thumbnail of The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
Transcript
Hide -
Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, new mines have been spotted in a major Persian Gulf shipping lane. Congresswoman Pat Schroeder decided not to run for President. A landslide buried a shantytown in Colombia, killing more than 100 people. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, the new book on the late CIA Director William Casey is our lead. Three intelligence experts join us to size up reporter Bob Woodward's account. Next, a look a one little known aspect of the troubled trade talks between the U. S. and Canada, an issue that Canadians say strikes at the core of their identity. Then, excerpts from today's hearings on the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. And finally, John Merrow has a report on two new school teachers as they begin their careers.News Summary MacNEIL: Several new mines were spotted today in a major sea route in the southern Persian Gulf. Ships were warned to proceed with caution. In Bahrain, shipping sources said the deep water channel 20 miles off the Port of Dubai would be closed to navigation until U. S. or British ships swept it for mines. At least three, and as many as six, mines were spotted and three were fished out by the U. S. Navy. They were found some 200 miles south of where the U. S. caught an Iranian vessel laying mines last week. In Washington, the White House cautioned reporters away from a NBC report that the U. S. was considering preemptive strikes against Iranian vessels suspected of carrying mines. A White House official told Reuters, ''Our policy does not authorize preemptive strikes. '' Defense SecretaryCaspar Weinberger, who is in Cairo winding up a tour of the region, said the United Nations should proceed with an arms embargo. Weinberger said, ''It is quite apparent that Iran is not going to agree to a cease fire, and we should proceed together on an embargo resolution as soon as we can. '' The State Dept. said the Secretary of State George Shultz will visit Israel, Egypt and Jordan to examine the prospects for advancing the peace process before going to the Soviet Union late next month. Judy? WOODRUFF: The chairman of the House Iran contra committee, Congressman Lee Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana, said today that he believes journalist Bob Woodward's assertion in his new book that the late CIA Director William Casey knew about the diversion of Iran arms sales money to the Nicaraguan contras. Hamilton made the comment following a speech in Washington this afternoon.
Rep. LEE HAMILTON, (D) Indiana: I believe that he did know about the diversion. Now, obviously, we don't have Mr. Casey's personal testimony in that regard. What we do have is Oliver North's statement that the Director knew of the diversion, and I believe Oliver North at that point in his testimony. And I think the accumulated evidence with Mr. Woodward's book and Col. North's testimony would persuade me that Bill Casey probably knew about the diversion far before he indicated that he did know. WOODRUFF: Casey's widow says that she doubts her husband knew about the diversion of money to the contras, and she flatly denies that Woodward ever got to see her husband while he was ill in the hospital, as Woodward says in the book. New documents released today by the Congressional Iran contra committees allege that the Reagan administration passed up a chance in 1985 to talk directly with a top level Iranian moderate, choosing instead to sell arms which had the effect of strengthening radical elements in Iran. The information comes in transcripts of private testimony by Michael Levine, a former U. S. Consultant on terrorism who was involved in early discussions about the arms sales. MacNEIL: In Warsaw, Poland, Vice President George Bush laid a wreath on the graves of a pro solidarity priest who was murdered by secret police. Thousands of Poles shouted, ''Long live Bush,'' as he placed the wreath and a solidarity banner on the polished, granite tombstone of the Rev. Jerzy Popieluszko. Bush's day included meetings with solidarity's Lech Walesa and other Polish officials. Bush later made an unprecedented five minute address on Polish television, expressing support for solidarity and national reconciliation. WOODRUFF: Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder announced today that she is joining the growing ranks of Democrats who say they will not run for President next year. After months of traveling around the country, and testing the waters for a possible candidacy, the most senior woman in Congress made an emotional statement to supporters gathered in Denver.
Re. PATRICIA SCHROEDER, (D) Colorado: I could not figure out how to run and not be separated from those I serve. There must be a way, but I haven't figured it out yet. Summer's contacts were warm and wonderful. The spontaneity was terrific. And I could not bear to turn every human contact into a photo opportunity, nor could I bear to be separated by people who are well meaning, but trying to protect me. I would shrivel. WOODRUFF: Schroeder's decision not to run leaves six probable candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination. On Capitol Hill, confirmation hearings for the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court resumed today, with testimony in favor from former Attorney General Griffin Bell, who served in the Carter administration, and against from former Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton. MacNEIL: One of the nation's newest strategic bombers, a B 1B, crashed today during a training mission in eastern Colorado. Three of the six man crew parachuted to safety. The other three were unaccounted for. It was the first ever crash of a regular production model of the B 1B, although a prototype went down in 1984. The plane today was attached to the Air Force 96th Bombardment wing. It took off early today from Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, and went down about four miles short of its destination, the Strategic Training Range Complex, near La Junta, Colorado. WOODRUFF: The company that made a name for itself out of being Number Two, was bought by its employees today. Avis Car Rental was purchased for $1. 75 billion by its 11,000 workers, after being sold almost a dozen different times since its founding 40 years ago. Avis said the deal was the largest worker buy out ever, and will bring stability to a company that hasn't had it for many years. MacNEIL: In Colombia, at least 137 persons died and 70 were missing after a mudslide buried a slum section of Medellin, Colombia's second biggest city. Rescue officials said 43 of the dead were children. Some had been attending a first communion party when a wall of mud and rubble engulfed the area at the foot of Sugar Loaf Mountain. The slide was triggered by a week of torrential rains that flooded mountains creeks. MacNEIL: That ends our news summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, the flak over a new book on the late CIA Director William Casey, Canada's fear of cultural imperialism, excerpts from today's Bork hearings, and a report on two teachers beginning their careers. Telling Secrets? WOODRUFF: We begin tonight with an excursion into the secret world of the late CIA Director William Casey. Secrets that most people had thought Casey had taken to his grave have emerged this weekend in published excerpts of a book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. We'll discuss the book, the secrets and their potential effect on the CIA, and U. S. allies in a moment, with three intelligence experts. But first, some background on Bob Woodward's book about William Casey's CIA. It was a strange collaboration between the secretive spy master, who generally distrusted the press, and the country's best known investigative reporter. Its result, a book now being excerpted in the Post and Newsweek, brought surprise, even to those who knew that Casey and Woodward had collaborated before Casey's death. The most topical revelation, that the CIA Director knew of the diversion of Iran arms sales profits to the Nicaraguan contras. Woodward was asked about that on the CBS news program 60 minutes.
