MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, Pres. Bush called for an end to discrimination against AIDS sufferers, a government report found no link between the herbicide agent orange and cancer among Vietnam veterans. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.
MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we focus first on the fight against AIDS [FOCUS - AIDS - MEETING THE CHALLENGE?]. We have excerpts of the President's speech and analysis from Asst. Health & Human Services Secretary Dr. James Mason and AIDS activist Mathilde Krim. Then [FOCUS - ALIENATED WORKERS] Jeff Kaye reports on an unintended consequence of the new immigration bill. Next a News Maker interview [NEWS MAKER - MEETING IN MOSCOW] with Sen. Edward Kennedy just back from a meeting with Pres. Gorbachev about the situation in Lithuania. Finally [ESSAY - RAY OF LAUGHTER] Essayist Roger Rosenblatt on a hero of humor.NEWS SUMMARY
MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush spoke out on the issue of AIDS today. He called for an end to discrimination against AIDS sufferers and said his administration was on a wartime footing in its search for a cure. He spoke to a conference on AIDS in Northern Virginia. Demonstrators were present outside the meeting to protest administration policy. Two were arrested. Others heckled the President as he spoke. Mr. Bush said he hoped they would understand that he cares.
PRES. BUSH: For those who are living with HIV and AIDS, our response is clear. They deserve our compassion. They deserve our care and they deserve more than a chance. They deserve a cure. America will accept nothing less.
MR. MacNeil: The President spoke before a group of business leaders and health professionals. Their reaction was mixed. Many applauded him for speaking out, but one of the keynote speakers, Robert Haas, the chairman of Levi Strauss & Company, criticized the President's budget proposals.
ROBERT HAAS, Chairman, Levi Strauss: He removed all the money to pay for AZT and preventive treatments for opportunistic infection for low income persons not yet eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, he cut all of the money for service demonstration projects used to support home and community based patient care in the cities with the highest caseloads. This must be changed and the federal government must provide adequate funds for patient care as well as research.
MR. MacNeil: We will have more on this story right after the News Summary. Judy.
MS. WOODRUFF: On another public health issue, the Centers For Disease Control in Atlanta reported today that there was no increased cancer risk for Vietnam War veterans exposed to agent orange. Agent orange was a defoliant used by U.S. forces during the Vietnam War to destroy jungle hiding places for the Viet Cong. The five year study by the CDC showed no link between exposure and cancer, but it acknowledged that the evaluation was limited and despite finding no direct link to agent orange, the study showed Vietnam vets were 50 percent more likely to develop a cancer known as non Hodgkins Lymphoma. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs', Edward Derwinski, said that was sufficient to offer compensation to victims.
EDWARD DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans' Affairs: I am instructing that regulations be immediately drafted to establish that the disease is service-connected for the purposes of disability compensation. I want to make it clear that my decision is not a scientific decision and should not be seen as that. My decision and the President's support for it is a policy determination. As Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, I feel that we have a responsibility and actually an obligation to serve the best interest of our nation's veterans.
MS. WOODRUFF: On Capitol Hill today, the Senate by a 50 to 49 vote defeated an effort to amend a clean air bill. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, was designed to compensate coal miners who lose their job as a result of new clean air rules. Both Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate opposed the Byrd amendment on the grounds that it would unravel the overall clean air compromise.
MR. MacNeil: In South Africa, two of the country's most powerful black leaders have agreed to hold talks to stop a war between their rival factions. African National Congress Leader Nelson Mandela and Zulu Leader Mongo Sutu Buthelezi, who heads the Incata movement, will meet Monday. The two men differ over how to end apartheid. Violence between their supporters during the past two days has left at least 25 people dead in Natal Province. We have a report from South Africa by Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News.
MR. DUNN: In the killing fields of Natal, police rush to the scene of another violent clash, but their only task is to recover the bodies, one a teen-age girl killed on one hillside in one brief but bloody spasm of violence this afternoon. The killers, in this case suspected members of the conservative movement Incata, left houses blazing. This woman lost everything. This man, his home razed for the second time, decided it was time to leave.
RESIDENT: I've got no mother, I've got no father. My sister is now dead. I'm going now.
MR. DUNN: Many more decided to flee too, refugees in their own land from faction fighting no one admits to starting and no one seems willing to stop.
MS. WOODRUFF: The Soviet Union today offered amnesty to army deserters from Lithuania who turn themselves in. No deadline was given, but the soldiers warned that those soldiers who do not return to their divisions will be "searched out, detained, and be subject to criminal punishment". In East Germany today, there were huge protests over reports that many new members of parliament worked with the former secret police, known as the Stasi. Tens of thousands of people turned out in East Berlin and other cities. They were demanding an investigation into all 400 members of parliament to weed out the Stasi ties. Faced with the protest, East Germany's new leaders today promised to push for such an investigation.
