The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (2024)

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the top news headlines today. The makers of the Challenger shuttle said they told NASA they could not assure it was safe to fly. Despite President Reagan's TV appeal, congressional leaders said he will not get all the defense spending he wants. Italian prosecutors asked for acquittal for three Bulgarians accused of plotting to kill the Pope. Details of these stories coming up in our news summary. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in Washington tonight. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After our look at today's news, here's what's on the NewsHour. We'll start with extended excerpts on today's shuttle testimony; Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger is our newsmaker interview; and two key senators give their views on defense versus deficits. News Summary

MacNEIL: The chairman of the President's commission investigating the Challenger disaster told NASA today that the agency's decision-making process is flawed, and added bluntly, "You eliminate the element of good judgment and common sense." Former Secretary of State William Rogers made the comments after the shuttle manufacturers, Rockwell International, testified they had warned NASA that they could not assure the Challenger was safe to fly because of an ice buildup. Then NASA's number two man in the shuttle program, Arnold Aldrich, said he rejected that warning. The warning came from the president of Rockwell's space division, Rocco Petrone.

ROCCO PETRONE, Rockwell International: We felt it was an unknown condition. I then called my program managers, who were in Florida, at 5:45, and they said, "We cannot recommend launching from here. From what we see, we think the tiles would be in danger." It was a very short conversation; they had a meeting to go to. I said, "Let's make sure that NASA understands that we, Rockwell, feels it's not safe to launch."

MacNEIL: A NASA inspection team told the commission that the ice buildup on the Challenger was the worst they'd ever seen, with icicles up to four feet long, but they did not regard the ice as a safety problem. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: In the Philippines, the new cabinet took up its duties today. President Corazon Aquino conferred with President Reagan's representative, Philip Habib, and her office reported that the records in several government offices had been destroyed by outgoing officials of the Marcos regime. In addition, there was a church ceremony of thanksgiving, and the release of the first political prisoners. Brian Barron of the BBC reports on that.

BRIAN BARRON, BBC [voice-over]: The location: Camp Crame, the military base where the successful rebellion began. The theme: brotherly love, with Cardinal Sin thanking the army chiefs.

Cardinal JAIME SIN: This morning we meet in thanksgiving to celebrate the victory of our people. That's who. I am, a Filipino!

BARRON [voice-over]: Over at Bicutan military camp, the first handful of the four to six hundred political prisoners in the Philippines was packing.

FORMER PRISONER: I'm very happy. And no regrets. I've learned a lot inside prison. I had reflected more. I know myself.

BARRON [voice-over]: There were similar dry-eyed farewells, prisoners who had survived police-state treatment.

HUNTER-GAULT: In Hawaii, former president Ferdinand Marcos and his family rested in a single-story cottage at Hickam Air Force Base near Honolulu. The mayor of Honolulu said he had turned down a request from the Secret Service asking for city police to protect Marcos for a period of four to six weeks. However, the White House announced the Secret Service will protect Marcos for a limited time. The White House said it expects all federal, state and local security officials to discharge their duties in a responsible fashion.

MacNEIL: Congressional leaders said today that despite President Reagan's strong words to the nation last night he was not going to get from Congress all the defense spending he's asking for. In his nationwide address the President said it would be "reckless, dangerous and wrong" for Congress to cut defense spending now that his military buildup had brought the Soviets to the negotiating table. A bipartisan group of congressional leaders went to the White House today, and Republicans as well as Democrats predicted there would be cuts. The two who spoke to reporters were Republican Minority Leader Bob Michel and House Democratic Majority Leader Jim Wright.

Rep. JIM WRIGHT, House Majority Leader: He knows where we are, we know where he is. He asked for a bipartisan position; we said, well, Mr. President, of course we want to have a bipartisan position. That's a very healthy, desirable thing, but that of course implies that both sides have to yield a little bit. Deep down he recognizes reality, and understands that everything we do has to be done within the framework of the resources that we have, and that we have to consider a lot of other things in addition to just weapons that are vitally important to our national security.

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, House Minority Leader: It'll be less than what he wants, I know. We all have our differences on figures, and that's been the case ever since I've been around here. And I think what the President was really saying is those who think you can continue to cut, cut, cut with minus growth, you know, you do a disservice to the country if you get yourself caught in that mold.

HUNTER-GAULT: The President's request for $100 million to aid the Nicaraguan contras also ran into congressional opposition today. Sixteen Democratic senators and two Republicans wrote to the President asking him to withdraw the request since eight leading Latin American governments have recently appealed for an end to outside aid. Secretary of State Shultz made a strong defense of the contra aid in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Shultz called the Sandinista government in Nicaragua "a cancer," and said it was "bad news no matter how we look at it."

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: In Nicaragua it's no wonder that the opponents have been driven to take up arms, that their numbers have increased, because the regime is relentlessly trying to impose a totalitarian system there. It's a big problem. By the time you have the nature of the regime, the heavy Soviet involvement, the Cuban troops, the subverting of neighbors, the use of terrorism, the involvement with drugs -- that's a big problem when it's right here on our doorstep.

HUNTER-GAULT: Democrats on the Senate committee were critical of the contra aid request. Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd said the Reagan administration was isolated in the Western Hemisphere by its support of the contras.

MacNEIL: In Egypt, troops and tanks of the regular army laid siege to three security police camps near the pyramids, and the government said it was in control after a night and day of rioting. One policeman was wounded in a skirmish in Cairo today and bursts of gunfire were heard in the area around Giza, where the pyramids are. The government said more than 2,000 mutinous security policemen have been arrested and more are being rounded up, and the government estimated the damage to two hotels that wereset afire during the riots at $105 million.