BOB WOODWARD, Washington Post: He was dying. It was not the Casey I knew, physically. And so I got one question. And that question was, ''You knew about the diversion, didn't you? You knew, you had to know. '' And he nodded. WOODRUFF: Casey's widow, Sophia, disputed what Woodward reported, and that he had even seen Casey on his deathbed.
SOPHIA CASEY, Casey's Widow: It's just that I'm telling you that he lied in this instance. WOODRUFF: But Woodward said he was sticking by this story. The book excerpts published so far contain other revelations sure to provoke controversy in Congress. Lee Hamilton, Chairmanof the House Iran contra committee, expressed surprise this afternoon that Casey was talking so freely to a journalist.
Rep. HAMILTON: The most extraordinary thing to me is that a Director of Central Intelligence apparently carried on conversations over a period of years -- I think four is the report -- and talked with a reporter about the highest secrets of government. WOODRUFF: The revelations also will provoke consternation in friendly governments. For example, that Casey brought in Saudi Arabians to finance and put together a plan to assassinate a Shiite Moslem leader in Beirut. Woodward wrote the assassination plot left 80 innocent dead, while the Shiite leader escaped uninjured. There were revelations about world leaders. For instance, that Libya's Col. Qaddafi likes to wear women's clothes. And even about President Reagan. That Casey and other top officials worry that Reagan would ever regain command after the attempt on his life in 1981. And that the President was ''lazy, distracted, and had few real friends. '' For more, we go to three intelligence analysts. George Carver is a 26 year veteran of the CIA. After retiring, he worked with Mr. Casey during the 1980 transition. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Morton Halperin is a former Pentagon and National Security Council officials. He is now Director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. Richard Shultz is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University. He dealt with Mr. Casey as a consultant to the Pentagon on covert action and paramilitary affairs. He joins us from Public Station WGBH in Boston. Gentlemen, first of all, Mr. Casey's widow says that at least part of this book is a lie. She insisted for one thing that Woodward never even got in to see her husband at the hospital. George Carver, who do you believe? GEORGE CARVER, Center for Strategic and International Studies: I believe Mrs. Casey in this case. Bob Woodward tried on the 22nd of January to masquerade as a member of the family and get into Casey's sickroom -- which I regard as a rather reprehensible thing to do in hustling a story. He was tossed out. The people in the anteroom -- you had to go through an anteroom to get in the sick room -- were sensitized to attempts to break in, and particularly sensitized to attempts by Bob Woodward, and the statement that he made that he got in to see him, and that he was taken in by a senior official, I find quite literally incredible. WOODRUFF: You're saying that as far as you know, there is no way he could have gotten in? Mr. CARVER: I -- the only way he could have gotten in would have been to have been taken in by someone senior, such as Bob Gates, Claire George, John Stein, or someone else, who would not have smuggled Bob Woodward into the sick room of the dying Bill Casey. I do not think -- now, whether or not Casey knew about the contra aid diversion, that's another question. But that particular interview -- WOODRUFF: Just on this point -- Mr. CARVER: -- that he was so eloquent about with Mike Wallace, I don't think ever took place. WOODRUFF: What do you think, Mort Halperin? MORT HALPERIN, ACLU: I just have no way to judge that. WOODRUFF: Professor Shultz, do you have a view on that? RICHARD SHULTZ, Tufts University: Well, George Carver, of course, can speak more authoritatively than me, but we do know that Bill Casey and Bob Woodward were engaged in a kind of game of cat and mouse, and maybe in this instance the cat became the mouse, and Bill Casey got the last laugh on Bob Woodward. WOODRUFF: What do you mean by that? Prof SHULTZ: Well, what I mean by that is that I think in the larger sense, Casey was concerned that many of the issues he dealt with be addressed in a public forum. And Woodward may be the vehicle for that. In this particular instance, it may be an old spymaster who finally got, pulled the rug out from under America's leading investigative journalist. WOODRUFF: All right, let's get to that theory in just a second. What about on the specific point about the diversion. George Carver, back to you, do you think Casey knew about the diversion, as Woodward asserts he did? Mr. CARVER: I would be very surprised if he hadn't known, given the extent to which Col. North worked with him and the extent to which he was the President's senior action officer for covert action, including covert action conducted by the agencies. You see, that's a totally separate question than the question as to whether this particular interview ever took place. That he knew wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I don't happen to know for a fact one way or the other. But the particular interview, I don't think it ever occurred. WOODRUFF: Mort Halperin, do you have a view on the diversion? Mr. HALPERIN: Yes, I do. I would be astonished if he did not know. He was clearly using Col. North as an action officer to get around the restrictions that Congress had legislated on covert operations. This was one of those operations, and it just seems clear to me that he knew all about it. WOODRUFF: Well, we noted today that Congressman Lee Hamilton said that he certainly believed that Casey knew, based on Col. North's testimony, and also now what's come out of the book. Is this overall, George Carver, a plausible portrait of Bill Casey? The book overall? Mr. CARVER: I haven't read the book overall. I've just read the excerpts that have appeared so far. So I have to be a little careful. I regarded it as a caricature of the Bill Casey that I knew indulging in a great deal of hyperbole. The man that I knew is recognizable at the substrate, but I think Woodward is engaging in a great deal of journalistic license and he's putting into the mouth of a man who is now dead and can't possibly contradict him a lot of stories and a lot of events that I don't think occurred. WOODRUFF: