The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news this Friday night, President Reagan and his summit colleagues agreed that democracy is a good thing but military force is not. Soviet assurances on Andrei Sakharov were made official but do not satisfy the United States. Seventeen people were killed and hundreds more injured in tornadoes in the Midwest. And the death toll in the bloody religious fighting at that Golden Temple in India was raised to more than 500. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Our special focus stories tonight are all domestic on the NewsHour. What next for the Reverend Jesse Jackson? We have an extended interview with the Democrat who came in third. As the pro-and anti-abortion movements draw the battle lines for November, we look at the new street campaign to shut down abortion clinics. Teenagers and drunk drivers: Two congressmen and a governor debate a bill to make 21 the legal drinking age across the country. And Doris Grumback reviews the new novel Scumbler by William Wharton.

LEHRER: The seven London summiteers produced their first piece of paper today, a political statement on the values of democracy and of not using force to settle disputes. In it President Reagan and six other world leaders endorsed the rule of law and democratic systems with free elections, and disavowed the use of military means except to deter aggression and to defend themselves. Gene Gibbons of UPI Radio filed this report for us on the day's meeting.

GENE GIBBONS, UPI Radio News [voice-over]: In a royal salon where Chopin once played the piano for Queen Victoria, there was the music of international economics -- talk of trade and interest rates, inflation and unemployment, as President Reagan and other leaders of the world's major industrial democracies began their formal deliberations. The host of the summit, Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, sounded a tune sweet to her colleagues. The recovery, she said, is on course. There was some grumbling from the French and the Germans about U.S. interest rates, but officials who briefed reporters said overall the atmosphere was very friendly.

The London weather was friendly, too, sunny and warm enough to permit an outdoor group photo. There was only one change from last year's photo in Williamsburg; Italy's Prime Minister Craxi was the newcomer.

Mr. Reagan and the other leaders continued their deliberations over lunch, changing the subject from economics to political issues, and the result was the summit's first work product, a seven-point declaration on democratic values in which the U.S. Britain, France, Italy, Canada, West Germany and Japan reaffirmed their commitment to such principles as social justice and the rule of law. Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British foreign secretary, said the leaders felt such a declaration was appropriate at this summit.

Sir GEOFFREY HOWE, British foreign secretary: It does coincide with the 40th anniversary of D-Day. It's a time when the coming together of the people who attend the summit, who were of course on opposite sides during World War II, deserves to be underlined in this way, and where their common commitment to freedoms which we enjoy deserves to be emphasized in the context of East-West relations.

GIBBONS [voice-over]: Summit sources said the declaration was not a smokescreen to obscure differences on more ticklish political issues -- issues like East-West relations, terrorism and the war in the Persian Gulf. These matters are to be treated separately, but sources say the leaders are still undecided on how.

[on camera] This summit will be considered successful if the leaders concluded it with a display of unity on the top international issues of the day. As things stand now, that will be fairly easy on the economic topics they've been addressing. Everyone favors growth with low inflation. And U.S. interest rates aren't really a problem, either. President Reagan agrees with the other Western leaders they're too high and need to come down. The differences are on political issues -- how to most effectively improve East-West relations, combat terrorism and deal with the crisis in the Persian

Gulf. The news of this summit will be whether or not the leaders can surmount their differences on those issues and, if so, how convincingly.

LEHRER: That report by Gene Gibbons of UPI Radio, who is moonlighting for us as well. There was also news from London today on Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov. U.S. officials told reporters the Soviets have informed the American government through official channels that Sakharov is alive and improving, but White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the U.S. still wanted visible assurances that was so. Sakharov reportedly went on a hunger strike May 2nd to demand his wife be allowed to leave the Soviet Union for medical treatment for an eye and a heart condition. There have been reports since then that Sakharov had died.

Robin?

MacNEIL: More than 50 tornadoes roared through parts of the Midwest overnight, killing at least 17 people, injuring hundreds more and heavily damaging two small towns in Wisconsin. The tornadoes were spawned by heavy thunderstorms with winds as high as 81 miles an hour in Minnesota. In Nebraska a blinding dust storm halted traffic, and in Kansas highways were closed as trucks overturned in the high winds. Storms in Iowa left four dead, including a husband and wife whose bodies were found in a farm field near Delta. But the worst hit was the small Wisconsin town of Barneveld about 20 miles west of Madison. Of the town's 500 people, tornadoes killed at least nine and injured 200. Here's a report from Art Hackett at public television station WHA in Madison.

ART HACKETT [voice-over]: The Barneveld tornado thrashed its way down the main street of this rural Wisconsin village early this morning, destroying everything in its path, almost half of Barneveld's 600 residents were hurt or killed. The remainder were out today picking up what was left of their town. The tornado ripped the front off Bill Ashleman's[?] farm implements store and leveled his home.

BILL ASHLEMAN, Barneveld survivor: I got, I think, six dead neighbors right now, you know? It makes me feel good, really, that I'm still here -- the wife and me and the kids are all okay, but when I finally could get the root cellar door open, you know, just enough to look out, you just couldn't believe it, you know.

HACKETT [voice-over]: Wisconsin Governor Anthony Earl held an impromptu news conference across the street from what was Barneveld's bank. He then surveyed the damage from a helicopter. The governor promised the state would provide whatever assistance necessary to help the town's beleaguered residents -- residents like Carl Arneson, who had recently remodeled his home.

CARL ARNESON, survivor: The dog was in the basement already, and so we headed downstairs. We hit the bottom of the stairs, and we could feel the building shake and we peeled left and the furnace came over and landed on top of the washer-dryer, and we were underneath it.The house was gone. Just that fast.

HACKETT [voice-over]: There were few spots in Barneveld left unscathed besides the town's water tower. At least nine people were killed; 57 remained hospitalized after the worst tornado to hit Wisconsin in a quarter century.

