you both for joining us. SASSER: Thank you. LUGAR: Thank you. MacNEIL: Jim? Focus: Cable Competition LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a major report on cable television and a dark horse essay by Roger Mudd. Next, a television story. The operators of many television stations around the country are, to borrow an appropriate television phrase from the movie, Network, ''mad as hell'' at their colleagues who operate cable television systems. It's a story about court decisions and federal deregulation policy and monopolies told now by correspondent, Tom Bearden.

TOM BEARDEN: Driving down Highway 170 in the wetlands of South Carolina, you might not even notice television station WTGS. There isn't a big sign, just a sticker on a mailbox. The station itself sits back off the road mid the pine trees at the edge of a swamp. The station bought this checker cab to promote the program Taxi in a local parade. Manager, John Bailie, drives it these days because he'll do almost anything to keep his station on the air. WTGS is so close to bankruptcy that Bailie lives on Hilton Head Island and now eats and sleeps in his office. JOHN BAILIE, WTGS manager: We're going to make it but it's going to be by the skin of our teeth. At this point, I'll be able to answer that better in about 45 days. It's that close. BEARDEN: But you could also be bankrupt in six weeks? BAILIE: It could go either way. Yeah, it could go either way. BEARDEN: Bailie blames his problems on cable television. WTGS has a five million watt transmitter that delivers the station's signal through the air to a total potential audience of 205,000 homes. Anybody who puts up an antenna can watch, but slightly more than half the homes in the area have disconnected their antennas in favor or cable. When Bailie started WTGS two years ago as an independent station, one with no network affiliation. He assumed all 40 cable systems in the area would carry the station. There was an FCC rule that required them to include all local broadcasters. It was called the ''must carry'' rule. But just before WTGS went on the air, the U. S. Supreme Court declared that rule unconstitutional, that cable tv operators had status as First Amendment providers of information, just like newspapers. In effect, they could now carry whatever they wanted to. BAILIE: Like one day, we were supposed to be on them, the next day the law came out and we were out there in the middle of nowhere. And when you're trying to compete with the other stations, you can see you're not on the system, you can't reach the people, where are you? BEARDEN: Bailie says he spent most of the following year pleading with cable systems to carry his station. In some cases, the only way he could get on is to pay what he calls ''tribute. '' Cable systems usually pay for the right to carry programming, but after the court decision, Bailie had to pay Cablevision of Savannah and others to carry his station. The Savannah has since dropped the charges but other payments continue. Cablevision is owned by Denver based, American Television and Communications, the nation's second largest cable system. ATC president, Trygve Myhren, defends the must carry decision. He says the original rules frequently meant that cable channels were filled with local stations, often with two or three affiliates of the same network. TRYGVE MYHREN, AT president: Under the old must carry rules, what they got was they didn't get a lot of the special interest programming because they got dramatic duplication of network signals, okay? And, the guess is, because of that, they couldn't carry Black Entertainment Television or Cable News Network or ESPN or the Nickelodeon children's programming, or the Discovery channel, or science programming, and so on, or the Learning channel. You know, the things that cable really is all about. BEARDEN: John Bailie says he got a much more direct explanation from some cable operators. Did they ever tell you why they didn't want to put you on? BAILIE: Yes, in plain language they said that we were a competitor. Broadcast [voice over]: On WTGS, Channel 28 -- BEARDEN: The competition is over advertising dollars. By not being on every cable system, WTGS faced an almost insurmountable disadvantage in competing for advertising sales with other local stations who were on cable. And those advertising dollars are becoming important to the cable operators themselves. Preston Padden is the president of INTV, the trade association that represents most independent stations like WTGS. PRESTON PADDEN, INTV president: You see, a very important part of this story is the nature of the cable beast has changed. It started out as a system for distributing over the air broadcast signals to people. And now, it has evolved into its own competitive programming and advertising services. So, if they can keep a new independent station from gaining a foothold in the market, they will have just eliminated one competitor for their advertising revenues. BEARDEN: Many broadcasters say much more is at stake here than the success or failure of individual television stations. Trade associations representing network affiliates, public stations, independent stations, and the motion picture industry, say cable is now America's first unregulated monopoly. Motion Picture Association, Jack Valenti, says cable has a chokehold on the marketplace. JACK VALENTI, Motion Picture Association president: Do we want communications to be in the hands of a very few? Is it wise for one or two or three cable system, by the year 1990 or 1992, to control 60, 70, 80 percent of all the subscribers in this country? I think he who controls communications, controls this country. BEARDEN: James Mooney is the president of the National Cable Television Association. JAMES MOONEY, NCTA president: Well, if we're a chokehold, we're a very inefficient one because we are the only monopoly, quote unquote, I know of which actually delivers to its customers homes, the products of its competitors, and I'm speaking of broadcast signals. BEARDEN: Mooney maintains it's Valenti's Motion Picture Association that has the real chokehold, that Hollywood controls a much more concentrated industry than cable. Mark Goldstein is the majority owner of WTGS. He's had similar access problems with another station he owns in Utah. He says consumers may soon lose any choice about how they will receive television. MARK GOLDSTEIN, WTGS owner: Those people who create