What do you mean, you think he just made it up? Mr. CARVER: I don't think you can liable a public figure, but I'd better be careful. Bob Woodward has a very large ego. Bob Woodward has a great deal of ambition. Bob Woodward knows a good story. And I think that a number of stories in the book, including, for example, the story about Casey's personally planting a bug in a foreign leader's office and then boasting to Bob Woodward about it -- I think were largely figments of Woodward's rather active imagination. And did not occur in fact, or if they did occur at all in fact, what actually happened doesn't bear much resemblance to what appears on the pages of Woodward's book. WOODRUFF: Is that what a lot of this is? Bob Woodward's -- figments of his imagination? Mr. CARVER: Not at all by a long shot. Mr. HALPERIN: Well, I think it's clear that the thrust of the stories -- he's right, there's been a lot of evidence about it before the book. Casey did not accept the limits that the Congress had put on intelligence operations in 1980 as a result of the scandals that had become public. He believed that an intelligence agency could not operate if it had to report to Congress and tell them when it started an operation and keep them informed about the details. That was clear from his testimony, it was clear from the way he behaved. It was clear from the number of times that he lied to the committee. And what we see in the book is that he went off the books in a variety of different ways, violated the law and tried to conduct it, but that's consistent with everything else we've known about Casey's behavior. WOODRUFF: Professor Shultz, is it consistent with everything you know? Prof SHULTZ: Well, you know, I think that the Woodward book may be a vehicle through which Casey is addressing questions that we need to address. And the one I'd like to zero in on is the question of Mr. Fadlallah and the Party of God. WOODRUFF: This is the assassination plot which Casey engaged in -- or had put together. Prof SHULTZ: Exactly. This gets, I think, at a fundamental question that this democracy has to address, and that Bill Casey had to deal with in a real life setting -- and that is that Mr. Fadlallah is not an innocent bystander. His Party of God carried out a number of highly successful operations, including the bombing of the U. S. Embassy in Beirut, in which a number of senior CIA officials who were meeting there at that time, were killed. And I think that what Casey was trying to address through this expose is whether or not a democracy can indeed defend itself against a movement like the Party of God, or Hezbollah, and whether we can indeed do unto others as they do unto us. WOODRUFF: Are you saying you believe what Woodward wrote, that Casey did indeed have this assassination plot put together? Prof SHULTZ: I think Casey believed that Fadlallah was responsible, or directed: a) the bombing of the U. S. Embassy; b)the blowing up of the Marine Corps barracks; and c)the capturing of William Buckley. And all of these issues become very personal. Remember, it's Casey that sent these officials out to Beirut to serve. WOODRUFF: Do you think that -- let's go to George Carver here. Do you believe that these assassinations, schemes, plots, whatever you want to call it, indeed, what took place is as Woodward says? Mr. CARVER: Well, I simply don't know what happened, Judy. I'm a little skeptical about their having taken place exactly as Bob describes them. As the professor said, Bill Casey was very concerned about the extent to which attacking Americans has become a riskless activity and wanted to increase the risk. But whether or not he engaged the Saudis in an attempt to assassinate Fadala, I simply don't know. I would be a little bit disinclined to think that he would engage in something quite so operationally foolish. Woodward says he did, but we have only Woodward's word for it. We have no proof. WOODRUFF: Mort Halperin? Mr. HALPERIN: Well, I think again it's consistent with what we know about Casey's general attitude. I think the important point is that if he did these things they were illegal. The President issued an executive order banning assassinations, Congress had said if you wanted to do a covert operation you had to tell the committee. The essential point is that these things, if they were done, violated the law -- WOODRUFF: Well, there's no way to confirm whether they were -- is there? Mr. HALPERIN: Well, I assume that there's some record somewhere, and I would hope that the intelligence committees will look into this and demand whatever records are in Mr. Casey's personal files, to see whether there's any evidence to support this. Mr. CARVER: Of course, there's a great deal of difficulty, Judy, because the intelligence committees, if they're going to exonerate Bill Casey -- may well deserve exoneration in this case, I simply don't know -- are going to have to prove that they were not done. Now, proving that something was not done is always much more difficult than making an allegation that it was done. WOODRUFF: Why would Casey talk to Woodward? Mr. CARVER: Well, that's a very good question, and I myself -- the professor may disagree with me -- am not at all persuaded that he did in fact talk to Woodward to anything like the extent, the degree, or anything like the frequency that Woodward now alleges that Casey did. Casey can no longer refute Woodward. Mrs. Casey herself has claimed that her husband did not have anything like a close association with Woodward that Woodward claims, and Bill -- I know -- I'm not an intimate of his, but I've known him for a good number of years -- we served in the transition team together -- and I've always known how sensitive he was about security, particularly about the press -- and to me, it's rather mindboggling that he would conduct the kind of close association over years, divulging all kinds of secrets that Woodward claims he did. WOODRUFF: Well, we heard Congressman Hamilton say that that was the part of the book that he had the most difficulty accepting. Mr. HALPERIN: Well, there's a tradition of this. You go back to the first stories about the CIA done by the New York Times 25 years or so ago. Those came from the CIA, and I think the motive there was -- may have been the motive here -- is to get the press in a relationship in which you can kill stories that you really want to kill, so you say to a reporter, ''If you will promise not to