MR. MacNeil: The alleged attempt to smuggle nuclear weapons triggers to Iraq became an issue for the courts today. British customs officials seized the triggers at Heathrow Airport yesterday. In San Diego, where the triggers were manufactured, a U.S. district court opened an indictment against five people and two British-based companies. They were charged will illegally exporting the triggers. In London, three of those arrested were arraigned today.
MS. WOODRUFF: Thousands of Chinese who left their country and never want to go back lined up last night in the neighboring Portuguese Colony of Mackow to get permission to stay there, but the process resulted in a stampede when many in the crowd panicked. We have a report by Kevin Reese of Independent Television News in Hong Kong.
MR. REESE: The trouble began just after midnight when thousands of illegal immigrants were ordered to leave the central district of Mackow and go home. Many who'd been cuing for hours to get identity cards refused. Women and children exhausted by hours of waiting collapsed in the confusion. The crowd was said to be furious that the government had registered 2000 people and then stopped, leaving thousands of others without a chance. Police used loud hailers to appeal for calm, saying the registration was not yet over. The crowd were told to go to a football stadium near the border, setting off another stampede, people afraid they'd be left out struggling to get inside. As the situation threatened to get further out of control, police drew pistols and fired in the air in an attempt to restore calm. More than a hundred people were injured in the panic, most caused by the crush. As the crowd continued to swell, the authorities moved them yet again to a larger stadium where registration formalities could continue. Many here believe an identity card will allow them a Portuguese passport, a means of escape when Mackow reverts to Chinese rule. This incident is sure to fuel the debate over the rights of people in Hong Kong to have British passports.
MS. WOODRUFF: That ends our News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, the battle against AIDS, the immigration bill's unexpected impact, Sen. Kennedy on Gorbachev's view of Lithuania, and Essayist Roger Rosenblatt. FOCUS - AIDS - MEETING THE CHALLENGE?
MR. MacNeil: The President's speech on AIDS is first tonight. As we reported President Bush addressed several hundred business leaders today gather for a conference on AIDS in the workplace. It was Mr. Bush's first speech on AIDS. We'll discuss the President's words and Administration efforts to help AIDS patients after these excerpts from today's speech.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Other generations have faced the life threatening medical crisis, polio, the plague. This virus is our challenge and for those who are living with HIV and AIDS our response is clear. They deserve our compassion, they deserve our care and they deserve more than a chance. They deserve a cure. America will, accept nothing less. We are slashing red tape, accelerating schedules research and somewhere out there there is a Nobel Prize in the gratitude of plant Earth waiting for the man or women who discovers the answer that has eluded everyone else. We pray that day will come soon. But until that day, until this virus can be defeated by science there is a battle to be waged by society because in 1990 the most effect weapon in our arsenal against AIDS is not just medication but also medication. The goal is to turn irrational fear in to ration acts. And let me state clearly people are placed at risk not by their demographics but by their deeds by their behavior. So it is our duty to make sure that every American has the essential information needed to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. Because while the ignorant may discriminate against AIDS, AIDS will not discriminate among the ignorant. In this nation in this decade there is only one way to deal with an individual who is sick. With dignity, with compassion, care and confidentiality and without discrimination. Once disease strikes we don't blame those who are suffering. We don't spurn the accident victim who did not wear a seat belt. We don't reject the cancer patient who didn't quite smoking. We love them and care for them and comfort them. We don't fire them, we don't evict them, we don 't cancel their insurance. And today I call on the House of Representatives to get on with the job of passing a law as embodied with the Americans with Disabilities Act that prohibits discrimination against those with HIV, AIDS. We are in a fight against disease not a fight against people and we will not and must not in America tolerate discrimination. The disease is attacking our most precious resource our people, especially our young. The statistics are numbing, you know them, you heard them this morning. Just look at the amazing quilts hanging here on the Walls today. They prove that no one is a statistic, every life has its own fabric, its own colors, its own purpose, its own soul. Like the quilts no two are alike,. We are going to continue to fight like hell but we are also going to fight for hope. America has a unique capacity for beating the odds and astounding the World. During my own childhood the silent whispered terror was a mysterious killer called Polio. Like HIV the virus ignored class distinctions and geographic boundaries. Let me say something about this I can understand the concern these people feel and if we do nothing else by coming here I can help them understand that not only do you care that we care too and I am going to continue to do my very very best. Many comparisons have been made to epidemics in the past small pox, yellow fever, none of them perfect. So let me boil down the lessons of polio to two. There was a lot of ignorance. Let's learn from that. And in the darkest of hours hope came unexpectedly, powerfully and with finality. Let's work hard to see that that day comes to pass.