HUNTER-GAULT: In Rome, the prosecutor in the trial of three Bulgarians accused of plotting to kill the Pope has asked for an acquittal. Prosecutor Antonio Marini said he did not believe there was enough evidence to support the charge. Acquittal of the three would cast doubt on the alleged connection between the Soviet Union and the attempt to kill the Pope. The trial was based largely on information provided by Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish terrorist serving a life sentence for shooting the Pope.

MacNEIL: In New Delhi, a high court of inquiry was reported to have concluded that a terrorist bomb caused the crash of an Air-India passenger plane off Ireland last June. The crash killed all 329 people aboard the Boeing 747. The report has been forwarded to the government, which will present it to Parliament before it's made public.

A Soviet satellite fell to earth today, and scientists said parts of the debris fell in a desert in northern Australia and other parts into the Atlantic Ocean near the coast of the United States. The spacecraft, called Cosmos 1714, was not manned and did not carry a nuclear power pack.

HUNTER-GAULT: In Nashville, Tennessee, suicide has not been ruled out in the death of a 32-year-old man there. Despite the presence of a bottle of extra-strength Tylenol capsules near the body, the body was found to contain cyanide, not acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. Meanwhile, the maker of extra-strength Tylenol welcomed an FBI report that concluded two other cyanide-laced bottles of the pain reliever found in New York State had been tampered with after they were shipped from the plant. Until now there had been no evidence of outside tampering.

MacNEIL: The stock market passed another milestone today. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 7 points to close at 1713.99, the first time it's ever closed above the 1700 mark. Traders apparently disregarded a government report that U.S. productivity fell last year for the first time since the 1982 recession, raising fears among some economists of a new round of inflation.

In business news, Ozark Airlines, based in St. Louis, said it was considering a $224 million takeover bid from TWA. The move was seen as an attempt by Carl Icahn, who recently bought TWA, to make Trans World's domestic route system more profitable.

HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead on the NewsHour, extended excerpts from today's shuttle testimony, a newsmaker interview with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and two key senators discuss deficits versus defense. NASA: Too Cold to Launch?

MacNEIL: And we focus first tonight on the new evidence in the shuttle Challenger inquiry. Today the shuttle manufacturer, Rockwell International, raised more questions among members of the President's commission about NASA's decision-making process. And a NASA employee appeared to confirm that the shuttle explosion was caused by the failure of a seal in the right rocket booster. Once again, correspondent Elizabeth Brackett covered the commission's hearings.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: Charles Stevenson, a member of NASA's ice team, was called before the presidential commission to tell the members about the large buildup of ice on the launchpad before the Challenger takeoff. But as he went through pictures of the launch, he told them much more.

WILLIAM ROGERS, commission member: Charlie, this may not be your field, but there's what looks like a little puff of smoke off on the right-hand side there. Is that -- can you describe that for us?

CHARLES STEVENSON, ice team, Kennedy Space Center: Yes, sir, that is the puff of smoke that has been released before to the press and to the world.

Mr. ROGERS: Have any of you made any interpretation of these pictures as far as the weather is concerned?

Mr. STEVENSON: Not as far as the weather's concerned, no, sir.

Mr. ROGERS: Do you have any other conclusions here?

Mr. STEVENSON: Well, all conclusions would be speculation based on -- but if you want that, I'll speculate.

Mr. ROGERS: Well, go ahead.

Mr. STEVENSON: Engineers don't like to speculate, but based on our photo data -- and we've analyzed all the photos -- we feel that that's a leak, may or may not be related to temperature, and we feel it's coming out of the -- the most likely spot is the joint between the aft booster and the aft segment.

Mr. ROGERS: And this is the right booster.

Mr. STEVENSON: This is the right booster, yes, sir.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: NASA had previously released pictures of a puff of smoke, but had not pinpointed the location or the possible cause of the smoke. And even commission members had not seen this picture. B.K. Davis, a second member of the ice team, was specific in response to questions from astronaut Sally Ride.

SALLY RIDE, commission member: I was wondering, to what extent you've been able to localize the origin of the smoke on the photographs. Can you pin it down to a one-square-foot area or five square feet or 12 square feet? Just how close can you do that photographically now?

B.K. DAVIS, ice team, Kennedy Space Center: I can say that it looks to me -- my own personal observation of it, that it is inboard of the connection of the lower strut between the SRB and the ET.

See Also

death valley national park

HUNTER-GAULT: Our next focus is on defense. We have a newsmaker interview with Defense Secretary Weinberger, followed by the views of two key senators, Sam Nunn and Phil Gramm, on defense versus deficits. After four years of big defense increases, the President's trillion-dollar buildup ran into heavy opposition last year in a Congress preoccupied with controlling the deficit. By all reckonings, the President's request for another $311 billion installment this year faces an equally rough road in Congress, especially now that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budgeting law is on the books. But President Reagan is prepared to do battle. Last night he took his fight straight to the public via national television. He asked the American people directly to help keep his defense buildup alive and growing.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: The past five years have shown that American strength is once again a sheltering arm for freedom in a dangerous world. Strength is the most persuasive argument we have to convince our adversaries to negotiate seriously and to cease bullying other nations. But tonight, the security program that you and I launched to restore America's strength is in jeopardy, threatened by those who would quit before the job is done. