The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Here is the news.Scientists have found the virus that may be the cause of rheumatoid arthritis, the disease affecting eight million Americans.

In El Salvador, rebel violence escalated as Sunday's elections approached.

French President Mitterrand offered to help ease tensions between Washington and Moscow.

Inflation rose more slowly in February than in January, and the White House said it has been pinned to the mat.

Walter Mondale said Gary Hart is confused about foreign policy. Hart challenged Mondale to rise above attacks and outline his own programs.

Jim?

JIM LEHRER: We're going to look at the arthritis story with the principal author of the new study, Dr. Robert Simpson. Our man in El Salvador, Charles Krause, gives us his special reporting on Sunday's election there.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: Most likely there will be a large turnout in Sonsonate on Sunday, but many people don't expect very much to change.

LEHRER: Judy Woodruff will explain why Walter Mondale's money is running short in the election here, just when he needs it the most. Also tonight, the plight of American farmers.

FARMER: We feel like we're in a can, in the middle of a can, and the pressure is coming from both ends. Our finances are squeezing us from one end, and our government is squeezing us from the other.

LEHRER: We'll hear from Secretary of Agriculture John Block and Congressman Thomas Daschle.

And, on the plight of the freshly dead National News Council, a pro-con between its chairman, former network news executive Richard Salant, and Chicago Tribune editor James Squiers.

Troops of the El Salvador government moved out into the guerrilla-controlled countryside today. They recaptured three northern towns in a further attempt to make territory safe for democracy, for Sunday's presidential election. The military effort was in response to predictions from leftist guerrilla leaders that residents in their areas will not vote. BBC reporter Martin Bell and his camera crew recently had an experience which explains why the guerrillas feel that way. Salvador Elections: Democracy?

MARTIN BELL, BBC [voice-over]: -- other motorists by well-armed groups some 30 strong who ordered us onto a side road and then proceeded to conduct a political meeting. Again it was the party line about Sunday's vote being an electoral farce. At this point we were mercifully let off, but our fellow victims, under the pressure of circumstances, were agreeing that that was what they thought all along. Next, the political meeting turned into a fundraiser: ten colones each -- about #3 -- and even that wasn't the end of it for the hijacked civilians. An army helicopter flew overhead and we were all ordered into cover. Fortunately it went by without spotting us. The captives were released. It was a small enough incident, but enough to remind us that Salvadoran elections don't play by Westminster rules.

LEHRER: While everyone at Westminster, in Washington and everywhere else agrees Sunday's elections are important, there is also pretty much agreement that no matter who wins, the civil war will continue. Correspondent Charles Krause, on assignment for us in El Salvador, found the people in the Salvadoran city of Sonsonate are among those who see it that way.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: So far Sonsonate has largely escaped the violence that's tearing apart the rest of El Salvador. To the east there is fighting. Rail lines have been cut, trains ambushed, thousands killed. But here in the west the morning train from Armenia still brings farmers to market. Sonsonate offers an idea of what El Salvador was like before the war began.

On the surface little has changed. A hundred years ago British engineers built the railways here. They linked Sonsonate with El Salvador's larger, more important cities. But today, because of fighting to the east, Sonsonate is near the end of the line. A city of 50,000, Sonsonate is an old-fashioned provincial capital. The heat is stifling, but the streets are filled from morning 'til night. In many ways Sonsonate seems to be a part of El Salvador which time forgot. Television and movies are accessible, but on weekend afternoons many people still prefer a local version of bingo. Neither political violence nor economic progress has disrupted the traditional rhythms of daily life.

We visited Sonsonate because on Sunday voters here and elsewhere in the west will have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of El Salvador's presidential election. They're expected to vote in greater numbers than in other parts of the country. That's because the guerrillas have no strongholds in the west so it's unlikely they'll be able to make good their threat to disrupt the voting here. The eight presidential candidates are aware of Sonsonate's potential. They've all spent a lot of time and money here.

The major candidates, Christian Democrat Jose Napoleon Duarte and his principal right-wing opponent Roberto D'Aubuisson, have painted Sonsonate with their political colors. Minor candidates like Francisco Chico Quinones have come to give speeches. Sonsonate is a kind of political bellwether. Two years ago, in El Salvador's last election, Sonsonate divided its vote among the major political parties almost exactly in the same proportion as the country as a whole. We spent several days here asking voters about the campaign, the candidates, and the issues. Voters like Francisco Pacheco, a poor carpenter.

FRANCISCO PACHECO, Salvadoran voter [through interpreter]: I'll tell you. What we the workers and campesinos need is for there to be jobs for there to be peace, to get ourselves out of all of this as quickly as plssible, because our class doesn't live from politics. We live from our work.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The candidates have raised many issues during the campaign, but time and again the people of Sonsonate told us there are only two issues they care about -- peace and jobs, how to end the fighting and how to revitalize El Salvador's war-shattered economy.

Father FLAVIAN MUCHI: There's very, very little hope for this country right now. We're in such a state that I think the country is almost dying.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Father Flavian Muchi is an American priest who has lived in Sonsonate for 16 years. He's a beloved figure here who has built orphanages, old-age homes and ministered to the poor.