MR. MacNeil: Well now analyze the President's words with Mathilde Krim the founding co Chair of the American Foundation for AIDS Research and Dr. James Mason Assistant Secretary for Health. Before that he was the Director of the Centers for Disease Control. Ms. Krim what is the significance to you and the AIDS fighting community of the President speaking out today.
MATHILDE KRIM, American Foundation for AIDS Research: These words were like music to my ear. The significance of this speech will be historical. It is a very important speech because in the past we have never had a President take a real position of moral leadership in this situation. This is something that we have missed from day one and we are still suffering from. The President has enormous prestige with the public and he can set the tone of what we do. For example with respect to a crisis like AIDS. It is very important that he should have been willing to say what he said and I also think that he said it very sincerely. He is obviously an intelligent person who understands what is going on and who also feels the compassion that he is speaking about.
MR. MacNeil: Now on the content of his speech. How did you react to what he said?
DR. KRIM: Well i heard what was just said but I also have read the whole speech and I find certain contradictions in what he said. For example the thing that astonishes us in this field that he mentions a budget of 3 and 1/2 billion dollars that he has proposed for fiscal year 1991 and it took me a while to understand that was referring to the budget for research, for care, for education, for epidemiological survey and also for an enlarged Medic Aid program with higher federal subsidies and altogether it comes to 3 and 1/2 billion dollars. But what goes to research in AIDS is only 900 million. What has been added to last years strictly AIDS and Education program has been only 100 million and the figures he sighted were really misleading to the public. The public will not understand the difference unless explained. Also there is another point that is interesting that he speaks about fighting discrimination. On the other hand his Administration is refusing to change a regulation that prohibits and it could be called a law, I understand that Congress would have to intervene to but he has not proposed re writing a certain bill that prohibits entry to the United States with people with positive anti bodies to the AIDS virus.
MR. MacNeil: Let me come back to that issue, the immigration issue in a moment. First of Dr. Mason you heard what Dr. Krim said that the President's budget figures are misleading to the general public. Can you hear me?
DR. JAMES MASON, Assistant Secretary for Health: Yes I can and I disagree with the misleadingness of those statements. When you put together what the Federal Government has done I think that it is extraordinary. For example in 1982 this country was only spending 8 million dollars for AIDS research, prevention, education. That has rapidly gone up so that this fiscal year we are spending 1.6 billion dollars and that is second only to cancer research and prevention. It exceeds the amount of money this nation spends for heart disease, for stroke for any other disease. So that is the magnitude of the federal commitment just for AIDS research and prevention . When it comes to care of AIDS victims, AIDS patients we find that 40 percent of all of those with AIDS one way or another are paid through the federal state medic aid system. And although there are some that fall between the cracks there has been an enormous out pouring of funds to find out how this disease is caused, what we need to do to stop further transmission. The research that has been done on new drugs, the speeding up of approval of these drugs, the education messages the funds that have been given to states and local government community based organizations. Never before has this nation mobilized itself so rapidly and so completely to meet the needs of a nation in combating this epidemic.
MR. MacNeil: And Dr. Krim you think that is not enough. Is that it?
DR. KRIM: No it is absolutely not enough because one thing that we also forget is that AIDS is an infectious disease is different from anything else that we have known before. Cholera has been mentioned and polio and everything. All other infectious diseases allow an immunological response and they don't kill everybody. There are always some people surviving protected from the infection. So epidemics have always been self limiting and this has happened very fast in certain virus diseases such as the epidemic in 1918. The AIDS virus kills the very cells that are supposed to protect us and to protect us also from other inflections.
MR. MacNeil: Given that view of it where do you think the federal government needs to spend more money and where does the Bush position disappoint you specifically?
DR. KRIM: Specifically in what it invests in development of new treatments. In the labs people, scientists have found hundreds of drugs that are potentially useful in the treatment of aids, as anti-virals of prevention for, you know, the bad infections people with AIDS get.. There is very insufficient funds to develop these drugs as real treatments. It is not enough to have an active drug on the shelf in a bottle. It must in people and prolonging lives or savings lives.
MR. MacNeil: Let's go back to Dr. Mason on that. How do you respond to that Dr. Mason?
DR. MASON: Well, when we've developed today the capacity to screen literally thousands of drugs to see whether they might be effective in treating people who have been infected with the HIV virus or have AIDS, we are bringing many many of these drugs into controlled clinical trials. The Food & Drug Administration is working to bring into treatment IND or licensure these drugs as rapidly as possible. And I'm only talking about the federal emphasis on this problem. We have to recognize in the United States that this is a partnership, federal, state, local. I haven't even touched upon what industry, the pharmaceutical industry is doing to bring AIDS treatments on line so that they can be useful in treating patients. I think the nation has mounted a very vigorous, a very comprehensive --
MR. MacNeil: You think it's enough, in other words, do you?