print things at the time that we're especially sensitive about, I will give you additional information which you can then use in your book. '' Mr. CARVER: Excuse me. I have to jump in very quickly. Mort's talking about the stories to Seymour Hersh -- Mr. HALPERIN: No, no, I'm not, I'm not. . . I'm talking about -- Mr. CARVER: The disclosures that were made were ones that people on the executive committee and myself fought tooth and nail, and that Bill Casey told me when we were all on the transition team together, he thought were ridiculous. Mr. HALPERIN: Those were not the stories I was talking about. WOODRUFF: Professor Shultz in Boston, is this going to have any effect on the relations between CIA and the Congress. What do you see the significance of this book being? Prof SHULTZ: I think the book in many ways builds on the Iran contra investigations, and I am concerned that the Iran diversion and the sale of arms to the Iranians, the contra diversion, will have an important impact on the professionals in the CIA. And as I follow the new Director, Judge Webster, it's interesting to me that a number of names keep appearing as people who will have to be dismissed because they were involved in a policy with the contras and with Iran. So I think that the signal that the investigation sends and that the book may reinforce within CIA is that it's a very career damaging thing to get involved in highly sensitive covert action. WOODRUFF: Is that how you see it, Mort Halperin? Mr. HALPERIN: No, I think the lesson is that it's very damaging to your career to break the law. The career professionals come out as saying -- at least in the excerpts -- ''We will not break the law. The law requires notice to the Congress. We insist upon it. '' And that's why he went outside the agency, because the career people would not do it. And I think what you're going to see is tightening of the law to keep new directors from going outside the agency. Mr. CARVER: Mort and I have had this argument for years. Mort doesn't believe in covert action. I do. I think there is a concern that career professionals -- some of them -- will hunker down and try to avoid making mistakes and be very, very bureaucratic and be cowardly in the way that Bill Casey thought quite reprehensible, and up to a point he was justified in doing so. WOODRUFF: What about relations with countries like Saudi Arabia, here you have a startling revelation about a -- Mr. CARVER: Woodward's book, whether or not his allegations are true, are going to make the conduct of American intelligence abroad extraordinarily difficult in the next few months. Just take that one story he told about alleged Ethiopian source working for the CIA and revealing information about a meeting between Qaddafi and Mengistu. If there was such a man, he's dead now. Now, Casey has made allegations about things that were done with friendly governments, or about bugging friendly governments, he's going to make friendly governments very dicey about dealing with Americans, and he's going to make foreigners who were even considering cooperating with Americans rethink it. Because they realize they can't trust our discretion. WOODRUFF: Is that what's going to happen? Mr. HALPERIN: I think some of that will happen. And it shows once again that leaks in this government occur from the top, and seldom from the bottom and seldom in an unauthorized way. WOODRUFF: Prof. Shultz, do you see it that way? Prof SHULTZ: Well, I agree with George Carver. I think that many of these allegations will have serious and damaging effect on friends abroad, and the Saudis are a very good example of this. WOODRUFF: Who is finally going to be believed in this book? Is this something that we're going to continue to argue about, Mort Halperin? Mr. HALPERIN: I think that we are. But I hope that Congress is going to focus on the essential point of a Casey who went outside the law because he didn't like the restrictions. And Congress is going to act to toughen the law to make the restrictions more precise. Sen. Cohen put in a bill over the weekend, which I think is a very important step -- and I think we're going to see a debate both about whether we should do covert operations at all, given the kind of things we end up doing, and if we do them, whether we need much tighter restrictions than we now have. WOODRUFF: I have a feeling this is going to be one that we hear about again and again. Professor Shultz in Boston, Mort Halperin here in Washington, George Carver, we thank you all for being with us. MacNEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Canada's cultural worries, Bork testimony, and the lives of new teachers. Culture Clash MacNEIL: Senior American and Canadian officials met in Washington today to see whether the free trade talks broken off last week can be restarted. Canada walked out on Wednesday, claiming the U. S. would not cooperate on a mechanism for policing future trade disputes. But Prime Minister Brian Mulronney said the U. S. side had also made unacceptable demands. One of them that Canada end government protection for its cultural industries. They call it cultural sovereignty. Special Correspondent Hodding Carter tells us why it's an issue in trade negotiations.
HODDING CARTER: Ten o'clock on a weekday morning. Toronto's cable TV system, which reaches 70% of the city's population, is featuring a full range of American programs. This is typical fare for the Canadian viewer. Of all dramas and sitcoms shown on Canadian TV, nine out of ten are imported. At the movies, more than 90% of the film shown are American. And at the newsstands, it's the same story, three out of four books and magazines sold are foreign, again mostly American. In the face of this flood of American mass culture, Canadians have struggled for years to maintain a national identity, a sense of who they are and what makes them different from the United States. Rick Salutin is a Toronto playwright and media columnist, and a member of the first Canadian generation to grow up with the all pervasive influence of American TV. RICK SALUTIN, playwright: Growing up here at that time, the United States was the real world. It was where everything was defined. You know what happens is if you think of culture as a mirror of yourself, and every time you look in the mirror you see a reflection of somebody else, you eventually get to think you look like that other person, and you're not. You don't. You're deluded.