Fr. MUCCI: Fear dominates El Salvador right now. We are really scared. I'm scared. I think most of the people that I know are scared and we're really, really worried about the situation. We don't know what the solution is, and we don't know who's going to solve it and we don't know when it's going to be solved. Most of our professional people have left the country now, and now we're just left with people who have very little education. So we're really in a bad state.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Poverty is a traditional way of life in El Salvador. It's been made worse by five years of fighting. Workers, many of them illiterate, must often work 10 hours a day, six days a week. Their jobs are back breaking. They earn 25 or 30 cents an hour. But, in a sense, those who have work in Sonsontae are fortunate because much of El Salvador's economy has been destroyed by the guerrillas. Fully one third of the country's labor force is now unemployed.

DELFINA JITAN, landowner: Well, there isn't enough work for the people in Sonsonate or anywhere in this country, as far as I know.They just don't have enough jobs for them, so they want to work and they want an end to the violence.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Delfina Jitan is a wealthy landowner who recently returned to Sonsonate after living for 30 years in the United States.

Ms. JITAN: Someone can say, "Okay, I promise you that if I get elected the violence will stop immediately," and I think it is being promised. More than likely people will vote for him because that's what they want. They just want an end to it. They have had it.

Fr. MUCCHI: How long can they wait? I mean, they should be taking arms now. One way or the other they should be saying, "Hey, let's get this thing done with." But they're waiting and they're hoping.They don't see much hope, but they're hoping.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: All eight candidates running in Sunday's election have promised to end the war and revive the economy. The two leading candidates, Duarte and D'Aubuisson, are the farthest apart on the issues. Duarte, a former president of El Salvador and a lifelong politician, has promised to continue economic reforms and open a dialogue with the guerrillas, a dialogue which he says could end the war. D'Aubuisson is a charismatic, retired army officer with alleged ties to El Salvador's right-wing death squads. He promises to curtail reform, encourage private economic investment and defeat the guerrillas militarily. D'Aubuisson's macho, quick-fix solution to end the war is probably unrealistic. Nonetheless, we found it's winning him growing support in Sonsonate among rich and poor alike.

But what we also found was that many people here, perhaps the majority, are simply tired, tired of the fighting, tired of economic hardship and tired of what they view as the politicians' empty promises.

Mr. PACHECO [through interpreter]: Many of my friends will vote in the elections because they're afraid of reprisals, but I'll speak with you sincerely. The majority of us -- many are in agreement that we shouldn't take part in the voting because it'll be in vain. It's like throwing salt on water. Do you understand what I mean? Because nothing that any of the past presidents has offered -- never have they carried out even the smallest part of what they've promised.

Fr. MUCCI: There are so many false promises: "We're going to give you jobs." "We're going to give you peace." "We're going to give you this and we're giving you that." And we've been waiting and waiting. It's not necessary to give the solution. Just get on TV and say, "We're going to solve it so therefore vote for me." Well, what is your solution? I really don't know when we're going to get out of all this.

Mr. PACHECO [through interpreter]: We're anxious to find true peace because what we want is to work, to honestly earn our money and to spend what we earn to buy what we need for our families. But right now it's like this. If we leave our houses we don't ever know if we'll come back. Things are so terrible that only God -- God is the only one who can resolve the situation we're in.

Fr. MUCCI: I don't think that many people are going to be going to the elections simply because in the beginning and the first time they voted they believed that they were going to have peace, they were going to have jobs, that everything was going to be solved. But we're going on two years now. Instead of getting better things have got worse. There are still no jobs, many people have been killed, the injustices continue on in the country.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The government of El Salvador recently awarded Father Muchi its highest medal for his work among Sonsonate's poor. On Sunday Francisco Pachecho will vote for Roberto D'Aubuisson. Neither the priest nor the carpenter could be considered a radical or leftist sympathizer. If they have little faith that Sunday's election will solve Sonsonate's problems, perhaps they've lived here long enough to see beyond the city's tidy veneer. If they're skeptical about the political promises they've heard, perhaps it's because the people of El Salvador have heard the same promises before.

LEHRER: That was the work, again, of correspondent Charles Krause and producer Susan Mills.

In Washington a new joint military exercise in neighboring Honduras was announced today. The Pentagon said some 1,800 U.S. soldiers will participate in anti-guerrilla maneuvers beginning in April. The exercise will be called Granadero I and may include troops from Panama and Guatemala as well as El Salvador and Honduras.

Robin?

MacNEIL: French President Mitterrand had another meeting with President Reagan today following his address to Congress yesterday and a state banquet last night. The Socialist president had breakfast with Mr. Reagan this morning and afterwards held a news conference. He said he hoped to meet the two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Gary Hart and Walter Mondale, during his visit. He repeated that he disagreed with President Reagan's analysis of the situation in El Salvador. Mitterrand said he was almost certain to go to Moscow this year, and indicated that France was ready to help create a better climate between East and West.

FRANCOIS MITTERRAND, President of France [through interpreter]: I have always repeated the same thing, that I wanted to keep all opportunities open for a relationship with the government, with the state and, what's been important for us, with the people. The people of the Soviet Union that has been our ally at very important moments in history, and if France can be useful in taking part in a more precise definition of how to get back to normal relations between East and West, France will certainly do what she can. I think there is reason to hope that the dialogue will be resumed. This is not information I'm giving you; it's a sort of prophecy, a forecast.

MacNEIL: Mitterrand made clear he has not been asked to mediate between the Kremlin and the Reagan administration. Mitterrand and President Reagan also discussed the situation in Lebanon, where French peacekeeping troops remain on duty. In Beirut today there were fierce street battles, mostly between Muslim factions in West Beirut.