DR. MASON: Well, it's never enough, never enough. We never do enough for cancer; we never do enough for heart disease; we never do enough for diabetes. We'll never do enough for AIDS as long as there still is another person who is suffering from this terrible disease. But the point I'm making is, is that this nation has mobilized second only to cancer and we've done that in less eight years, and we have to be careful that each dollar is spent wisely, judiciously. And I think what's happening is exactly an example of how to get the best for the dollar.
MR. MacNeil: Dr. Mason, Robert Haas of Levi Strauss, whom we saw briefly quoted earlier, was quite critical of you directly today in his speech for saying that -- quoting you as saying that patient care is not the responsibility of the Public Health Service, that he and others say that community institutions are simply overwhelmed by the demands for care in certain big cities particularly, and some of these cities, as he put it, are epicenters for a health disaster which needs federal help in order to survive. You just disagree with that.
DR. MASON: I think the quote then is out of context. The United States Public Health Service --
MR. MacNeil: I quoted it I thought very much in context, the context that he meant.
DR. MASON: No, I say -- the United States Public Health Service is responsible for research, for prevention, for educational services, and to a limited extent for health care services. We have community and migrant health centers where we do provide treatment for patients with AIDS. The Indian Health Service, which is part of the United States Public Health Service, treats people with AIDS, but we're not the part of the Department of Health and Human Services which is predominantly responsible for health care financing, and so my statement was before Congress to say that we want adequate funding for research and prevention because that is the primary mission of the United States Public Health Service, while other parts of government and the department are primarily responsible for health care financing, and that was simply to distinguish between the primary role of the public health service versus primary roles of other entities. We've never been a principal health care part of the government.
MR. MacNeil: I understand the distinction you're making, but what about Mr. Haas's point that there needs to be more federal money to help these cities which are so heavily burdened where many of the hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy, where emergency rooms are forcing out patients with other illnesses and things?
DR. MASON: And that's where the $3.5 billion minus the $1.6 billion that's being spent for research, prevention, education, the rest of that $3.5 billion is being spent by the Health Care Financing Administration, Social Security Administration, Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense, other parts of the federal government to provide those kind of services, and in cooperation with business, with industry, with the private sector, with state and local governments, that is the sum total that is being used to provide services. It's never enough. We aren't providing services for 31 million Americans that today don't have access.
MR. MacNeil: What is your comment, Dr. Krim, on the adequacy of the?
DR. KRIM: When I was speaking about the inadequacy of care provision and testing new drugs at the clinical level, now not in the lab, I was not saying to Dr. Mason that that's the responsibility of the PHS, the Public Health Service. It's true, some of these pieces are the responsibility of other agencies, but altogether, the share of the federal government in fighting AIDS at the level of $3.5 billion is even that level, although surprisingly high as mentioned by Pres. Bush, is not sufficient, because the bulk of people with AIDS are mostly young and uninsured, most of them, is going to rest on the willingness of the federal government in cooperation with the private sector to provide care.
MR. MacNeil: Well, Dr. Krim, thank you very much. Dr. Mason, thank you for joining us. Judy.
MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the Newshour, discrimination in the Immigration Bill, Sen. Kennedy talks about his conversation with Gorbachev and Essayist Roger Rosenblatt. FOCUS - ALIENATED WORKERS
MS. WOODRUFF: Next a look at an unintended consequence of this country's immigration policies, workplace discrimination against foreigners. When Congress passed the immigration reform law four years ago, it mandated crimes and penalties against employers who hire illegal aliens. Today a study by the Government Accounting Office concluded that those sanctions encourage "widespread discrimination against legitimate job applicants who are or look like they are foreign born". We have this report from Jeff Kaye of public station KCET-Los Angeles.
MR. KAYE: There's a frenzied desperation at the hiring site in Harbor City, California. Men in search of day work hope their names will be picked as jobs are raffled out. Most of these men are immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Many lack papers that entitle them to work legally, but some men who do have legal documents say they don't make any difference. You're saying employers won't take the card that you have? So this is valid until March 1991.
WORKER: [Speaking through Interpreter] Yes. This card --
MR. KAYE: Adoberto Semanos says he's shown his employment authorization card to potential employers, but because fraudulent documents are so easy to obtain, they feared his card wasn't valid and they turned him away. Under the 1986 Immigration Act, employers face penalties or sanctions if they don't verify that employees like these have papers authorizing them to work. State agencies in New York and California have investigated the effects of employer sanctions. so has the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. All three groups issued reports that use the same language and concluded that the sanctions have produced a widespread pattern of discrimination. Several immigrants' rights groups reached the same conclusions after conducting their own studies. Lawyer Anne Kamsvaag is with the Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights of Los Angeles.