the regulatory actions will, if this is not amended, force everybody to pay a monthly bill to somebody who wants to deliver television to them. They will have killed free over the air tv. BEARDEN: Some stations denied access to cable, may be helped by a new must carry rule recently proposed by the FCC. But it's likely to be tied up by additional legal challenges for a year or more and may still be declared unconstitutional. Bailie says it won't help him very much because the new rule doesn't apply to most of the smaller cable systems in his area. But even big cable companies with plenty of channel capacity to carry all local stations, are making significant changes to the great distress of many broadcasters. They are moving channels around, a practice called repositioning. Broadcaster [voice over]: This is viewer sponsoredpublic television channel 12 and we'd like you to become a member and this is how it works. BEARDEN: This is public station KBDI in Denver. It's the youngest of two PBS outlets in the metropolitan area. It's licensed to broadcast on channel 12. Until last November, it was located on Channel 12, on the city's cable systems. But when the must carry rule was declared invalid, channel 12 was moved to four different channels on three different cable systems. The Public Television Stations Association says 150 PBS stations have been either moved or dropped from cable systems around the country. Commercial stations have also been repositioned. KBDI manager, Ted Krichels, says the move is causing the station serious problems. TED KRICHELS, KBDI manager: The major impact it has on us is this confusion. You know, when people want to watch KBDI channel 12, and that's what we're known as, Channel 12, they have to figure out where we are and it becomes very difficult to attract new viewers. BEARDEN: Audience confusion may translate into lower levels of contributions. KBDI is not a rich station. Technicians in the control room sit on milk crates. Krichels believes cable deliberately chose a struggling station to test their newfound power. KRICHELS: They picked on KBDI because they felt that they could get away with it very easily, that probably nobody would notice. BEARDEN: The largest company to move KBDI, United Cable of Colorado, declined to respond on camera. President James Dobey did say, moving channel 12 was in the best interest of his viewers, that they are more interested in other programming sources. The Cable Television Association's James Mooney says all the broadcasters are really concerned about it their own self interest. MOONEY: Nowhere in this great controversy that had spread up over channel repositioning, have the broadcasters said what they want as a winner. The logical point for them to ask for would be that the federal government impose an on channel requirement, which is to say that you put the guy on his own channel. But they haven't said that because that's not what they want. They're trying to use this controversy as a means of pressuring the cable industry to put all of them, high numbered, low numbered, down on those bottom channels where they like to be and where they think they enjoy a competitive advantage. BEARDEN: Broadcasters say there was a more fundamental issue involved. Under the original federal cable legislation, local governments had the power to regulate cable systems. There were franchise agreements and they could control what they charged their subscribers. But after years of intense lobbying by the cable industry, Congress passed a new act which took effect on the first of this year. It effectively deregulated the industry. Cities lost the power to control cable rates. At the same time, the courts were granting cable systems First Amendment status. Broadcasters say all of that, coupled with the power of a monopoly, threatens the basic fabric of society. GOLDSTEIN: There can't be two first amendment providers, one which has the right to kill the other First Amendment provider. That's like saying to the local newspaper, which dominates the town too often, no other newspaper can come into this town as long as you don't want them to. BEARDEN: Mooney says that's nonsense. MOONEY: I think that you have to take with a grain of salt, the claims of some parts of the broadcasting industry and the claims of Hollywood, but unless cable is in some way held down and restrained, it will work great harm to the public interest. And I think it should be understood that they are acting out of economic self interest. Just as, I believe, the cable industry is. BEARDEN: The monopoly issue is being debated within the cable industry itself. There's a lot of new cable construction going on in Florida. The builder is Telesat Cablevision, a subsidiary of the holding company that owns the Florida Power and Light Company and the Colonial Pan Life Insurance Company. What Telesat is doing here in Dade County is called ''overbuilding,'' building a second system to directly compete with the original franchise holder. Telesat is facing intense opposition from established cable systems. The Florida Cable Television Association is sponsoring a bill in the state legislature designed to put Telesat out of business by prohibiting electric utilities and their holding companies from operating cable systems. And Telesat claims that their competitors have tried to pressure program suppliers not to do business with them. Telesat general manager, Harry Cushing, finds all of this ironic. HARRY CUSHING, Telesat general manager: They went to Congress and said, ''Look, we're competitive. '' One of the heads, Mr. Myhren of ATC, declared that competition and overbuilding was the wave of the future and that, more and more, that would be engaged in and that was a good reason to deregulate the cable business. And now, of course, they are saying, well maybe we didn't really mean that. BEARDEN: Cable rates all over the country have been going up, ever since cities lost their regulatory power, except in places where overbuilding has occurred. Here in Dade County, Telesat's competitors have matched their rates, which are 40 percent lower. Industry publications indicate that cable establishment is now rethinking the First Amendment arguments they used so successfully in advocating their own deregulation when those arguments could invite overbuilding. [unintelligible] the cable industry's trying to have its cake and eat it too? GOLDSTEIN: Absolutely, and I don't think they're