Also in the foreign affairs area, the number-three man at the State Department, Lawrence Eagleburger, is resigning to return to private life. Eagleburger is one of the country's most experienced diplomats. Secretary Shultz said Eagleburger is leaving to expand his financial resources.

[Video postcard -- Broken Bow Lake, Oklahoma]

LEHRER: Gary Hart and Walter Mondale continued to say bad things about one another today. Mondale's message was specifically on foreign policy, charging in a New York speech that Hart was too uncertain and inconsistent to be President. Hart countered from Connecticut that the time had come for Mondale to stop his attacks on him and put forward his own ideas.

GARY HART, Democratic presidential candidate: I challenge my principal opponent, Vice President Mondale, to rise above mere attacks on my campaign, my candidacy or my background and put forward his own ideas in all of these areas, in each of these areas where the American people so desperately want leadership and want positive direction.

LEHRER: But Mondale, campaigning in New York, attacked Hart's views on Central America, even as he was criticizing the Reagan administration's policy and setting forth his own.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: I would work to achieve a ceasefire in El Salvador and use our good offices to give a negotiated, democratic settlement every chance to succeed. I would immediately halt the covert war in Nicaragua. Finally, I would push for the demilitarization of Central America. Mr. Hart's contention that I seek permanent military bases there is absurd.

LEHRER: No weekend goes by anymore without some Democratic primary event, and this one will be no different. There are caucuses in Virginia, Kansas and Montana, but they are not getting much attention. Only number three in the race, Jesse Jackson, was scheduled to hustle votes in Virginia tomorrow, for instance. Hart and Mondale's attentions are elsewhere -- on the primary in Connecticut Tuesday, where Hart is expected to do well, and on the big April 3rd primary in New York, where it's a toss-up. New York, followed by Pennsylvania the following week, are big media states, meaning big money to buy many television and radio spots, among other things, and money, for the once-flush Mondale campaign, has suddenly become a major concern. Judy Woodruff has been looking into the situation. And what is it, Judy, in a nutshell? Mondale's Money

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Jim, the federal election laws say specifically that anybody running for president, in order to be nominated, can spend up to $20 million -- it's actually $20.2 million -- up to the nomination. Well, as of the end of February, when only 2% of the delegates had been selected, Walter Mondale had spent half of that $20 million -- raised and spent that much. And, as of right now, when we've only had a little more than a third of the delegates selected, he has spent almost two thirds of the limit. So here we are now with a whole lot of the delegates left to be picked, and he's down to about six or seven million dollars, which sounds like a lot of money, but as you point out, there are some big media markets left.

LEHRER: Does he have any options?

WOODRUFF: Well, as a matter of fact, the first thing they're doing is cutting back. They've cut their Washington staff back from 200 people just a little few weeks ago down to about 50 people right now, so there's been a drastic cut there. They've cut back on some of their travel expenses. But the most interesting thing is -- and this is a story that broke today -- in the state of California they have started to permit the people who were running for delegates to the convention, people who will be supporting Mondale if they're elected as delegates, to raise and spend money on behalf of Mr. Mondale. Now, this is something that was done in 1980 by the Reagan campaign when he ran short of money.The interesting thing, the beauty of it, is that this is money that's spent outside the $20-million limit.

LEHRER: And are there any limits on that expenditure?

WOODRUFF: As I understand it there are no limits. What the limits are on what the money can be spent for. They can spend it for mailings, for sample ballots and such as that -- absentee ballots, but they can't spend it for TV advertising, which is of course the big-ticket item.

LEHRER: The big deal. How did the Mondale campaign get in this kettle of fish, so to speak?

WOODRUFF: Well, I think the big problem they had was that they underestimated how long this campaign was going to go on. Back a few months ago, as so many of us did in this town, they assumed it was going to be over. By Illinois I think they assumed that they were going to have it wrapped up, and so they spent a whole lot of money very early. And here they are, as we say, well into the -- barely into the primary season and not much money left.

LEHRER: Well, Gary Hart has no problem even like that, right?

WOODRUFF: No, because he didn't raise as much money, didn't spend as much money, therefore, early on, and now, as I understand it, he's only spent about three or four million of his $20 million, so he can just about spend anything he can raise from now on.

LEHRER: If he can raise it?

WOODRUFF: If he can raise it, that's right. And the fear of the Mondale people is that even if they are able to beat Hart in New York and in Pennsylvania, if Hart does well enough just to hang in there and keep on raising a little bit of money, he'll be able to go into California on June the 5th and still have a lot of money to spend, and he could knock them out and still be a serious contender at the convention.

LEHRER: And there's also, speaking of big-media states, there's also Texas on May 5th, and that costs a lot of money because the state's so big.

WOODRUFF: That's right. Two hundred delegates in a huge state with, as you know, many, many media markets.

LEHRER: You bet. Okay, thank you, Judy. Robin?

MacNEIL: The White House said today inflation appears to be pinned to the mat. That was the comment after the Labor Department reported that inflation moderated in February, the consumer price index rising only 0.4% as compared with 0.6% in January. Earlier this week, the government reported that the economy was growing faster than expected, and that gave rise to fears that inflation might rise, too.