ANNE KAMSVAAG, Immigrant Rights Lawyer: Discrimination is tremendously widespread. Employers are so confused about what to do, and it's natural that if an employer is afraid, he's going to take the safe route, and usually the safe route means you don't hire somebody that you're not sure about.
MR. KAYE: It used to be that immigration officials focused their attention on workers and virtually ignored the people who hired them. But now agents make sure employers have verified their workers' IDs and have recorded the information on documents called I-9s.
IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL: [Talking to Employer] What I'm going to need from you is a list of the employees and the date that they were hired, okay?
EMPLOYER: All right.
IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL: And then we'll sit down and we'll go over these I-9 forms.
MR. KAYE: If employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants, they can be fined up to $10,000 and spend six months in jail. There are also penalties for failing to fill out the paper work properly.
TERESA MANOS [Talking to Job Applicant]: And I need a California driver's license. Do you have an ID? Okay.
MR. KAYE: Teresa Manos is particularly careful about whom she hires. She and her husband, George, run the Bread Basket Restaurant and Bakery near San Diego. Earlier this year, the Manoses paid $8500 in fines after immigration agents discovered many of their I-9's were either missing or incomplete. To the Manoses, the paper work violations seemed petty. They feel they were victimized because they were confused about the law's requirements. Now they are super cautious about what documentation they accept and whom they hire. What do you do now when an Hispanic comes and applies for a job?
TERESA MANOS: You select. I'm serious. It's very stressful.
GEORGE MANOS: You try not to be discriminatory, you try not to be discriminatory, but it's impossible.
TERESA MANOS, Restaurant Owner: If they have their official green card and everything, that's good, but some of their documentation, it's very difficult to really determine is this valid, is this okay, or did he make it up.
MR. KAYE: So what do you do?
GEORGE MANOS: You don't hire 'em.
MR. KAYE: You don't hire them?
MR. MANOS: No.
MR. KAYE: There's no question about it.
GEORGE MANOS, Restaurant Owner: No question about it. I had a guy come in and apply for a job and I wanted to see his paper work and he pulls it out of his wallet and he unfolds this little piece of paper, and it's nothing that I ever saw before and I couldn't hire him. I have no idea whether I was discriminatory there. This man may have been perfectly legal, but I don't know. But I wasn't going to take the chance.
MR. KAYE: So you are discriminating?
MR. MANOS: That's it, baby. That's it. You got it. I can't help it. I've got to. I can't afford any more. I can't afford, I can't afford it.
MR. KAYE: Colombia-born accountant George Ruiz says he's also encountered an employer afraid to take a chance. In 1987, Ruiz applied for a job as an insurance agent. At the time, Ruiz was a legal resident. He says he was turned down when he told the employers he wasn't yet a citizen.
GEORGE RUIZ, Accountant: He say, well, that's the way it is. I said, no, this is actual discrimination, and I said, you are actually discriminating against me, and I will take some action. He said, well, I don't give an "F" of what you think. And he hung up on me.
MR. KAYE: Ruiz did take some action. He filed a complaint with the Justice Department, 1 of 840 charges of job discrimination received by the office set up especially to enforce anti- discrimination provisions of the Immigration Act. The company, Farmers Insurance, denied wrongdoing. It settled out of court for $775 and agreed to circulate a notice to its managers instructing them not to discriminate against non-citizens. Activists contend that employer sanctions not only discriminate against the foreign born, but are driving an already exploited labor pool even further underground.
MS. KAMSVAAG, Immigrant Rights Lawyer: I think employer sanctions has created more of a split in the labor force. Undocumented workers have always been more exploitable, but now that their options are more restricted, they are in a weaker position than they were before, so those employers who want to take advantage of them know that. They know that undocumented people can't as easily go out and get a better job, so they're less likely to complain about low pay or harsh conditions or no pay.
MR. KAYE: Employers complain that sanctions have created a hardship for them. Although today's GAO report says the sanctions have not placed an undue burden on businesses, many employers feel they have been involuntarily deputized as immigration police.
MRS. MANOS: I feel that we're employees of the Immigration Service without benefit of payroll or education. We're simply penalized when we do something wrong.
MR. KAYE: But workers too are being penalized according to the GAO report, and because of today's finding of widespread discrimination, Congress will now consider whether or not employer sanctions should be repealed.
MS. KAMSVAAG: I think they should be abandoned completely. I think three years is long enough to say this was an experiment and it just didn't work.
MICHAEL JOHNSON: To do away with sanctions altogether was more of a drastic step than we thought.
MR. KAYE: Michael Johnson of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission urges a more cautious approach to sanctions.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, California Fair Employment Commission: We recommended that there be a moratorium placed on the employer sanction provisions of the law and that during that period of moratorium, the INS, federal government, and state agencies like ourselves assist in training employers how to comply with the law and at the same time, improve the anti-discrimination provisions of the law.