MacNEIL: In Philadelphia six cars of an Amtrak train went off the tracks today. Several dozen passengers suffered minor injuries, but there was nothingmore serious than a broken leg. The southbound train had just left the Philadelphia station when the first six cars were derailed. At the same time the train was moving slowly onto a side track to let a northbound train pass. Some passengers said they heard a clanging sound under the cars, and then they slid off the tracks. Three cars were turned over on their sides, and three remained upright. About 100 yards of track was ripped up as well. The passenger with the broken leg was carried away on a stretcher, and most of the others went back to the station to wait for another train. Jim? Jackson Looks Ahead: Interview

LEHRER: Today was the day of the two big phone conversations for Walter Mondale. He spoke with Gary Hart and with Jesse Jackson and set up separate meetings with each sometime soon, maybe as soon as next week in the case of Hart. Mondale did his talking from a Long Island, New York beach, where he is relaxing with his family, while Hart and Jackson were both here in Washington. Hart also took a day off from public appearances, but Jackson continued his political work, attending receptions, TV tapings and other activities connected with annual meetings here of the organization he founded, Operation PUSH. And last night, in a keynote address to the group, he talked of party unity and justice and of whites, blacks and hispanics in the Democratic Party.

Rev. JESSE JACKSON, Democratic presidential candidate: Blacks and hispanics have consistently voted for white candidates. We have been the most loyal members of the Democratic Party. It is remarkable then that not one white member of the House of Representatives, not one white U.S. senator, not one governor, not one major or minor daily newspaper that is white endorsed my candidacy. Not one. Not one major white candidate in the entire U.S. endorsed my candidacy, not one. Yet they are the first to urge me to fall in line behind another white candidate. No doubt they expect me to do so with grace and enthusiasm. It's dangerous to be that disconnected from a source of power that you may need before the sun comes up again. The Democratic Party must learn the lesson of reciprocal voting. If blacks and hispanics vote for whites, then whites must vote for blacks and hispanics. Together we can win. Together we can make progress. But we must do it together. We may or may not win the nomination, but we have won our self-respect.

LEHRER: Reverend Jackson is with us now. Welcome. Is it your position -- is what you're saying that there are whites who support your positions but vote against you solely because you're black?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, there's an amazing consistency in the fact that not one white state chairman, not one white congressperson or U.S. senator or daily newspaper has come across that white line of resistance, even though there were distinctions --

LEHRER: Is that for racial -- is that what you're saying? It's for racial reasons alone?

Rev. JACKSON: I'm sure that's a dimension. It could not be for racial reaons only, but the fact is that is an amazing coincidence. For example, Hart and Mondale stood for raising the military budget in peacetime. I saw a way that we could cut the budget without cutting defense. And the differences in positions, therefore. I saw a way of using that money to begin to rebuild the infrastructure of our country. Surely that position has a lot of appeal to a lot of people. It wasn't enough to break the ice. I saw that enforcing the Voting Rights Act was the key to the progressive wing of our Democratic Party. That's how you begin to get enough new congresspersons to pass a nuclear freeze vote, if you will. It was not enough to move them off of dead center. The fact is that blacks tend to vote for whites in great numbers, and hispanics do as well. Whites are resistant to be reciprocal. Now if I endorse a white candidate I would tend only to endorse, to take that person to our churches, to our clubs, our organizations and try to deliver for that person. White candidates do not seem to have the same sense of responsibility, nor is it expected that they will deliver their constituency. Well, for our party to have character it must have integrity. That involves reciprocal voting. It also involves, Jim, integrated slate-making. If blacks, whites, hispanics and women vote together, we should be slated together.My point is we must move beyond racial and sexual impediments as we become a more democratic party.

LEHRER: You mention hispanics. In California more hispanics voted for Mondale and for Hart than voted for you. Now, what would be their reason?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, the fact is that some hispanics voted for me and some voted for them.

LEHRER: Yeah, but more voted for each of them than voted for you.

Rev. JACKSON: Well, you win some and you lose some, and it was not a hispanic bloc, and, of course, Mondale has been a vice president and a U.S. senator. Some of his ties are longer, and the same would be true for Hart as a U.S. senator coming from Colorado with a large hispanic population. I came into the campaign last with the least amount of money. And so there are a lot of reasons, but the one thing you cannot say, there was a solid wall of resistance. Now, these same people are now lined up expecting me to support them based upon duty, and there was no basic reciprocity. I'm simply asking that we be fair.

LEHRER: Well, I'm just trying to get at the point here. My point that I'm trying to get at is that, are you suggesting that there are people who -- are you saying that it's not possible for people to disagree with you, that all these people agree with you and yet it's a racial thing solely? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Rev. JACKSON: I would never reduce it to that. But you know, it's interesting. Even the case, say, of Andrew Young, in Atlanta, Georgia -- all the talk about the new Atlanta? He got about 9% of the white vote. In the case of Harold Washington, he got 12 or 13 percent of it. Bradley may have gotten the largest percentage. So there is a real challenge for our party to come together along lines of interest and not allow race and sex impediments. That's why some questioned before I ran, should a black run -- I mean, the very questioning of our person as opposed to our membership and our investment. Now, can a woman be vice president? Ask, a woman can be president.One of our challenges in this campaign is to keep challenging these racial and sexual barriers. We saw some great breakthroughts. For example, we got 15% of the vote in Vermont, virtually all white. In Arizona, only about 2% black, we got 15% of that vote. Many of these major large urban areas that we won, like Philadelphia, you could not have won them just with a black vote. So we saw breakthroughs. We won Homestead, Pennsylvania, a community of mostly unemployed white steelworkers. Or in Columbia, Missouri, about 80% white small farmers who, when they endorsed me, had to put sacks over their heads for fear that the bankers would see them and foreclose on them or the Agriculture Department would foreclose. So I saw some breakthrough coming. But there must be challenge to this Congress and to this Senate to in fact help us go further toward having a concept of justice that's fair for everybody.