Whatever the economy is doing as viewed from the White House, many farmers and farm-state politicians think the recovery is passing them by. The Reagan administration has a very different reading, and used the traditional celebration of National Agriculture Week to show its buoyant outlook to farmers. Farmers and the "Recovery"

ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, we present the National Pork Queen, Julie Umberford of Illinois.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: The upbeat mood started in Chicago last Saturday when the first-ever Miss Agriculture was named. On Tuesday at the White House, President Reagan was all smiles as he met with a delegation of farmers. Later, at a National Press Club speech, Agriculture Secretary John Block talked about economic recovery.

JOHN BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture: As you look at the situation today compared with some years ago, when we had a grain embargo in place, when we had interest rates that were much higher than they are today and we had inflation running away with the whole process -- and let me say that the situation has dramatically improved.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: The optimism in Washington stood in sharp contrast to the mood among many farmers who say their economic woes persist.

WARREN RITTENBACH, North Dakota farmer: We feel like we're in a can, in the middle of a can, and the pressure is coming from both ends. Our finances are squeezing us from one end, and our government is squeezing us from the other. And we're just getting squeezed and squeezed, and we can't pay our bills. Our equity is gone in the farm, and our banker is sitting back shaking his head, and he says, "You're crazy. You've got to quit. Sell out now while you can still pay us."

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Warren Rittenbach helped lead this tractor parade through Jamestown, North Dakota, last week. More than 70 farmers blockaded three banks and several federal buildings for three days to protest against low crop prices and high interest rates.

Mr. RITTENBACH: Reagan has to do something about the high dollar.He stopped inflation and he stopped -- Paul Volcker stopped everything by doing that, right? And it's crazy because if you were a foreign country and you went to Canada and come to the United States and you were going to buy wheat, the Canadian dollar is 25 less -- worth less, 25 less than ours. That means every fourth bushel is free comparing to buying from the United States. We can't handle it.

MacNEIL: The debate over the economic health of farmers is of more than academic interest to both political parties in this election year. It's a debate Jim picks up in Washington. Jim?

LEHRER: We pursue it now with Secretary of Agriculture John Block and Congressman Thomas Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, a key member of the House Agriculture Committee. Mr. Secretary, why do you and that farmer see this situation so differently?

JOHN BLOCK: Listen, there are a number of farmers in this country, and there's no question about it, there are pockets where farmers have been hurt badly by the drought, and there are problems in rural America and in agriculture. But the fact is the situation is better than it was, and we were headed for certain self-destruction with the 20-21 percent interest rates, with the inflation running like it was, with a grain embargo in place. And with the interest rates down some, not enough, inflation under control, the grain embargo lifted, a new trade agreement with the Soviet Union -- in fact, we are the number one supplier now. We are working internationally to expand our markets, and the fact is we're better off than we were, and we're getting better. We are healing our wounds. They're not all healed yet.

LEHRER: Do you agree with that Congressman? I started to call you Senator. That's all right, you don't mind, do you?

Rep. THOMAS DASCHLE: I tell you what. I couldn't agree with -- I couldn't disagree more. Net farm income is one half of what it was in 1979. It's the lowest since 1934. Net worth has been reduced to the lowest level since 1940. We've lost more than 64,000 farms in just two years. And we find that farm indebtedness has gone up 400% just since 1973. Farm parity -- and that's really the gauge that everbody really looks at when they try to examine how we're doing -- is the lowest it's been in history.

LEHRER: Explain that, farm parity.

Rep. DASCHLE: Parity is the amount of goods and services that a farmer can buy for a bushel of wheat or a bushel of corn, whatever. And that item, that amount that he can buy, is actually less than it has been at any time, including the Great Depression. It's at 56% today, which is 2% below 1934.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, you all don't seem to be talking about the same things here.

Sec. BLOCK: Well, let me say something, a suggestion about net farm income. Net farm income was around $22 billion in '82, and it's come up this last year to around $24 billion. It should exceed $30 billion this year and closely approaching a record. That doesn't mean that it's evenly distributed, because weather has plagued some farmers, but nationally the situation is much better, and I just have to ask some questions of the congressman.There are a lot of things to be done. There is legislation right now that has been passed over into your lap. It's in the Congress now; it's gone through the Senate. It was supported by this administration. It's providing for export money. It's providing for some assistance in some of the disaster programs. It's providing for some savings to the taxpayer. Can you deliver that? Can you deliver it right away before the farmers get too far into the spring work?

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. DASCHLE: Well, Jim, I think we're playing politics with farm programs here. The fact of the matter is you can talk numbers all you want, but in constant dollars, now -- and that's really what the farmer has to deal with, constant dollars; you can inflate the dollars all you want to, but in constant dollars we're at 50% of net farm income that we had in '79. I'm glad to see that the administration has finally come aboard with regard to a new farm program. They were opposed to extending the deadline to change this year's farm program. They opposed it at virtually every stage. The House passed a bill six months ago that the administration was opposed to. And now, after tremendous pressure, after beginning to realize what a total failure the farm program was in terms of sign-up, they've finally come around to accept a program that one farmer told me yesterday, when he penciled it out, didn't make a nickel's worth of difference. So we hope we can get some improvements yet this year with the administration's support.

LEHRER: The general statistics and legislation aside, the secretary says, Congressman, that there are pockets of farmers who have been hurt, yes.He concedes that. Are there pockets in your state? Where are the pockets? Or do you agree? Would you even call them pockets?

Rep. DASCHLE: Well, you look at bankruptcies in my state. We've seen a 400% increase in bankruptcies in just two years.

LEHRER: Well, now, Mr. Secretary, how about that? I mean, that's a startling statistic.