CARTER: Cultural sovereignty, as Canadians call it, became a political rallying cry of the '60s, and over the past 20 years the Canadian government has taken steps to curtail American influence. Here are just a few examples. A ban on foreign ownership of Canadian radio and TV stations. A requirement that TV stations devote 60% of their air time and radio stations about 30% of their air time to Canadian programs. And a tax policy that says the cost of advertising are deductible only if the ads appear on Canadian air waves or in Canadian publications. These policies now well accepted part of Canadian life, are seen as lifeblood by many Canadian artists. With a career spanning almost two decades and 12 Canadian gold and platinum records, Bruce Cockburn is considered by many the premier Canadian singer/songwriter. In the early '70s, when he was just starting out, Cockburn, unlike his compatriots, Joanie Mitchell and Neil Young, decided to stay in Canada. BRUCE COCKBURN, Musician: I could have moved to L. A. like everybody else was doing -- which was the traditional thing in Canada if you want to make it. But it seemed absurd to have to do that just to get heard.
CARTER: Shortly after he made his first record in 1970, the Canadian government began requiring radio stations to devote a percentage of their air time to Canadian artists. Mr. COCKBURN: In the early '70s, when that first came in, we had experienced a long period of time where there were no rules about Canadian content in the media. And there was no Canadian content in the media. It was that simple.
CARTER: Patricia Rozema is a 29 year old Toronto filmmaker, one of a new crop of Canadian directors gaining worldwide attention to their unusual work. Rozema's first full length feature opened at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival to glowing reviews. [scene from film] ACTRESS: It looked like it was going to be kind of an interesting job, or at least a lot more interesting than those accounting firms and that stupid toothpaste factory. My new boss was a curator.
CARTER: The heroine, Polly, is a secret artist. She can also be seen as a metaphor for Canada. PATRICIA ROZEMA, filmmaker: She represents any person or group or country or minority that has abandoned their own values for someone else's that they consider more worthy or that has been given greater profile. What I was trying to tell myself in this film, and what I was trying to tell anyone else who might want to listen, ''Trust yourself. ''
CARTER: The Canadian government has encouraged Rozema and others like her by providing generous subsidies and total artistic freedom. Rozema's film was almost 100% government funded. Ms. ROZEMA: I was protected. I was nurtured in this little country, you know. If you are a small culture next to a huge, huge world dominating culture, you have to build your walls a little bit. You have to be careful that you're not trotted over.
CARTER: To most Canadians, those protective walls preserve their identity, their cultural sovereignty. To many Americans, the walls block access to the entirety of the Canadian market and to deny American businesses further earning power. For example, regulations designed to funnel advertising dollars to Canadian television are worth an estimated $100 million a year to Canadian broadcasters. That's $100 million that might otherwise go to American TV stations in places like Buffalo and Spokane. The signals are picked up by Canadian viewers. The American broadcasting industry and other entertainment industries in the United States have long opposed Canada's cultural protection policies. JACK VALENTI, Motion Picture Association: The business of culture, it seems to me, can't be built by erecting barriers. It can't be preserved by keeping other ideas out of your country. And it will not endure if you want to stay in isolation from the rest of the world.
CARTER: Now the Canadian government wants to erect still another barrier. In January, communications minister Flora MacDonald unveiled a proposal to give Canadian contributors control over a bigger share of the Canadian film market, 80% of which is now controlled by American distributors. The theory behind the plan is that the Canadian companies will invest their greater profits in Canadian films. The proposal alarms Jack Valenti. Mr. VALENTI: What it says is that American must turn over to Canadian companies those films for which they do not have worldwide rights.
CARTER: Valenti is lead spokesman for the American movie industry. He says the proposed film policy would do nothing more than take money out of American pockets and give it to Canadian companies. And it could set a disastrous precedent. Mr. VALENTI: If this Canadian proposal becomes law in Canada, which in effect says that American companies are now subsidizing Canadian companies, this will spread like a viral contagion around the world, and the American film and television global trade will collapse. Mr. SALUTIN: In the cultural questions, the Americans betray the true mentality of a bully. It's just never enough. As it is, they control Canadians they film. I don't know, it's upwards of 90%, well over 90% of the films Canadians see are American films and television is chockablock with American television. Look in the magazine stands, look at the books that are sold, and then somebody like Valenti starts whining about what the Canadians are trying to ''do to us. '' It's never enough. You know what I mean? You know with a bully that the more you give them the more they'll demand.
CARTER: And the Americans have been demanding more. At yearlong talks designed to reduce trade tariffs between the two countries, American negotiators have pressed Canadians in their cultural protectionism. The Canadians are anxious to improve their economy by getting greater access to the U. S. markets. But Prime Minister Brian Mulronney says he won't ransom Canada's cultural identity. Trade representative Clayton Yeutter learned just how explosive the subject can be when remarks he made in February were reported in the Canadian media. NEWSCASTER VOICE: Yeutter not only repeated the American demand that culture be up for bargaining, he went one painful step further. ''I am prepared to have America's culture on the table,'' he said, ''and take the risk of having it damaged by Canadian influence after a free trade agreement, and I hope Canada is prepared to run that risk, too. '' In Parliament today, Prime Minister Mulronney reacted fiercely to Yeutter's comments. Right Honorable Brian Mulronney: In my judgment, his comments betray a stunning ignorance of Canada (applause).