LEHRER: What did Walter Mondale say to you on the phone?

Rev. JACKSON: It basically was a courtesy telephone call. I shared with him some of my very basic concerns that we must have a commitment to justice before unity so as not to have the kind of superficial coming together. I got more than 21% of the popular vote, about 7% of the delegates. I got far less than my share. he got less than 40% of the popular vote and more than 50% of the delegates -- more than his share. Well, Mondale and Kennedy and labor put togethe rules, so he was part playing part referee. I didn't think it was fair. The other irony is that I --

LEHRER: Did you tell him that? Did you tell him that today?

Rev. JACKSON: Indeed I did. Sure I did. We got over 80% of the black vote, yet Mondale will have more black delegates at the convention than I will have there. My delegates earned the right to be there by winning elections. His got there by the quirk of high thresholds and the right of his friends to put losers who will be in San Francisco over winners who remain at home. These rules are manifestly unfair, and there must be a chance.

LEHRER: In other words, you're not going to go with grace and enthusiasm, to use your term?

Rev. JACKSON: No, I'm going with a commitment to justice and then mercy and unity. We worked too hard to get justice within our party and to get fair representation. I do not want four more years of oppression from Reagan, nor do I want four more days of disrespect from Democrats. Both are very important.

LEHRER: Do you challenge the mathematics of Mondale having enough delegates now to be nominated?

Rev. JACKSON: I challenge the rules by which, in some sense, he has been able to receive delegates from the rulemakers up top that he did not earn from the people at the bottom. Democracies are for and by the people. One's strength comes from the people. It should be a centrifugal force from the bottom up, not a kind of supply-side political demand where you get -- where you trickle down votes based upon favors. Cuomo made the position in New York how tremendous and how thunderous my vote was there and how Hart got 27%, I got 26%. Hart got almost twice more delegates. And yet, when Cuomo had 14 votes to share for equity, he gave 12 to Mondale. Mondale did not earn those votes -- those delegates. They should have come to me based upon people's strength. And I'll tell you, Jim, you cannot disenfranchise people by the thousands in the spring and expect them to be enthusiastic for you in the fall. It's not fair.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Reverend Jackson, are you saying to Mr. Mondale, "You'll get my support only when you agree to change the rule so there will be a fairer representation or allotment of delegates next time?"

Rev. JACKSON: Well, rules certainly is a factor, and we're going to deal with rules in the credentials committee, and we're going to deal with rules perhaps on the floor of the convention this time around. But it's not just that. It's also a commitment to enforcing the voting Rights Act, which I have not been able to tie him down on.

MacNEIL: That's eliminating the double primary?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, double primaries is a part of it, but also gerrymandering, annexation, at-large as opposed to single-member districts, roll purging and innaccessible registrars. The result of this combination of schemes is that we are underrepresented in women, blacks, hispanics, and thus the progressive movement. A leader of our party, the nomination, must make an unequivocal commitment to enforce every facet, letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act of '65.

MacNEIL: You say you've not been able to pin Mr. Mondale down yet on that?

Rev. JACKSON: We have not now. If in fact that happens you will change the face of the U.S. Congress. We lost the nuclear freeze vote by six, the vote for El Salvador by four. We've won over 60 congressional districts in this campaign -- the rainbow coalition -- and more than 30 across the South. If we in fact had the protection of law we can change the face of the U.S. Congress. That will then give us the strength to redirect the course of our nation. and that was our purpose for running.

MacNEIL: I see. Now, let me just -- so I get it straight, are you saying that your -- did you tell Mr. Mondale today, "You give me your promise to fully enforce the Voting Rights Act and to support a change in the rules on the allotment of delegates, and you'll have my support?"

Rev. JACKSON: Well, today was not a day for negotiations.

MacNEIL: But is that the deal, in effect?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, I shared with him what my real and vital concerns are. And they have substance and at this point I had expressed to him my displeasure, the keen sense of feeling violated. Most basic to us in this, Robin, is that we must get our self-respect. So far, for example, I saw Hart and Tip O'Neill embracing in today's Washington Post. Tip O'Neill has not called me as Speaker of the House. I brought in more new registered voters than any Democrat has ever. The success of our campaign has in fact forced a third party idea off of the stage by reviving the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And I submit I want to help expand our party, but our right for self-respect is non-negotiable.

MacNEIL: You said -- you were quoted as saying a couple of days ago, on Wednesday, that you have grave reservations about Mondale. What are those reservations? Do you still have them after talking to him today?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, the point is that there are areas of difference, and we must resolve those matters through real face-to-face dialogue to be sure justice and fairness within our party is won, the whole question of reciprocal voting and leadership there is another, enforcing the Voting Rights Act. And beyond that, the direction -- I am concerned that our party be the party of peace, jobs and justice. We can, given the cost overruns of our military budget and the like, have the money, if we go another way, to rebuild the infrastructure of our country. I'm concerned about program. We must put America back to work as an alternative to welfare and despair. And I'm afraid that he wants to raise the miltiary budget in peactime; it's going to keep the deficit vast and will raise interest rates, it's going to put an international debt crisis even graver on Third World nations. We may change presidents without changing direction. That concerns me very much.

MacNEIL: What do you say about the reports that Mr. Mondale's being advised by party leaders to start distancing himself from you fast on this argument -- that you will alienate more white voters than you will bring into the party new black voters?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, you know, that was reported in a poll, I guess, in The Washington Post last week that shows quite the contrary -- that about 33% of white voters would be influenced by my vote, for example. Some of them, for example, voted for Mondale who felt locked in because of the strong arm of labor. Some voted because I was new on the scene and they did not have believability and confidence, but they basically respect our politics and our direction. We also know that last time around Mondale and Carter got 37 million votes. There are now 19 million eligible black voters alone, 12 million registered and voting in record numbers. And so any advice to distance himself from that bloc of loyal voters is a recommendation for suicide. As a matter of fact, it's absurd, given how loyal the black voting bloc has been to the Democratic Party.