going to get away with it. BEARDEN: Bill Bradley, the director of the city of Denver's cable tv authority, says cable systems have gone out of their way to avoid competing. BILL BRADLEY, Denver Telecommunications Office director: Well, there is a monopoly flat out, and they've made it a monopoly. In effect, because they refused to invade each other's turf. Even where there were opportunities for turf invasion, if you will, in some of the southwestern cities of this country, they divided up the pie, they cut the city up, even bought each other out in order to avoid competing with somebody else on an overbuild basis. BEARDEN: Isn't that called restraint of trade? BRADLEY: I think you could call it that but I'm not an antitrust lawyer. BEARDEN: Do you think antitrust action might be warranted in these kinds of cases? BRADLEY: I think trust action will certainly be warranted sooner or later because of the clustering that's going on now and because of some of the practices that that might introduce into the system. BEARDEN: Back in South Carolina, John Bailie is proud of his station and says it deserves to survive because, unlike cable, he is licensed by the government to serve a community, to provide a local television service. BAILIE: I think what bothers me the most is that we have to do everything right. We have to, you know, EDO, FCC, all the rules and regulations that bind us, and they sit back there and just shake their head, ''we're not going to carry you. '' You know, and I just -- they don't have to do anything for the community. We have to do public service announcements and all sorts of things and they don't have to do anything. BEARDEN: Bailie believes some sort of equitable compromise is possible. He only hopes it will come in time for WTGS to stay on the air. LEHRER: That report from Tom Bearden. A final note about KBDI -- that's the Denver area Public Television Station shifted to four different locations on three different cable systems, because of public heat, one of the systems, Telecommunications, Inc. , moved KBDI back to its original channel position, the other two have not. Front-Runners, Back-Runners MacNEIL: Finally tonight, our regular Washington essayist, Roger Mudd, takes a look at Presidential dark horses.

ROGER MUDD: How many truly dark horses have been nominated and elected President of the United States. Take a guess. There have been at least five. One, James J. Polk, ninth ballot, 1844. Two, Franklin Pierce, 49th ballot, 1852. Three, Rutherford B. Hayes, seventh ballot, 1876. Four, James A. Garfield, 36th ballot, 1880. Fifth, Warren G. Harding, 10th ballot, 1920. But nominating a dark horse in today's political system is a virtual impossibility. When was the last time a Presidential convention roll call went beyond the first ballot? Take a guess. Thirty five years. It was in 1952 at the Democratic Convention in Chicago when Harriman of New York and Deaver of Massachusetts withdrew, enabling Adlai Stevenson of Illinois to be nominated on the third ballot, defeating Kefauver of Tennessee and Russell of Georgia. Since then, every Presidential nominee has been chosen on the first ballot, or by acclamation. If you don't remember the '52 roll call, you probably don't remember what election night used to be like -- staying up until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, listening to H. A. Kaltenborn on the radio, warning us that when the vote from Upper State New York came in, or the farm belt was heard from, the picture would change. But nowadays, election night seems to end before we can even get our pencils sharpened, our feet up, and our beer open. It all changed because television wanted politics out in the open, where it could be covered. Politicians wanted to use television to get elected. So they bypassed the party brokers and bosses by creating open Presidential primaries in the name of political reform. The results are nominations settled well before convention time, and election wrapped up well before midnight. The growing dominance of television also makes the end of the authentic dark horse. No longer could a candidate sidestep the primaries, hang back in the shadows, and wait for a deadlock convention. Television had effectively eliminated the shadows. What took its place was a wide open kind of horse race. A huge field, a lot of bumping and jockeying, and one or two front runners, with the media doing the handicapping. It was inevitable. This major overhaul of our nominating process, laid onto the media a heavier responsibility to report what it knows and observes. It commissions polls, it talks to party people, it interviews consultants, it reads each others' stories and into the starting gate goes a front runner. This season's Democratic front runner was Gary Hart, until he pulled up lame. Then, suddenly, the front runner became Jesse Jackson. He was the only other horse who had run before. Now, maybe it's Michael Dukakis -- at least in the New Hampshire stakes. The fact is, it is easier to cover one or two front runners than it is the entire crowded and confusing field. There's just so much space in the paper, so many seconds on the evening news. The media simply cannot accommodate more than two or three front runners from each party. But suppose you're not a front runner. Suppose you're a back runner, like Bruce Babbett of Arizona, or Paul Simon of Illinois, or any of the others. How do you get the attention, the space, the time on TV to get the voters to take you seriously? Why shouldn't they get roughly the same coverage as the front runners -- at least until the voters themselves have had a chance to speak? The answer probably is that the media, using what it regards as reliable information, has decided that Babbett and Simon and the other back runners have very little chance of getting nominated. Of course, says the media, the coverage will change if they start winning. But for the back runner, that is hardly a satisfactory or reassuring answer. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, President Reagan reaffirmed his Persian Gulf policy, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to keep either Iran or the Soviet Union from interrupting shipping in the Gulf. And the Government's index of leading economic indicators dropped . 6 percent in April, said the Commerce Department. It was the biggest drop in that figure in two years. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night. s