MR. KAYE: As for George and Teresa Manos, they believe that they as well as the workers they're afraid to hire are innocent victims of an unfair law.
MR. MANOS: It's really not the INS's fault. It's the problem and everybody's throwin' the hot potato around and I've got ahold of it right now and I'm the one that got burnt.
MS. WOODRUFF: On Capitol Hill today, reaction to the finding by the General Accounting Office of widespread discrimination focused on whether or not the sanctions against employers should be repealed.
REP. BILL RICHARDSON, [D] New Mexico: Employer sanctions has not worked. We don't even think it's been a deterrent to illegal immigration. It is clearly discriminatory. It is time not just for minorities but for organizations that supported this bill, the Bush administration, the Justice Department, many business organizations that have had onerous deliberations in dealing with employer sanctions, to rally around us and get rid of this relic that has only brought discrimination to the people of this country.
SEN. ALAN SIMPSON, [R] Wyoming: If we repeal employer sanctions, we will say to those in the less developed world, come on and make the dangerous, illegal journey to our country, we will try to stop you and smugglers may try to rob you and kill you and stop you, but if you make it, U.S. employers can hire you. I reject that retched message and so will most members of the Congress. And now the task for us to set about to improve employer sanctions and that can be done by more education and a better worker verification system.
MS. WOODRUFF: The Immigration and Naturalization Service today urged Congress to look into a tougher verification system, so that employers can tell who is a legal job applicant. The INS opposes the repeal of employer sanctions and plans instead to beef up its system for educating employers about them. NEWS MAKER - MEETING IN MOSCOW
MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight Lithuania and a News Maker interview with Sen. Edward Kennedy. The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts had planned a trip to Moscow for months, and as it turned out, his visit came in the middle of the Lithuanian crisis. Kennedy met with President Gorbachev on Monday and returned to Washington just this morning. I spoke with him this afternoon at his office. Sen. Kennedy, thank you for being with us. Senator, did you come away from your meeting with President Gorbachev thinking that he is resigned to Lithuania having its independence eventually?
SEN. KENNEDY: Yes.
MS. WOODRUFF: What made you think so? What made you have that understanding?
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: A very clear and precise statement. I believe he understands that Lithuania will eventually be independent. He stated very clearly to me that he was committed not to use force unless lives were threatened and that he wanted to be consistent with the Soviet constitution. Of course, the Soviet constitution makes it extremely complex for Lithuania to establish independence. The key element I think at the present time is for negotiations to take place. I met with the negotiators, Lithuanian negotiators who were attempting to speak with their Soviet counterparts. That negotiation at least wasn't taking place 24 hours ago.
MS. WOODRUFF: Why hasn't it taken place? What has been holding that up? What sense did you get talking to Mr. Gorbachev?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I think there's a very clear decision by the Lithuanian people for independence and there is also a very clear feeling with President Gorbachev that Lithuania is a part of the Soviet Union. Of course, we don't recognize that. We've never recognized the incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union.
MS. WOODRUFF: What did he tell you were the reasons that he's not prepared to let them go now? What is it that he says he wants Lithuania to do before he'll let them go?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, he wants Lithuania as the other Baltic states to follow the Soviet constitution. He believes very deeply that those countries have been incorporated in the Soviet Union. Clearly, they have not been. And I'm absolutely convinced that they will be free. They've been, I think, enormously courageous in the positions that they've taken. I think they have followed the letter of the law to date, but this is a very critical and key time about how President Gorbachev is going to proceed. And I quite frankly think the fact that he understands there is so much at risk -- there is no question and I made it very clear as far as I was concerned, I think, the overwhelming majority of Americans that are concerned, the significant progress that has been made for him as political leaders that has resolved the problems in Eastern Europe through the process of negotiation would effectively be undermined in a dramatic way should they use military force.
MS. WOODRUFF: And what was his reaction when you made this point? How did he take hearing that?
SEN. KENNEDY: He feels that that's interfering in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. Clearly, I don't think that that's so.
MS. WOODRUFF: Did he say that to you in so many words?
SEN. KENNEDY: Yes, very definitely. And he believes that the process of perestroika that involves a lot of reforms within the country and its relationships with Eastern Europe and also in the restructuring in the Soviet economy, all of these elements he believes are in process now and that he believes that the Western countries ought to have some degree of understanding for the complexities and the difficulties. We view this situation entirely differently.
MS. WOODRUFF: How did he defend his increasing measures -- at the time you were there on Monday, we had seen a series of steps increasing the pressure, even intimidation of the Lithuanian people -- how did he explain that, did you ask him about it? What did he say about it?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, he believes that the way he defines sort of military intervention I think is the way probably most Americans see it, tanks in Czechoslovakia, the active role that the Soviet Union had in Hungary in 1956. I think it was very close to a flash point in Lithuania and in the other Baltic states and I don't think we're out of the woods, but I think quite frankly this is a very important test about whether this Soviet leader is really a new Soviet leader or whether he's really a younger leader that believes in the kinds of repression that past Soviet leaders have favored.