MacNEIL: What about the other fear that your presence near the candidate or in this campaign is alienating white Jewish voters who perceive you as anti-Semitic?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, you know, I think it's unfortunate that some would in fact try to stereotype all Jews in that way. A significant body of Jews for Jesse voted for me; the number keeps growing. We got about 8% of the Jewish vote in New York, for example. In California last week about 9% of the Jewish vote. So some Jewish vote went for Jesse, some for Hart, some for Mondale. So. it's not fair, in my judgment, to stereotype all Jews in that way. That's really an anti-Semitic stereotyping.

MacNEIL: Well, what do you make of the fact that in one of the country's leading national newspapers, The Washington Post today, on one page there are three columns side by side by three quite different columnists who all raised this issue of the charges of you being anti-Semitic because of a string of statements that you have made?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, I just have to take --

MacNEIL: Did you read those, and how do you feel about that?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, first of all, it's not true. But second, in this campaign I had to keep my eyes on the prize. I cannot be diverted by people who are in the brokering and speculative industry.I'm dealing in serious politics directly with the people. I know how I feel about all people in my heart. I also know that the best interests of poor people who are plotting to overcome the misery index as well as trying to offset the danger index and the rising prospects of war -- our interests ultimately converge, and I shall focus on that.

MacNEIL: Do you think there's any truth in the statement by one of those columnists today, Richard Cohen, "he" -- meaning you -- "is so full of his own sense of victimization that he cannot understand that others, in this case Jews, feel the same." Is there any truth in that, do you think?

Rev. JACKSON: No.

MacNEIL: Do you feel that an unfair campaign is being waged against you in this?

Rev. JACKSON: Well, that particular campaign, I think, is a bit diversionary because, in a real sense, our campaign was about the business of bringing in new people and poor people. And we did some amazing things. For example, in California I was endorsed by Arabs and Jews alike. That's unprecedented. Because I chose to try to expand our party to include the locked out -- Arab Americans, Jews, Indians, gays, hispanics, blacks, whites, women, progressives. We intended to do that. We consistently, for example, got more non-black votes than Gary Hart got non-white votes. We worked at it and we succeeded. The primaries are over as of Tuesday, but the rainbow has just been born, and it's growing.

MacNEIL: Well, we'll have to watch it grow with you, Mr. Jackson. Thank you very much for joining us.

Rev. JACKSON: Thank you very much.

MacNEIL: Good night.Jim?

LEHRER: It was a quiet day for a change in the Persian Gulf war. There were no reports, at least, of new military action between any of the warring powers. But there was another of those ominous rhetorical shots from Iran, where the government called on volunteers to go to the Gulf. Observers believe it is in preparation for the massive ground attack Iran has been known to be planning against Iran for several weeks now.

Robin?

MacNEIL: In India militant Sikhs were still fighting government soldiers today in the complex of building around the Golden Temple of Amritsar. More bodies were found near the shrine, raising the death toll since the army stormed the temple Wednesdy to more than 500. In addition, 20 people have been killed in violence in Punjab state and other parts of India. Six were killed by Sikh extremists today. In New Delhi Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made a radio and television address to the nation expressing her regret over the episode. For a report on the situation, here is Brian Hanrahan of the BBC.

BRIAN HANRAHAN, BBC [voice-over]: Mrs. Gandhi spoke of her anguish and profound sorrow over the military attacks on the holiest of Sikh shrines, the Golden Temple. But she said it was unavoidable. Parts of the Golden Temple were ankle-deep in used cartridge cases when the army finally fought their way in, and the militants had thousands more rounds left. They also had machine guns, bombs, mines, and three tons of gunpowder.

SPOKESMAN [Indian Army]: These they have been using, most of them, to make a little bit of crude handbombs. That's enough to cause so many splinters.

HANRAHAN [voice-over]: Some of them made a final stand in the golden Temple itself, the holiest of Sikh places, but the government say that despite the heavy fire directed at the troops from there, not a shot was fired back. Indian television has avoided drawing attention to the bodies of the dead. With deaths and disturbances still being reported from around the Punjab and neighboring states, every effort is now being made to calm the Sikhs.

MacNEIL: Sikhs in other parts of the world are also protesting against the storming of the Golden Temple. Today there were protest marches in Hong Kong, Thailand, Britain, Canada and Washington. Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come tonight, a report on the new battle lines over abortion and a campaign to shut down abortion clinics, a debate over the new congressional move to mandate 21 as the national drinking age, and Doris Grumback reviews the new novel Scumbler by William Wharton.

[Video postcard -- La Ventana, New Mexico] Abortion Clinics Under Attack

MacNEIL: The Reverend Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, said today there was hope that if President Reagan were re-elected, the Supreme Court decision making abortion legal could be reversed. Addressing the national Right to Life Committee convention in Kansas City, Falwell said that in a second term Mr. Reagan could appoint up to five new Supreme Court justices. He told the cheering delegates, "There is a President who believes what we say here today, and I will do whatever must be done for his re-election. We could have a good, healthy, pro-life, strict constructionist Court by the end of his term." At the same time, the organized supporters of legal abortion are dedicating themselves to working for Reagan's defeat, for the same reason -- fear that his Supreme Court appointees would reverse the 1973 decision which struck down state laws banning abortion. The National Abortion Rights League is holding its convention in Washington. Its executive director, Nanette Falkenburg, called Ronald Reagan the most staunchly anti-choice president in the country's history. These political battle lines were drawn just as the anti-abortion movement has established new tactics. No longer content with scattered picketing, frustrated by defeats in the courts and Congress, abortion opponents have begun a highly organized campaign to shut down abortion clinics across the country. Kwame Holman has more on this campaign.