Sec. BLOCK: Well, it depends on where the base number is, Congressman.Four hundred percent, if you start from a small number, is not as great -- I know you've got your problems in your state, and there are problems in different isolated areas, and some of them are severe. I'm looking at the nation as a whole, and that's my obligation as a secretary of agriculture.

LEHRER: Well, let's look at the politics of this right now. How would you describe the feeling among the farmers you talk to, Congressman, toward Secretary Block and his boss, Ronald Reagan?

Rep. DASCHLE: Jim, they don't know where to turn. I think we could lose 25% of all of our farmers in the Upper Midwest in the next couple of years unless something changes.

LEHRER: Lose them, meaning they just have to go out of business?

Rep. DASCHLE: They're going to go out of business. They are. There's no other alternative.

LEHRER: Well, who's getting all this money then?

Rep. DASCHLE: Well, the big ones. The big ones are getting bigger, and they're getting bigger at government expense. The GAO did a survey of some of the PIK beneficiaries last year, and it was a startling statistic.

LEHRER: That's Payment in Kind --

Rep. DASCHLE: The Payment in Kind program.

Rep. DASCHLE: They interviewed 700 PIK participants. They found that out of that seven of them got more than $2 million in PIK benefits from the administration --

Sec. BLOCK: Let me answer that question. Now, how do you get big acres out of production, which was the objective of the PIK program. Right or wrong, we wanted to reduce surplus. You don't get big acres out of production --

LEHRER: And the way you wanted to reduce surplus was to pay farmers for not growing --

Sec. BLOCK: Give them grain to not grow as much.

Rep. DASCHLE: Well, let's talk about --

LEHRER: Okay.

Sec. BLOCK: And you don't get them out of production unless you get big farmers to participate. And if the congressman persists in supporting programs that would only pay small amounts to small farmers -- I'm not going to argue the advantage of it or whether it's the right thing, but if that's where he stands, I assure you, Congressman, you're not going to get reduction in production of any magnitude by just looking at the small producer.

LEHRER: He's right, isn't he?

Rep. DASCHLE: Let's talk about some of these big producers. J.G. Boswell got $3 1/2 million from Uncle Sam last year for taking land out of production that was under water. They couldn't plant in the first place. And we've got hundreds of examples --

LEHRER: J.G. Boswell, what, is a big --

Rep. DASCHLE: It's a big company, that's right. And, you know, the problem is that we didn't bring down net -- the net reduction really wasn't all that low, in spite of spending $9 billion in PIK, $18 billion on the commodity program, our reduction was negligible.And the problem was that all of our competitors made up what we didn't set aside.

Sec. BLOCK: That's ridiculous!

LEHRER: Let me --

Rep. DASCHLE: It isn't ridiculous.

Sec. BLOCK: The corn supplies are down -- they're down dramatically. We had over three billion bushel down to 600 million --

Rep. DASCHLE: Because we've had the biggest drought in over 30 years, that's why it's down.

Sec. BLOCK: There's nobody saying the drought did not contribute --

Rep. DASCHLE: Well, I hope not.

Sec. BLOCK: -- to the reduction. Rice and cotton are down to very reasonable levels. Wheat is down some, not as much -- and I admit that -- but, overall, you take feed grains, rice, cotton and wheat, I'll tell you, the program brought the dollars -- or, brought the surpluses down. And I still have to go back to the question, is the Congressman going to deliver the Democratic vote, which we need? We've got broad bipartisan support. Many people in your party are helping us to get this legislation through that will provide farmers with more credits for exports and more money --

LEHRER: Are you going to do it, Congressman?

Rep. DASCHLE: Oh, we can do. We did it before without their support. We'll do it again. We can do that. That isn't the question. The real question is, can we deliver a good, solid program that is going to give these farmers breathing room this year -- if we don't, we could lose 25% of them. It's that simple.

LEHRER: What's your reading of the popularity of the Block-Reagan program among the farmers of America, Mr. Secretary?

Sec. BLOCK: I think you just have to go out there and talk to the people and find out. There's no question --

LEHRER: Well, you do that --

Sec. BLOCK: All the time.

LEHRER: What are they telling you? What are they telling you? They say, "We love you"?

Sec. BLOCK: There's no question in my mind that Ronald Reagan and this administration is highly regarded in rural America, and this administration stands very tall and this administration is in good position for the '84 elections.

LEHRER: Do you agree?

Rep. DASCHLE: I couldn't disagree more. I don't know if -- the worst thing we could do is to turn this whole thing into a big political football, Jim. Our farmers can't afford it.

LEHRER: But isn't it already there, Congressman?

Rep. DASCHLE: Well, I hope not. I hope that we can avoid that. He has challenged the House to come up with a bipartisan approach. We wanted that all along. The problem is that I think the Reagan administration is playing politics with this all along, and they're doing it at the expense of these farmers and ranchers who are losing their shirts, who are losing their livelihood out there simply because we don't have a program this year that is going to help them whatsoever.

LEHRER: Well, Congressman, Mr. Secretary, I'm glad we could resolve this.

Sec. BLOCK: Obviously.

LEHRER: Right. Thank you both very much. Arthritis Virus Isolated

MacNEIL: Scientists today announced what may be a breakthrough in the search for the cause of a disease affecting an estimated eight million Americans, rheumatoid arthritis. A team of researchers at Rutgers University in New Jersey say they have found a virus that may be the cause. Their discovery was reported today in the journal, Scince, and doctors say it might eventually lead to the development of a vaccine to prevent the disease in the future. About 36 million Americans suffer from some form of arthritis, which causes painful inflammation and swelling of the joints. Most, particularly elderly patients, have the less serious form of the disease. But seven to eight million have rheumatoid arthritis, a far more disabling condition that often strikes between the ages of 20 and 55. It is this form of the disease that is the focus of today's report.