CARTER: Here in Washington, you hear virtually nothing about free trade with Canada. But if the American/Canadian trade negotiators do reach agreement by the October 5 deadline, Congress will have until January to agree or disagree. Today, the mood on Capitol Hill is that Canadian concessions will be absolutely necessary, or there's no deal. And that includes cultural sovereignty. A majority of Canadians, 58%, support free trade. But by an even larger margin they favor retention of their cultural policies. Canada has lived comfortably with these policies for 20 years, and trade talks or no trade talks, doesn't want to give them up. Battling over Bork WOODRUFF: Next tonight, we return to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork. The Senate Judiciary Committee continued to take testimony today from witnesses for and against Bork. First up as witnesses this morning were former Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton, and a University of Chicago law professor who came to urge a vote against, because on issues of governmental power, they contend that Bork always decides with the President over Congress. Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy agreed with them, and offered a question about the circumstances under which Congress can take the executive branch to court.
Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Mass: Say the Congress passed a bill that prohibited arms sales to Iran. Or say we took some action that prohibited the Executive by taking certain actions in Central America arms sales to Iran. If we passed that, and the President, perhaps he vetoed it, but we still overrode the veto, in terms of majority rule by the people's representatives. And then the President went ahead and sold those arms to Iran in opposition to what was the stated law. If the members -- under Judge Bork's opinion -- if the members didn't have standing, who would be able to bring that case against an executive who apparently would violate the law? Since the judge's understanding is that the only person that would have standing would be injured persons. If the members of Congress don't have that ability to take standing, who would? And if we don't, what is the implication in terms of the relationship between the executive and the Congress? CASS SUNSTEIN, University of Chicago Law School: No one would have standing. Now, what Judge Bork says is that these are ''essentially political questions,'' that ought not to be resolved in court. But they aren't essentially political questions. The questions is a legal one, under statute or the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers wrote that to suppose that these are essentially political questions is a mistake. This is to suppose that the will of the Constitution or the law is superior to the will of the elected representatives. That's always been the tradition. Sen. KENNEDY: Can I hear from, maybe Sen. Eagleton just on that particularly? Sen. THOMAS EAGLETON, former Senator, Missouri: Well, I think the professor's correct, and it would leave the Congress with only one alternative, the most awesome alternative of all -- to trigger the impeachment process. Can you imagine if that's the only remedy Congress has when it believes that a law that has passed, that has a specific prohibition has been violated by the President. The courts will not hear the Congress in terms of standing, the only remedy then Congress has is to commence in the House of Representatives an impeachment trial, which is incredible. Sen. ORRIN HATCH, (R) Utah: I think that the charges against Judge Bork on these matters and on a whole raft of other matters, reflect the same sort of selective reading on the record as the other charges that have been leveled against him. He has demonstrated not only as a judge, but as an executive branch lawyer, as a high official in the Executive Branch, that he is sensitive to the need to maintain the delicate balance between the two competing branches of government, and that has led him on several occasions for reasons of principle to stand up for Congressional initiatives and prerogatives. WOODRUFF: Democratic Senator Howell Heflin, one of the committee's undecideds, asked Eagleton about the role politics is apparently increasingly playing in the nomination.
Sen. HOWELL HEFLIN, (D) Alabama: When an appointment is made, pro and con, and I'm not criticizing either one, because frankly, my arm's been twisted on the right and been twisted on the left so much that both of them now are ready for transplant, but we -- you have a campaign and all of this that's going on, ads being run, television ads, generated mail campaigns, all of this going on -- now, you being a former senator and now being a professor, is this harmful to the court? Is it harmful to the political process? Sen. EAGLETON: How else can the Senate judge a nominee? Judge Bork is an honest, decent and intelligent man. No one questions on that account. But you must try to make a judgment on the philosophy of the candidate. The President does the nominating. The President's main consideration in selecting Judge Bork was his well identified views on almost every issue under the sun, either issues that already had been raised, or issues later to be anticipated. By the way, if Judge Bork gets on the court, it'll be boring. We already know where he stands on everything. Because he's taken positions on almost everything under the sun. Now, the President selects in a political/philosophical manner, and throughout history, the Senate has either affirmed or rejected in the same political/philosophical manner. WOODRUFF: Former Attorney General in the Carter Administration, and former Federal Judge, Griffin Bell, came to testify in Bork's behalf, asserting that Bork's views are in the mainstream.
Sen. STROM THURMOND, (R) South Carolina: The main thing I think the public's interested in is in extremists, way out one way or the other. Is he gonna be fair, is he gonna be reasonable, is he gonna be just? How do you feel? GRIFFIN BELL, former Attorney General: Well, as I say, if I was in the Senate, I'd vote for him. I think that he is conservative, but he's principled, he's rational, and I think that he would not wear anyone's collar. I doubt that President Reagan knows what he will do. And I like that. I like to see a man go on the court who is going to be his own judge. Be his own man. And I think that's the way it's going to turn out. He's going to do whatever he thinks the Constitution means. And he's searching all the time. He's grown from the time he was a young law professor to now -- he's grown a great deal. He's changed his mind about things. And I like that. I hate to see someone who's so rigid that they never change their minds. So I think he's in the mainstream myself. On the conservative side. WOODRUFF: A panel of attorneys who worked with Bork at the Justice Department in the 1970s, all spoke in his favor, including former Deputy Solicitor General Jewel LaFontant, who said she supported Bork despite his early positions on civil rights.