KWAME HOLMAN: Many of the nation's anti-abortionists have joined a highly organized campaign that targets individual abortion clinics and tries to shut them down. One of the leaders of this new activist movement is Joe Scheidler, head of a Chicago-based group called the Pro-Life Action League. It boasts 3,000 members. Scheidler has vowed personally to force the closing of at least a dozen abortion clinics by the end of next summer.

ANNOUNCER [Detroit anti-abortion convention]: I'd like to give you now Joseph Scheidler.

JOSEPH SCHEIDLER, director, Pro-Life Action League: The abortionists are scared, and they have a right to be.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Joe Scheidler is on a crusade. His aim is to shut down the nation's abortion clinics, and he travels the country exhorting fellow pro-lifers like these in Detroit to take their protests to the streets.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: if thereis an abortion clinic sitting within your prevail and it is not picketed on a regular basis, you have accepted abortion.

CITIZEN [to picketer]: You can't judge --

PICKETER: Yes, I can.

CITIZEN: No, you can't.

PICKETER: Yes, I can.

CITIZEN: You're not God.

PICKETER: You are not God. Nobody can kill babies.

2nd PICKETER: Stop the killing now. Stop the killing now. Stop the killing now.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: I believe abortion is murder, abortionists are killers. So our objective is to close the clinics by taking away their business.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Scheidler claims to have already forced the closing of six clinics in his native Chicago.This Chicago clinic has been picketed every week for a year by members of Scheidler's Pro-Life Action League. The clinic's director is Eileen Adams.

EILEEN ADAMS, director, Park Medical Center: Mr. Scheidler urges his people to scream at the patients. Perhaps four, five or six of them will run down the street, jump in front of the patient, scream at her that she's going to die, that she's a murderess. He will us props such as garbage cans filled with little dolls covered with blood. They've become terrorists.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: If they're terrorized, maybe they have a reason to be terrorized. If I were killing children all day long, I would be living in constant terror of what was going to happen to me eventually.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Many abortion clinic directors worry that Scheidler's kind of rhetoric is encouraging violence by extremists within the pro-life movement. Already this year at least four clinics have been fire-bombed, one of them three times, and another was riddled with bullets.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: I don't say that there aren't occasions when somebody is so infuriated by the murder, the killing that goes on in those places, they may attack real estate. And I'll tell you, I have yet to shed my first tear when I see a charred abortion clinic. If nobody was hurt --

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Joe Scheidler drew an audience of over 600 to this recent convention in Fort Lauderdale. It was a first for the pro-life movement, a two-day seminar devoted entirely to teaching people how to shut down clinics in their hometowns.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: Call their bluff. In Orlando they were trying to tell us, "You can't march here. If you've got so many people it's a crowd, you have to have a parade permit --"

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Scheidler's lessons come straight from a book, the one he wrote, called Close: 99 Ways to Close the Abortion Clinics. His suggested tactics include tracking down and trying to dissuade women who want abortions, pressuring doctors and staging sit-ins at abortion clinics.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: Somebody asked the other day at one of the parks, "Would you ever break a law to save a child's life?" I'd like to answer that, "You betcha. I would break a law of trespass, because there is a higher law that I'm keeping." I don't care if nobody else in the pro-life movement goes out to the clinics; I'm going out.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: While, inside, anti-abortionists plotted their new, more militant strategy, outside their opposition, members of the National Organization for Women and directors of local abortion clinics, tried to upstage the convention with a demonstration of their own.

DEMONSTRATOR [pro-choice]: bortion is a woman's right. Abortion is a woman's right!

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Scheidler is used to these heated confrontations.

DEMONSTRATOR: Zeig heil! Zeig heil!

HOLMAN [voice-over]: In fact, he promised conventioneers a hands-on lesson in picketing at a Fort Lauderdale clinic the next morning. He chose a clinic run by pro-abortion demonstrator Barbara Zeitlin, a clinic that has been picketed every Saturday for the past year.

BARBARA ZEITLIN, director, Women's Awareness: I'm not ready to knuckle under, so to speak, and give in to them because they choose to believe differently. I'll defend the woman's right to an abortion as long as it's legal.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The picketing organized by Scheidler was larger and more intense than any Barbara Zeitlin had seen at her clinic.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: The line of march to the dumpster, where they throw the babies, undoubtedly, back around her to that pole. Now, we're just going to keep a big, long line going. Just follow me. [chanting] Life, yes; abortion, no. Life, yes; abortion, no!

HOLMAN [voice-over]: As patients arrived they were confronted by the demonstrators.

PICKETER: Babies feel pain, too.Babies feel pain, too.

2nd PICKETER: Don't do it!

1st PICKETER: Jesus loves you. Jesus loves the baby!

3rd PICKETER: Don't let her do it. Don't let her do it.

4th PICKETER: Did you know that, if you let your wife go through with this and you push her into this, that you are going to stand before Almighty God?

PATIENT'S HUSBAND: I think about it for two weeks.

PICKETER: So, here --

4th PICKETER: Go get her right now and pull her out of there.

PICKETER: Another week won't hurt.

PICKETERS [singing]: "Let me walk into the sunshine, let me live. Feel my mother's arms around me, feel my father's arms around me, we are part of God's creation, let me live."

POLICE OFFICER: Let them in if they want to go in.

PICKETER: -- life for your baby!

POLICE OFFICER: Stop. You are obstructing traffic and a misdemeanor violation will be enforced.

PICKETER: Repent!

Mr. SCHEIDLER: They're not going in. They can't get in.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Some patients turned back, unwilling to face the harassment of the picketers.

Mr. SCHEIDLER: Hey, Steve, we stopped an abortion already.