The chief scientist and author of that study is Dr. Robert Simpson, an expert on viruses and a professor at Rutgers University. Dr. Simpson, put simply, what exactly is it that you've found?

Dr. ROBERT SIMPSON: We have found, Mr. MacNeil, a new group of parvo viruses, small DNA containing the viruses, that seem to be linked to the disease rheumatoid arthritis.

MacNEIL: How do you know they're linked to it?

Dr. SIMPSON: We have immunological tests that we have carried out and determined that RA patients, rheumatoid arthritis patients, seem to invariably have antigen or proteins of a virus that one of the first viruses we isolated that react in these tests as positive evidence for the existence of these viruses. Osteoarthritis patients, which is a non-inflammatory disease unrelated to rheumatoid arthritis, do not show positive evidence for this antigen.

MacNEIL: In how many rheumatoid arthritis patients did you find this?

Dr. SIMPSON: We have examined, to date, only 13 patients and 12 of these 13 have all shown positive evidence for the antigen I'm speaking of.

MacNEIL: Is that enough, a large enough sample to give you confidence to go public with this finding?

Dr. SIMPSON: It's not a large enough sample in the final analysis, but in terms of preliminary data I think it is significant and should not be ignored, and we are not hesitant to go public at this time.

MacNEIL: Is this a new virus?

Dr. SIMPSON: It's a new parvo virus. Parvo viruses, until recently, had not been linked to any human disorder.

MacNEIL: What does parvo mean?

Dr. SIMPSON: Parvo alludes to the very small size of these viruses, which are a little smaller than polio and contain a single-stranded DNA.

MacNEIL: And I read today that these are found in dogs and cats, these viruses.

Dr. SIMPSON: That's correct. In 1978 a canine variety of parvo virus first emerged in nature all over the world. Prior to that time it had not been seen.

MacNEIL: Is there any suspicion in your mind that if this virus is the cause of rheumatoid arthritis that it could be coming from household pets to people?

Dr. SIMPSON: That's a question that has been long considered. There's a possibility that animal reservoirs do serve as a source, has been thought of for some time. But there's no definitive evidence. There are indications that many rheumatoid arthritis patients are also pet owners, have dogs and cats, but there's no definite linkage.

MacNEIL: But lots of people without rheumatoid arthritis are as well?

Dr. SIMPSON: Yes, I can't give you the specific figures.

MacNEIL: How will you determine whether this virus is the cause of rheumatoidarthritis? What steps to you have to go to now, and how long is it likely to take?

Dr. SIMPSON: A good question. Naturally, we will not innoculate volunteers, human volunteers, to deduce that. What we can do is develop specific probes which will be very specific in their reactivity with components of the virus, specifically the DNA, and allow us to go --

MacNEIL: Which is the genetic material.

Dr. SIMPSON: The genetic information of the virus, correct. This will allow us to now examine clinical material from rheumatoid arthritis patients as well as normal controls or people with other disorders and see if we have a correlation between the presence of relevant sequences of DNA and the tissue of the patients that now will react with the DNA of our probe.

MacNEIL: You have already tested this material on rats, I believe, and I read -- and produced something like rheumatoid arthritis in rats. Could you describe that briefly?

Dr. SIMPSON: Yes. Well, actually, the chief model that we've used is the newborn mouse, but we have extended our studies to rats. And among the symptoms produced by this virus, and relatively rapidly, are crippling of the limbs, permanent crippling of the limbs -- legs and feet and so forth, and a marked curvature of the spine has also been induced in rats that have been infected at birth with the virus.

MacNEIL: And now you would have to test it on other animals before you could test it on human beings?

Dr. SIMPSON: We have looked at other animals already, and it seems to be confined thus far to rodent species in the ability to cause these symptoms.

MacNEIL: What would have to happen before you get to the stage when a vaccine, like a polio vaccine, could be used to immunize people?

Dr. SIMPSON: Well, we have to, first of all, learn at what stage in life people may acquire such viruses. If this virus were -- this group of viruses was passed on to offspring directly through the germ cell line, then the use of vaccines is questionable. If, however, people are exposed during childhood by exposure to other adults who are shedding this virus, then the vaccine approach may be a viable one.

MacNEIL: I see. It's still doubtful -- in other words, it could be something that's inherited --

Dr. SIMPSON: That's a possibility.

MacNEIL: Or it could be something you catch?

Dr. SIMPSON: Right. Either possibility exists at this moment.

MacNEIL: But the vaccine would only work if it turns out that it is something that you catch?

Dr. SIMPSON: I would think so, yes.

MacNEIL: I see. Is there -- does the discovery you've made hold out any hope for better treatment of the millions of people who now suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, or is it too late for them?

Dr. SIMPSON: Well, for the severe, very advanced cases, I don't see where this would come up with any miracle cures, no. However, if we understand the strategy these viruses follow for replicating and subverting the immune system of the individuals they infect, we can ourselves develop strategies -- chemotherapeutic drugs and similar approaches -- to try and control the spread and development of the disease.

MacNEIL: So it potentially does hold out some hope for sufferers of the disease?