JEWEL LaFONTANT, former Deputy Solicitor General: In his 1963 New Republic article, he opposed public accommodations provision of the proposed 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ten years afterwards, in '73, while I was in the solicitor general's office, he changed his mind. He admitted he was wrong. And he's been severely criticized for his change of heart. To me that is a sign of true intellect. That you can admit that you made a mistake. Sen. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) PA: I had thought that he might have said something to you personally, or some insights you gleaned personally which might provide an additional dimension of help to the committee. That's why I had interrupted you. Ms. LaFONTANT: Judge Bork had said to me he made a mistake. And he was on the wrong track, and even though I would say personally that I was on the right track long before Judge Bork got on the right track, I don't hold it against him. All my life I've been involved in the civil liberties area, civil rights area, have argued cases and been active with every organization you can imagine, and I just threw out a few of them here. You might hold it against me if I throw out a few more. So I was on the right track, because I had a heritage that has sensitized me not only because I am black and female, but I had a father and a grandfather who were lawyers and extremely active in the civil rights movement. My father was a great labor lawyer, representing A. Philip Randolph in the founding of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters Union. So I would say since childhood I have been sensitized. I have known problems, and I was on the right track. Judge Bork was not on the right track in '63. But he recanted. He changed. In '73, he came out and said it in writing. I talked with him just last month, because when he asked me to come here and testify on his behalf, I flew to Washington to talk with him about some issues that were of concern to me. He reiterated his belief in civil rights, equality for women as well as blacks, and I am sold on the fact that he is completely devoid of racial prejudice. He is not prejudiced against women. WOODRUFF: The judiciary committee now expects to finish the Bork hearings by this Wednesday or Thursday. The committee vote on the nomination is likely next week. First Lessons MacNEIL: Except in communities with teachers on strike, children all over the country have been going back to school. The two million teachers greeting them are mostly veterans, but there's also a group of new teachers, about 100,000 of them, fresh out of college. Our educational correspondent John Merrow followed two of these new teachers as they launched their careers. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Let me just say this really is one of our most important functions, and we take it seriously, and are real proud of the fact that we do have the cream of the crop in this room. We're always proud to say that regardless of what's happening nationally, Baltimore County has always been fortunate enough to get the best teachers available, not just in Maryland or locally, but the best teachers available in the country.
JOHN MERROW: For the 300 new teachers in Baltimore County Public Schools, the year began with orientation, pep talks from administrators, and a chance to meet the superintendent and each other at a buffet supper. It was also an opportunity for new teachers like Susan Holst to talk about their first day jitters. She'll be teaching 9th grade physical science at (unintelligible) High School with 1600 students. SUSAN HOLST, High School Science Teacher: It's one of those moments you've waited for since you began college, I guess. It's almost worse than the interview. You've got to get through the interview, you think, just get through the interview and get the job. And you get to that first day, and you'll be okay. So, this is a big step for me. Big. I don't think it's going to make or break my career or how I feel about it, but I have to get through it.
MERROW: This is also Lynn Robin's first year. She'll be teaching 7th and 8th grade English at Johnny Kay Middle School, a school with 700 students. LYNN ROBBINS, Middle School English Teacher: Oh, I'll be pretty nervous. I've had my student teaching and all that, but it's different when you don't have anybody looking over your shoulder, making sure that you don't do anything incredibly stupid. So -- MERROW: No safety net. Ms. ROBBINS: Right!
MERROW: Lynn Robbins and Susan Holst are two of approximately 100,000 teachers beginning their professional careers in public schools across the country this year. These two will be teaching in Baltimore County, Maryland, a large suburban district with 80,000 students. At first glance, Susan and Lynn seem very much alike. But Lynn's at home in Baltimore County. She grew up here, went to college in Baltimore, and her family still lives nearby. Susan, on the other hand, just moved her with her husband from rural Illinois. Ms. HOLST: That can be very fun, very exciting, unless you don't know what you're doing. And then it's very frustrating, because --
MERROW: First impressions are important. How a new teacher handles herself on the first day can set a tone for the whole year. Susan was open and friendly. Lynn was tougher. Ms. ROBBINS: ( to class) A couple of rules about this book. This is for school record. I put this in my grade book, my roll book. All right? I will execute anyone that I find messing around with this, okay? I'll take you out back and hang you from a tree.
MERROW: One similarity worth noting: Both agreed to allow our cameras in their classrooms on the first days of school. Ms. HOLST: ( to class) Now I'm kind of hypothesizing about what we think's going to happen if we put a gas in there. Who would like to test it? Okay, we notice there's air in here, because we know that there's air we're breathing -- okay? So all you want to do, air being the gas, is just make sure it's right over -- (to Merrow) I'm finding that doing this for the first time, I'm having a problem knowing where their level is, and when I'm talking over their heads, or when I'm giving out information that isn't really necessary for them. So -- -- last night, I don't think I went to sleep at all. I just laid there, and all I could think about was energy, and how there was no way I could explain what energy was. I didn't even know what it was myself, and I kept going over all the definitions, all the definitions -- energy, energy, what is energy -- can't really define energy.