PICKETER: Hey, we love you. We want to offer you help. You don't have to go to the butcher mill. We're here to help you.

Ms. ZEITLIN [with police officer]: They're blocking the driveway.I want it clear. They are denying the constitutional right to abortion of these women. I want it clear.

I don't deny anybody the right to feel the way they want to feel, but when do the police really take notice? When do the officials of the cities where all of these things are occuring really put down their foot and say, "This is not going to go on in my city any longer. These people are breaking the law, and we won't tolerate it."

Mr. SCHEIDLER: Everything we do in the pro-life movement is an exercise of our First Amendment right in one form or another -- free speech, freedom to assemble, a right to be Americans.

PICKETER: Don't kill your babies.Don't kill your babies.

Ms. ZEITLIN: I'm concerned that it's going to escalate. I'm concerned that my patients are going to be confronted with this constantly, that my staff members possibly are going to resign from their positions. I think it has to stop. Where do you draw the line?

Mr. SCHEIDLER: We not only saved a life. We sent a message into that abortuary. They sent a message that pro-life is on the move. This is a war to the end, and we are going to win. [chanting] Pro-life! Pro-life! Pro-life! Pro-life! Pro-life! Pro-life! Pro-life! Pro-life. . .

MacNEIL: The pro-abortion forces are fighting back. Besides trying to defeat President Reagan this November, the National Abortion Rights League is trying to win back public financing of abortions for women who depend on the federal government for their health care. Jim? Raising the Drinking Age

LEHRER: Last night the House of Representatives laid down a new law to the states on drinking: "Raise your drinking age to 21 within two years or start losing federal highway funds." It is aimed directly at 29 states that permit the drinking of hard liquor and/or wine and beer by those under 21, and its aim overall is to reduce traffic deaths caused by and among drinking teenagers. The sponsor of the legislation is Congressman James Howard, Democrat of New Jersey. He is with us now, and so are Republican Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida, and the Democratic Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, who think it's a lousy idea and a lousy law. The governor is with us from the studios of the New York Network in Albany. Governor, to you first. Your objection is mainly a states' rights one. Is that correct?

MARIO CUOMO: I'm very much for the 21-year-old purchasing age in my state, and unfortunately just lost a battle with our Assembly to get it passed, although we did make some progress. I don't, however, think it's a good idea that that state policy should be induced by threat of a punishment out of a federal regulation. So I'm very much with Congressman Howard in his desire to get to 21. I differ with him as to how to get there, however.

LEHRER: Why? What's wrong with his approach?

Gov. CUOMO: I don't like the notion of the federal government in effect coercing you into policies at the state level by threatening you with a loss of monies that you otherwise would get. I don't know where it would stop. I don't know why you couldn't do the same thing with Medicaid. ERA, you'll recall, in the Democratic campaign recently the question came up, "Would you say to states that either you adopt the ERA or withdraw funds?" I don't like that kind of coercive policy-making. And we do have a Constitution that imposes itself upon all states equally, but this is nota constitutional question. And questions that are not constitutional ought to be left, if possible, to the states. So I want to get to 21. I've invested a lot in the effort. But I want to do it at the state level.

LEHRER: Congressman Howard, is it coercion?

Rep. JAMES HOWARD: Well, it's an inducement, I guess, in some way. Of course, the governor did say that he doesn't know where it would end or what might happen on this, and if we look back -- it's only been twice I know of in the last 10 years -- 10 years ago when we were looking at the speed limit and looking at saving lives there. We found that this was a proper way to go. We went with that 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. All the states complied. The results I don't even have to talk about. The lives saved, 9,000 a year, 90,000 fewer paralyzing back injuries. And I agree with the governor, and the governor said today about let the states in their wisdom do this rather than have it uniform across the nation, and of course the New York state legislatue did not apparently have the wisdom a couple of weeks ago to do it. But one particular problem we have on this has to do with a border problem. New Jersey can be at 21, New York at 19, and yet what it causes, and almost forces, in some way, the young people who want to drink legally to go all the way to New York.And we've seen this on the Jersey shore for many years. They drink there and then, not only that, but almost forced to drive 50 miles afterward. And on prom week and graduation week we've seen the tragedy that occurs. And so I just believe that this is a good sensible way. I believe all the states are going to comply, and in that way we don't have to worry if one state has a good law which will be obviated by a bad law in the next state. We'll have them all the same, we'll save lives that we are unnecessarily losing every single day.

LEHRER: All right. Let's go to Congressman McCollum, and you are a twofer on this issue. You not only think it's a states' rights problem, but you also disagree with the basic idea of putting the limit at 21, correct?

Rep. BILL McCOLLUM: Tha's right, I do. I think it should be said right up front that I strongly believe that we need to get at the problem of drinking while driving, we need to get at the problem of fatalities caused by drunk driving, and we need very seriously to get at the problem of young people abusing alcohol as well as many other alcohol abusers. But I think fundamentally that this law is flawed, both for the reason the governor said, and also for the reason that I think we're discriminating against those young adults, those 18-to 20-year-old adults, and at the same time we're misleading the public because, quite frankly, we don't get at the problem nearly as much as we should. It's more of a political or a cosmetic solution, even though it will save lives statistically to a certain extent. I think we need tougher laws; we need to enforce those laws; we need to have better education in the schools; and we need to have Congress take a responsible position, for example, on the issue of putting the safety bags in the cars that we've never followed through on.

LEHRER: Well, let's take your points one at a time. The discrimination thing. Why is it discrimination, and let's take that up with the governor and Congressman.

Rep. McCOLLUM: Well, I think it very clearly is discrimination, and it may even be unconstitutional because we have people today who become of majority, adults, at the age of 18 in almost every state at that particular point. They have the right to marry, they have the right to sing contracts. They have the right, of course, to have children, do all kinds of things -- vote constitutionally and, of course, they're drafted and they're subject to giving their lives for their country. The only thing where there's a disability of that age group today, if we have this law enforced or, as it is in some states already, is in the age of drinking. And I think that is discriminatory against those young people, and statistics really don't justify this exception, in my opinion.