Dr. SIMPSON: Yes, yes, it does.

MacNEIL: But we're talking how many years away?

Dr. SIMPSON: Well, I would like to think in the next five-year period. That's strictly a guess, but I do predict this will stimulate a great deal of interest worldwide for other investigators, and I would hope so, to join my colleagues in these efforts.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you this. Why, when you've made a discovery that is based on such a small sample -- and I understand the importance of it to you -- o you go so public with it so big in Science magazine?

Dr. SIMPSON: Another good question. We've gone into the International Journal of Science with this announcement-type paper on the basis that these viruses thus far appear to be unique relative to existing parvo viruses. We have molecular methods for analyzing the DNA, the genetic structure of the virus, that allows us to determine how related these viruses are to existing parvo viruses, and exclude the possibility that we didn't by chance pick up a contaminating animal virus. The evidence thus far is very favorable that these are unique viruses on the level of their DNA structure.

MacNEIL: Which boils down that you're very confident about your findings. Is that what you mean?

Dr. SIMPSON: I am confident, yes.

MacNEIL: Dr. Simpson, thank you.

Dr. SIMPSON: Thank you very much.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: There were more mass demonstrations today in Fall River, Massachusetts, by people angry at the conviction of four Portuguese-American men for a gang rape in a bar. Police estimated that 10,000 people joined a march to the courthouse, many of them members of the town's dominant Portuguese population.

[voice-over] One Portuguese leader, Aldo Melo, told the crowd, "We've been discriminated against in the school and at work. We won't stand for it any more." The marchers carried placards, one of which said "Railroading Portuguese men won't fight rape."

[Video postcard -- Great South Bay, New York]

LEHRER: There was a record set today involving air pollution. The Jones and Laughlin Stell Company and its parent, LTV Corporation, were assessed a $4-million penalty for failing to install air pollution control equipment at four plants. That's the largest cash penalty ever under the Clean Air Act. In an agreement with the Justice Department the companies agreed to spend $30 million to now install the required equipment.

And there's a story from Texas tonight which former associates of the late President Lyndon Johnson say is a foul pollutant. It's a report that convicted swindler Billy Sol Estes recently told a grand jury that Johnson ordered a man murdered in 1961. The man, an official of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, had been found shot to death on his east Texas farm in 1961. Estes told the Bryan, Texas, grand jury Johnson, then vice president, feared the man would tie Johnson to Estes' illegal activities. Estes was convicted of a multimillion-dollar agricultural swindle. The new testimony was first reported in three Texas newspapers and confirmed today by the Bryan district attorney. But the DA said all of the people involved are now deceased and there was no way to substantiate Estes' allegation. Former aides to Johnson today said Estes was a pathological liar and the charges were scurrilous.

Robin? The National News Council

MacNEIL: We end tonight with a postmortem on a controversial institution. It existed virtually unloved, and it has died almost unmourned. It is the National News Council, a private news watchdog organization set up 11 years ago. Yesterday it voted to put itself out of business. The council was created in response to public criticism of the press, especially its coverage of Vietnam and the Nixon administration. It struggled to be recognized as an investigative body with the authority to judge news coverage. But the idea of an independent body ruling on press ethics and performance was never embraced by much of the news media. While some major organizations, notably CBS, supported the council, most treated it with indifference. And some, notably The New York Times, vigorously opposed it. Critics claimed the council would put shackles on a free press. Tonight, the passing of the news council, with one of its critics, James Squires, editor of The Chicago Tribune, and its president, Richard Salant, former president of CBS News.

Mr. Salant, why to you is it bad news today that the council is dead?

RICHARD SALANT: Because we thought that the council -- and I was on the original task force that recommened its creation -- we thought the news council could help the press in preserving its freedom. Nothing is more important than a free press in this country. It's bad news because it didn't work out that way, the way we'd hoped.

MacNEIL: How would the council have protected the press, ideally -- have helped the press in protecting its freedom?

Mr. SALANT: Well, we are learning today, every day, in the libel suits, and we learned a long time ago, when the First Amendment was being -- the free press provision of the First Amendment was being discussed that, ultimately, no matter what you write in the Constitution, it depends on public opinion and on the general spirit of the people. I think you see that reflected today in the enormous jury verdicts against news organizations in libel cases. You see it in court decisions. You see it in gradually constraining legislation. And you see it in a lack of public trust in the press.

MacNEIL: Let's ask Mr. Squires. I believe you believe that this is good news that the council has succumbed. Would you explain why?

JAMES SQUIRES: Well, I don't have any disagreement at all with Mr. Salant's description of its intent, and I agree with that.I think we do have those problems, and to some extent the News Council was a lightning rod or a part of a movement which caused American newspapers to be more concerned about their own accuracy. I do however think that the News Council was, in itself, a bad idea. It was not effective, and it was, I think, rather dangerous to us.

MacNEIL: In what way was it not effective?

Mr. SQUIRES: Well, it has no power, and if it has no power then it could not, in effect, force news organizations -- newspapers or broadcast -- to respond. So if you gave it the power to do that then it would become a regulatory body and, in my opinion, do the one thing that you never want to do to the American press. We are unique because we are unregulated. We face the great regulator, and that's the marketplace. We have to survive free and independent of government or any other kind of regulation, and I think that anything that interferes with that is a threat to the system.

MacNEIL: Do you agree that it was ineffectual?