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think, did you get the sense that he personally would like to let Lithuania go more quickly, but that there are pressures on him?
SEN. KENNEDY: No, I think he, himself, although I think should respect the Lithuanian decision, I think he's reluctant to see that it goes. The interesting point is is that the principle countries, the Baltic countries, the other nationalities that are striving for independence, basically are not the sort of the producing areas of the Soviet Union. They get heavily subsidized. Those are economic issues. So he is sort of caught in the situation where he wonders why Lithuania would want to be free when it is basically being heavily subsidized by the rest of the Soviet Union, and I'm not sure that he really appreciates the extraordinary courage of the Lithuanian people in their struggle for independence.
MS. WOODRUFF: What does he think -- I mean, does he think they're just foolish in what they've done?
SEN. KENNEDY: No.
MS. WOODRUFF: I mean, how does he characterize what they've done?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I don't think he really gives probably the great credit to the Lithuanian people. He talks about a palace guard coup. I not sure that he really understands that this is a grassroots, an expression by the Lithuanian people. I think he believes that it's more of a political action by a smaller group not truly representative of the Lithuanian people. I'm not sure that he really understands that this is really happening. I think he has probably a greater appreciation of the movements for independence and for nationalism in the Eastern European countries. I'm not sure that he really understands that that is a similar feeling among the Lithuanian people, the Latvians and the Estonians. And quite frankly, that's a feeling that is shared by the overwhelming majority of the Soviet leaders. It's one that is difficult for any of us to understand and appreciate, but it's deeply held.
MS. WOODRUFF: How passionate was he on this subject? I mean, did he really get fired up when you were talking, was he matter of fact about it?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I met President Gorbachev for the first time in 1986 and again just a couple of days ago and he is emphatic, he's a very practical, tough-minded individual who has very clear views. He's adjusted those views at different times and accommodated to new realities and I would just hope that President Gorbachev, the new President now, would recognize that this is matter that has to be negotiated out.
MS. WOODRUFF: You've described some of the things that you said to him about the attitude of the United States. You talked with President Bush before you went. Were you carrying a message from the President?
SEN. KENNEDY: No, I talked to the President before traveling to the Soviet Union. He expressed his view about this situation that was imperative that it be negotiated out and that force not be used and that is certainly my view as well. I think it's probably somewhat useful that he hears from a variety of public opinion, that that's a uniform opinion in the United States.
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think it would be counterproductive for this administration to speak up for aggressively and to state emphatically what the --
SEN. KENNEDY: I think there's a very clear understanding of the leadership of the Soviet Union about where the American people stand. There's no question in my mind that they understand that now. If they didn't understand it, you might have a different situation. They understand it, President Gorbachev --
MS. WOODRUFF: How do you know that?
SEN. KENNEDY: Because of the conversations that were held about the nature of the discussion that were held among the council of ministers. They are a small group, a handful group, that really are the principle decision makers for the Soviet Union and this was a matter that was discussed at some length.
MS. WOODRUFF: We read, it was reported that Mr. Gorbachev criticized Mr. Bush, criticized the Bush administration for interfering. What exactly did Mr. Gorbachev say to you about that?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, that this is an internal matter in terms of the Soviet Union; they believe that.
MS. WOODRUFF: How consistent is this, is the image of this Gorbachev that you're describing and his attitude toward the Lithuanian situation with the Gorbachev that we've been reading about for the last year or so, the one who's pushing economic reform, who's pushing a multi-party system in the Soviet Union, is this a different person we're dealing with here?
SEN. KENNEDY: He is a different person. He believes very deeply that he has spoken to the leaders of the West and said that perestroika, glasnost, would be a difficult complex process and where there would be a lot of turmoil both with the economic reforms, the social reforms. He believes that that is going to take place, he thinks it's in the interest of the Soviet people, but he also thinks that it's in the interest of the West and quite frankly, he's impatient with the reaction of the West in being extremely critical of a situation in which is difficult for the Soviet Union and for the Soviet people so he quite frankly, is in a period of resentment of outside interference. But I do believe that we will see a process of negotiation. That's the hope.
MS. WOODRUFF: Why do you think that?
SEN. KENNEDY: I think it's just the way matters have developed really in the last few days. I certainly hope so.
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think we've misjudged Gorbachev over the last year or so, that he really is much more of a hardliner than we had come to believe, or do you think this is just a very difficult episode for him?
SEN. KENNEDY: It's a very difficult episode for him, but I think the fact that there has been this kind of reaction by Western political leaders and by quite frankly, by President Bush, I think has been enormously instructive.