LEHRER: Governor, that's a powerful argument, isn't it?

Gov. CUOMO: No, that's not at all. As a matter of fact, we ignored it in the Second World War. Plenty of people came back from war and went to states where they weren't allowed to drink, and it seems to me very close to totally unreasonable to suggest that because we might be stupid enough to send off some of our young people to die in a war, we ought to be stupid enough to let them die from drink. And this notion that it's only some small statistical evidence, there is no question that going to 21 saves lives, period. Congressman Howard is absolutely correct that right now, because New York is at 19 and New Jersey at 21 and bordering states at 20 and 21, young people will come into my state this summer for a drink and will get killed as a result. That's absolutely clear. And I don't want my states' rights position to confuse anyone. The Congressman and all of those who favor going to 21 have very strong evidence in the statistcs. Now a lot of us -- Congressman Tom -- I'm sorry, Governor Tom Keane of New Jersey, Governor Mike Dukakis of Massachusetts and myself -- were somewhat tentative about earlier increases in purchasing age because we wanted to see the proof. Well, we have seen it in spades, and the proof is very clear. By going to 21 you're going to save a whole lot of lives, avoid a whole lot of accidents. Everybody in my state, even the Assembly people who voted the other way, had to concede that some lives would be saved.

LEHRER: But you do not concede that?

Rep. McCOLLUM: Oh, I conceded -- wait a minute, I concede --

LEHRER: I mean Congressman McCollum.

Rep. McCOLLUM: I can see that some lives would be saved. There's no question statistics show that. The question, really, is not that. It's that the statistics are inconclusive that this alone is going to solve the problem. The fact is that you've got statistcs that show in some states the same reports that were used to justify this -- in some states where the drinking age is still younger, below 21, there has been a significant reduction in fatalities and driving accidents. You've got a situation where the highest number of driving-related fatalities in the state of Florida, my home state, is for the age group 37. The second highest is age group 26. The third-highest is age group 30 and so on down the road. You're way down into the second 10 before you get the 19- and 20-year-olds. My point is very simply that you would save more lives if you went and prohibited drinking up to age 25, 28, 30. There is nothing magic about 21. It used to be the age of majority. It isn't anymore, and we're discriminating against young adults in this process.

LEHRER: Congressman Howard?

Rep. HOWARD: No, the facts are very different, I believe, you know. Let's take the numbers. You've got -- 8% of the drivers are in the 18-to 21-year-old group. They drive 9% of the miles and they're involved in 20% of the drinking fatalities -- drinking-related fatalities in this country. So there's no doubt about that. States that have gone from 18 to 21 show immediate anywhere from 28- to 43-percent drop in those fatalities. And, let's remember, in 75 years the average living age of Americans has grown tremendously with every group except the 15- to 24-year-old group, and that group has as its highest death cause drinking-driving as an individual death toll.

LEHRER: Now, Congressman McCollum, your other point is that this creates a false sense that something's going to be really done about the problem, is that correct?

Rep. McCOLLUM: That's correct. I think the statistics are interesting because you can twist them almost any way you want to in this argument. The fact is that more accidents are caused by drivers in the age group of 18 to 21, period, but percentagewise there are fewer associated with drinking while driving in that age group than there are, say, the next age group on up. So you can play with statistics all you want to, but my point about the whole matter in this regard is, it is misleading. We need to get at the problem in other age groups. We need to get at them all across the board, and the fact is we're still doing parens patria in this whole process instead of getting at the airbags in the cars, getting at the right education program, and getting at really tough laws that will get at everybody, not just the small percentage of young adults, and they are adults.

LEHRER: Governor, what do you say to that?

Gov. CUOMO: Well, that may be true in the congressman's state. It's not true in our state. We're not guilty of the kind of short-sightedness and myopia that says you can only do one thing at a time. We're not suggesting that by going to 21 you have the whole answer. We do a whole lot of things. We're toughening up our statutes. We're making education more important than it's ever been. We have sobriety checkpoints. Of course you need to do a whole lot of things. Of course this is not a panacea. I'd say this. Florida ought to make the judgment it wishes to make, and if it agrees with its congressman, Congressman McCollum, then it should be free to do that. In my state, I'm hoping in the exercise of their intelligent judgment the people of my state are going to agree that going to 21 is absolutely essential. The statistics are not twisted. They're not subject to ambivalent readings. They're absolutely clear. You save lives. The question is, is it worth it -- the small sacrifice you ask your sons and daughters to make, is it worth it, worth it to save some of their lives? Now, we went from 18 to 19. We thought it was worth it, and all the records show that we saved many lives and avoided many injuries. As a parent with children who are in that age category, I think it's definitely worth it. I think my state will come to that conclusion, even without Congressman Howard's threat.

LEHRER: Yes, Congressman McCollum, what about your state.How much money would your state lose if this law is enacted, if the Senate passes it and it's signed by the President?

Rep. McCOLLUM: Well, I don't know the dollar amount, but it's 5% if it's not changed, the drinking age to 21, by two years, and 10% after another couple of years if we haven't done it. And I think it's a signficant sum. There's one point I would like to make that hasn't been made tonight, and that is there are studies that show that approximately 90% of all of those young people in this age group that are currently drinking or have been drinking in the past when laws have been changed in those states where they are find alcohol somewhere. And it may be, and I raise this as a very serious question, it may be worse to take away the alcohol from them and the legality of this, in a sense, than it is to leave it there because you've got problems of where they drink it, when they drink it and, in some cases, studies show surreptitious consumption is a lot more danger. So it's a very, very broad question. It's not as simple as the political year has led us to believe in this particular vote.