MERROW: Susan Holst did not teach energy that first day. She didn't have time. Veteran teachers are accustomed to changing their lesson plans when they have to. But the unexpected turn of events disturbed Susan. Ms. HOLST: I thought I would be much more organized. I thought I would have the whole week planned, that at night I could go back and really just think about the way the kids acted, and just think about them, instead of having to go and think about subject matter, what am I gonna do tomorrow? And then I start thinking about a year, I have to do this all year, I have to come up with something every single day, and it's beginning to get not overwhelming so much as I'm beginning to realize that I'm not student teaching any more. (to class) In order to be matter, you have to have mass, and you have to occupy -- MERROW: What's your worst fear? Ms. HOLST: That I won't be able to control the classroom, that if they do test me, they'll test me in a way that I'm unprepared for, and that I won't react in the correct way, or that I -- I have to remain in control. And if I lost control, if I lose their respect, then I've lost it for the year. And that's a scary thing for me. I don't want to lose that. MERROW: Do you have an image of the worst thing that could happen -- somebody throwing a chair? What? Ms. HOLST: If I envision the worst, it would be a 6'5'' type person saying, ''Make me,'' you know! And where I would have to, I guess. So that would be the worst. Chairs flying all over and ripping down the maps, and then -- total chaos. MERROW: (to Robbins) What is your worst fear about the first day -- also about the first year? What's the worst thing that could go wrong? Ms. ROBBINS: I guess as far as the first day, the worst thing -- I don't know if I really have a worst thing. I had things so planned for at least the first day, say, because you know you always go over every little detail for the first day. So I don't think I really expected anything to go wrong. As far as the year, I guess my worst fear is that I won't like it. It's not so much that it will go badly as that I just won't enjoy it as much as I think I will. [to class] I'm not going to go over a whole list of behavior rules. You're in 7th grade by now, you ought to know what the regular classroom rules are. MERROW: Teachers usually give out books to explain the rules on the first day. Not Lynn Robbins. She started out teaching. Ms. ROBBINS: I want you all to listen, too. Because some of these names are very interesting, and you're going to get in groups later and help each other decide what to write about, so you're going to need to know what each other's names are about. Jennifer? Fair Spirit. Who's Andre? Manly. MERROW: How long did you spend working on your lesson plan for today? This is your first meeting with these kids. Ms. ROBBINS: I had gone through what I wanted to do earlier -- last week. But I didn't sit down and write it up until last night, and I guess I spent about an hour, maybe a little bit more. I didn't expect to get as far as I did. In fact, I had the last 20 minutes of the lesson -- I just sort of winged it, because I hadn't -- I really -- just all the things I had written out before, I felt would take us much longer to get to. And -- but I knew what wascoming next, though. I was ready for it. MERROW: Do you feel it was a successful class? Ms. ROBBINS: Yeah. Definitely. MERROW: How do you know that? Ms. ROBBINS: Well, because I felt like I had everybody's attention for almost all of the time, which is an accomplishment in itself, it's a big class. And I felt good about it, because we got things done, I felt like they understood, and also felt that they had a good time. There were a few laughs, we enjoyed it -- all of them. MERROW: Is that important? Ms. ROBBINS: Yeah, I think so. I'd much rather -- you know, it's much better if it doesn't have to be painful. It really is. I enjoy my job a lot better, and maybe they'll look forward to coming to English once in a while. MERROW: And so two professional careers have begun. But with one day down and 182 more to go, it's too early for anybody to make any judgments. Lynn Robbins and Susan Holst will be fully evaluated for the first time by their department heads and principals next month. They know they need more experience. They know that they're going to make mistakes. But both women are looking forward to the future. Ms. HOLST: I felt good about what I'm doing, so good that someone felt I was worthy to get a job, that I had potential, that someone could see that. I believe it about myself. I think I'm going to be an excellent teacher, maybe not this year, but I'm not going to quit, I'm not going to give up if five or ten years down the road, maybe a presidential teacher, a master teacher -- because -- I don't give up on myself. So I'm excited. Ms. ROBBINS: Well, I think on a scale of one to ten right now, as far as teaching expertise, I'm about at a two. So I have a long way to go. And the only way you're going to learn is to do it. MERROW: So if on a scale of one to ten in teaching ability you think you're only at a two now -- Ms. ROBBINS: -- expertise -- MERROW: -- expertise -- if on a scale of teaching expertise, one to ten, you think you're only a two right now, aren't your kids going to suffer while you're learning? Ms. ROBBINS: No, I don't think so, because I think as far as enthusiasm and a love for the subject, a love for my job, I more than make up for maybe a teacher who's a little tired and been teaching for umpteen years. And some of them can manage to keep up that energy level, but I at least have it definitely up right now. And I think that I'll make that much more of the effort to make up for my lack of experience if I have that tremendous energy and enthusiasm for it. MacNEIL: John Merrow will be visiting Lynn Robbins and Susan Holst periodically to see how well they do as teachers. Recap WOODRUFF: Taking a final look at the main stories of this Monday, a major shipping lane in the Persian Gulf was closed following the discovery of new mines. Democratic Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder decided not to enter the race for President. And there was a tragedy in South America. A mudslide in Colombia buried a shantytown. More than 100 people are reported dead. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour tonight. And we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night. $
Series
The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
Producing Organization
NewsHour Productions
Contributing Organization
NewsHour Productions (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/507-t727941q5f
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/507-t727941q5f).
Description
Episode Description
This episode's headline: Telling Secrets?; Culture Clash; Battling over Bork; First Lesson. The guests include In Washington: GEORGE CARVER, Center Strategic/Int'l Studies; MORTON HALPERIN, ACLU; In Boston: RICHARD SHULTZ, Tufts University; REPORTS FROM NEWSHOUR CORRESPONDENTS: JOHN MERROW, HODDING CARTER. Byline: In New York: ROBERT MACNEIL, Executive Editor; In Washington: JUDY WOODRUFFChief Washington Correspondent
Date
1987-09-28
Asset type
Episode
Topics
Education
Social Issues
Literature
Global Affairs
War and Conflict
Journalism
Employment
Military Forces and Armaments
Politics and Government
Rights
Copyright NewsHour Productions, LLC. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode)
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
00:59:29
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: NewsHour Productions
AAPB Contributor Holdings
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-1045 (NH Show Code)
Format: 1 inch videotape
Generation: Master
Duration: 01:00:00;00
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-2966 (NH Show Code)
Format: U-matic
Generation: Preservation
Duration: 01:00:00;00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” 1987-09-28, NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 26, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-t727941q5f.
MLA: “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.” 1987-09-28. NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 26, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-t727941q5f>.
APA: The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Boston, MA: NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-t727941q5f