MS. WOODRUFF: And just finally, did you get a sense, again, from talking to him and from talking to the people around him about how secure his own position is, is there any doubt in your mind?
SEN. KENNEDY: No doubt whatsoever. He has absolute control of the most important levers of Soviet leadership. We talked for two hours, the leaders of the KGB military, the parliamentary group, I talked to the opposition leaders. Gorbachev's in charge and he has many problems. And he has a lot of internal opposition to him and if you took a poll, he'd have his problems too, but in terms of those that are in the important positions of responsibility, they are in strong support of President Gorbachev.
MS. WOODRUFF: Senator, thank you very much for being with.
SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you very much. It's been nice to be with you.
MS. WOODRUFF: Kennedy also told us that the next critical event to watch for is the military draft that is scheduled to take place this weekend in Lithuania. Gorbachev and other Soviet officials are concerned about how cooperative the young men will be who are called up. ESSAY - RAY OF LAUGHTER
MR. MacNeil: Finally our regular Thursday night essay. Roger Rosenblatt reflects on the career of the late Ray Goulding, the Ray in Bob and Ray.
MR. ROSENBLATT: Whenever one devotee of Bob and Ray's radio program meets another, there follows an immediate explosion of recollected routines. They usually skip over --
RADIO ANNOUNCER: MARY BACKSTAGE, Noble Wife.
MR. ROSENBLATT: -- the famous parody of the soap serial, Mary Noble, Backstage Wife. They also give short shrift to reporter Wally Baloo. [RADIO SEGMENT]
MR. ROSENBLATT: Baloo would always begin his report in the middle of a word. It's not that these routines weren't funny, they were hilarious, but real devotees like to recall Bob and Ray esoterica, such as the Adventures of Dr. David Moohoo, Hawaiian Eye, Ear, Nose & Throat Specialist. Each episode would begin with a woman's voice piped over a public address system, "Calling Dr. Moohoo, calling Dr. Moohoo, you hoo, Moohoo." There were the interviews with characters like Flaming Bombasine, the dare devil who rode through fires, and the indispensable advice of the fashion expert, Napily Attired, and the interminable intervals of silence on --
RADIO ANNOUNCER: One Fellow's Family.
MR. ROSENBLATT: -- the Bob and Ray version of the popular and long running radio serial, One Man's Family, which unintentionally was pretty funny all by itself. That was their forte, the taking of the accepted nonsense that passed for significance in the culture and then bringing it to a point of exaggeration. Ray Goulding, who died last weekend, was especially adept at effecting deep seriousness on the shallowness of matters. Listening to him and Bob Elliot was an experience of continuous and delicious yearning. You could not wait to hear what preposterous thing one or the other of them would say next, particularly because they made every element of their madness sound excessively normal, as normal as they looked themselves, well, almost normal.
RAY: [COMEDY SEGMENT] But through the carelessness of one of our alert uniformed attendants, these chocolate rabbits which we had put such a big stock in, were placed next to the steam pipes in our over-stocked [wearing bunny ears] surplus warehouse.
BOB: [wearing bunny ears] So now we are able to offer at a ridiculously low price exactly 20 gross of genuine laughably edible all chocolate wobblies such as these here [showing melted bunny chocolate glob].
MR. ROSENBLATT: I referred to comedy before, but what Bob and Ray did wasn't comedy. Comedy is what most entertainers do today. It's harsh, it's rapid fire, it's noisy, it's defensive, and it holds the audience away. The difference between comedy and humor is that comedy keeps the audience out and humor draws us in. Bob and Ray were humorous, working in a medium that deliberately encouraged its listeners to feel part of the joke.
RAY: [COMEDY ROUTINE SEGMENT] I am president and recording --
BOB: Secretary, recording secretary.
RAY: -- secretary of the S -- T -- O -- A.
BOB: What does that stand for?
RAY: The -- Slow -- Talkers -- Of --
BOB: America.
RAY: -- America. As opposed to the members of the F --
BOB: TOA.
RAY: -- T --
BOB: OA.
RAY: -- O -- A.
BOB: The Fast Talkers Of America.
RAY: The Fast -- Talkers Of --
BOB: America.
RAY: -- America.
MR. ROSENBLATT: Probably what devotees of Bob and Ray recall even more fondly than the particular routines was the pleasure of rearing back and harmlessly laughing at a world that never did make much sense anyway, no more sense than their sign-off, which lucky members of a whole generation still say when they take leave of each other. Write if you get work and hang by your thumbs. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP
MS. WOODRUFF: Recapping the top stories of the day, President Bush said the fight against AIDS required compassion, education and an end to discrimination against AIDS sufferers, and a government report found no link between the herbicide, agent orange, the cancer among Vietnam veterans. Good night, Robin.
MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the Newshour tonight and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.