Mr. SALANT: Yes, I do. I think that's why we decided to go out of existence. We were not performing the services to the press that we had hoped to. But I feel that that was largely because of the press indifference and press hostility.The press, for understandable reasons, has a tradition of wanting nobody to look over their shoulders. It derives from the First Amendment. You start with the government must not -- and I agree, we must never allow the government to intrude. And then it's good journalistic practice not to allow advertisers to intrude, not to allow the press upstairs to intrude. and so the feeling grew that nobody should. They'd do it themselves. But they haven't.

MacNEIL: What do you say about Mr. Salant's observation that there is a lot of public suspicion or lack of confidence in the media today, Mr. Squires, and if you believe that, do you think that there needs to -- well, first of all, let me ask you how you respond to the first part.

Mr. SQUIRES: Well, first of all, we were not among the newspapers that were indifferent or hostile to the National News Council. It was a very fine organization. In terms of membership it had a great deal of respect from us and we, indeed, responded in a few instances where we were asked to. I think my concern is with the concept of regulation. Organized regulation by any group becomes a very difficult proposition because we cannot decide who should do the regulating. Once we allow regulation of this kind, which is basically a second-guess or answer to the -- after the fact, Monday morning quarterback. The next step in that, I'm afraid, is to get in before the fact or to have some financial impact. I mean, a free press that has to rise or fall on its own merits seems to be what this Constitution and this country desires. Once we begin to take away self-regulation, self-examination of contents and give it to someone else, I'm afraid that we will take away other prerogatives of the press. Now, to the second part, I certainly agree with Mr. Salant, and for the reason of the News Council. We do have that kind of public problem and I think over the last 10 years you have seen the American press, especially American newspapers, respond to that. And the News Council and the publicity surrounding it had some impact, some positive impact, in that regard.

MacNEIL: Why isn't self-regulation enough and the responsiveness that Mr. Squires has talked about?

Mr. SALANT: Because there is a very American tradition that the batter in a baseball game doesn't always have the right to call his own balls and strikes. What we would try to provide -- and I should emphasize, this was only part of our function, the complaint section, and perhaps the less important function. We wanted to give the public that felt a story was unfair and inaccurate a second place to go after the very news organization that he was complaining about shrugged its shoulders and said, "We stand by our story."

MacNEIL: Well, what's wrong with that, Mr. Squires?

Mr. SQUIRES: Well, giving the second --

MacNEIL: Giving the public a second place to go if they feel that a story has been inaccurate?

Mr. SQUIRES: I think they have an opportunity to respond to the publication or to the news organization. And it's my opinion that having a second place to go gets in the way of the system. I mean, I'm not opposed to people being able to air their complaints, and I am very much in favor of the newspapers doing that. The problem with Mr. Salant's answer was that some of us could ignore this and not deal with it; others could not. A critic of a newspaper or of a news organization of any kind could use the National News Council as a place to put this newspapers on trial as a whipping boy. If I decided The Chicago Tribune should respond to these, which I did, anyone who wanted to keep me busy responding could do that, very much the way a nuisance suit hampers newspapers or a news organizations. Another newspaper who would not respond to the National News Council could just ignore that and not be involved with it at all.

Mr. SALANT: I think the question of keeping you busy is really a straw man. We would never take a case from a complainant unless he had first tried to settle it with the newspaper or the broadcast station. One has to assume that they were kept busy examining and responding to the complainant, and if they didn't do that and it was we that kept busy, then they weren't doing their job in the first place.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you this. The council was founded in a period when there was a lot of government complaint about the news media. There appears to be less government complaint at the moment. There appears to be a lot of public complaint. How do you assess that, and how urgent is it, in your view, that if there isn't this council there be something else to cope with it?

Mr. SALANT: I think that you're right. There has been less government complaint, or at least less noisy vocal complaint.

MacNEIL: Less Spiro Agnew making speeches.

Mr. SALANT: Yes. And there has been more public complaint, not because I think the press is worse than it used to be. The irony of it is that I feel strongly that the press is better than it's ever been before. It's been improving year by year, decade by decade. The public has learned to demand more of the press, and that's a good thing. And then there are some problems that the press has that are, in a sense, new. We're more remote, we're bigger, we're perceived as being more powerful. Just another conglomerate business. And that's something we have to face. We have to allow the public to feel that there is a responsiveness somewhere.

MacNEIL: And how do you face that, Mr. Squires?

Mr. SQUIRES: Well, I think with the realization that Mr. Salant has articulated here.We know what he knows. I think in the last decade you have seen newspapers begin to curb their arrogance, give some attention to complaints, to responses, to explaining why we do what do what we do, and we have seen newspapers face the greatest critic or regulator of all, and that's the free market in America. If we do not do our job well we will cease to exist, and that is threat enough for me.

MacNEIL: If we don't leave you, we will. So thank you both very much for joining us. Jim?

LEHRER: Again today's top stories. The cause of crippling rheumatoid arthritis may be a virus.

French President Francois Mitterrand predicted an improvement in East-West relations, but didn't say why.

In El Salvador the army is trying to make peace for Sunday's presidential election.

And there was more intramural Moslem fighting in Beirut. Here at home the Labor Department says there was less inflation in February than in January as the price index rose 0.4% last month.

And the Justice Department hit steelmaker LTV with a $4-million penalty for violating the Clean Air Act.

Good night, and good weekend, Robin.

MacNEIL: Same to you, Jim. Good night. We'll be back on Monday night.I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.