LEHRER: Congressman Howard, how do you respond to that?

Rep. HOWARD: Well, I think that if we have a 21-year-old vote we know that some people 18 and 19 are going to be drinking. It's happened all along. We have an 18-year-old vote. We have 'em drinking at 15 and 16. I think that we're debated the voting rights at 18. I was a co-sponsor, and I wanted to have all majority at 18, including drinking. So philosophically I can say that they pay taxes, they go to war and all, but the numbers and the statistics overwhelm me, even though I philosophically lean that way. I have changed my mind on it. Others can philosophize in New York or in Florida about what would be the best way to do it; I'm interested in saving lives of 18- to 20-year-olds and the rest of us. And I think that's what we ought to get to do. We know this will work.

Rep. McCOLLUM: I disagree. Obviously, you're going to save lives, but you're also going to discriminate, and I think you are misleading. And I think it's wrong to go about it in this way. Now, I will say, too, that Florida has a 19-year-old age. They just debated that for a couple of years to change it to 21. And there is a reasonable argument to be made for that age, because you've got teenagers, for example, in high schools today that are 18 years of age. You can make a number of arguments for various age groups, but somewhere you have to cut that umbilical cord. You have to say, "You're a young adult, you're responsible. You have all the rights of citizenship, and we're not going to discriminate against you." And I think that is an overpowering argument in this case, and even in the light of these statistics.

LEHRER: Congressman McCollum, thank you; Congressman Howard, thank you; and, Governor Cuomo in Albany, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: One of the six convicted murderers who escaped from a prison in Virginia last week was captured today in Woodford, Vermont. The police there said the fugitive, Lem Tuggle, Jr., robbed a gift shop and got a small amount of money. The employees of the shop telephoned the police, who pursued him and caught him. Two other escapees were captured shortly after they broke out of the Mecklenburg Correctional Center, and three remain at large.

[Video postcard -- Dangling Rock Canyon, Utah] Book Review: Scumbler

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, we have a book review. The book is Scumbler, a new novel by William Wharton. Our reviewer is Doris Grumbach.

First, tell me about William Wharton, the writer.

Ms. DORIS GRUMBACH: Well, there's not much to tell. That's a pseudonym, William Wharton. When Birdie came out we were told that he was a painter who lived on a houseboat in the Seine in Paris, and that he was aging, somewhere is his 50s, if that's aging, and that's what we know -- we knew. I think we know more after Scumbler.

MacNEIL: Now, what does "scumbler" mean in the title? Is that somebody's name?

Ms. GRUMBACH: No, no. Well, he's called scum by himself, because he is a scumbler, and scumbling is a process in painting where you modify the effect of a painting by overlapping it with a thin layer of opaque or semi-opaque color. And the word means, in this connection, that he is going to tell the story in that method. He is going to tell what he is, and then he is going to overlay it with memory and with backshots and with other pieces of information, producing in words the scumbling effect of painting.

MacNEIL: So this is a book by a real painter, presumably, living in Paris who also writes and has written other books?

Ms. GRUMBACH: Yes. He's written three other books. One excellent one, that I loved, called Birdie, the first one; two that I wasn't quite so fond of, but I think this -- I think Scumbler is better than Birdie.

MacNEIL: Well, is this autobiography?

Ms. GRUMBACH: Well, one would suspect so, because he writes so wonderfully about the process of painting. That's a very rare thing to do. I think the only person I've ever read who does it -- who did it with equal skill, is Joyce Cary in The Horse's Mouth, where you knew that you were watching a painter at work. In this book there is so much about the process of painting, so much about why he paints, all done without lecture, without instruction, but done almost offhandedly, that it's -- it makes you believe entirely that he is indeed a painter.

MacNEIL: What happens in this book?

Ms. GRUMBACH: Well, practically nothing, and that's what's so wonderful about it. He goes on a trip to Spain on a motorcycle to sort of recapture his youth. There's a disatrous fire in which some of his canvases are burned up. He's a born nester, and he goes from one sewer to abandoned house and makes little places to work and little places to store his material, little places to rent. Then he moves on to the next. He talks about painting as nesting in that one paints sort of to hide oneself in the way that one builds in the sewers of Paris a studio of some kind.Nothing happens except that you grow to know this complex, gentle, peace-loving, artistic man extremely well and to like him and to like where he is, what he does.

MacNEIL: What's the writing like?

Ms. GRUMBACH: Wonderful writing. I wish I had time to read you some of it. But all of it is in a voice that is simple and direct and honest, and he says in one place something about -- this is a paraphrase -- that writing about painting is impossible, but the fact of the matter is that he writes about painting so that you believe every moment of it.

MacNEIL: So how would you sum up your feeling and opinion about Scumbler?

Ms. GRUMBACH: Well, it's a rare novel. It's not a novel of action; it's a novel of character. And it's a novel about the aesthetics of an art. And that comes so seldom in literature that anyone who enjoys the process of getting to know a complicated character well will love it.

MacNEIL: And you're really excited by it, you really like it?

Ms. GRUMBACH: I love the book, yes. I quote it to friends, I quote it to myself. I would like to know William Wharton personally, and that rarely happens to me.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you.

Once again, the book we have been discussing is Scumbler by William Wharton, published by Alfred A. Knopf. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, the major stories this Friday night. President Reagan and his fellow leaders of the free world issued their first summit statement vowing continued support for democracy and free elections, disavowing the use of force to solve disputes. The Soviets have told the U.S. officially that dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov is alive, but U.S. officials want proof. Seventeen people are dead, many more injured by a wave of 49 tornadoes that hit the Midwest. And people are still dying in the Indian state of Punjab; more than 500 bodies have now been counted in the fighting at the Golden Temple at Amristsar between the Sikhs and the government army troops.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour tonight and for this week. We'll be back on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.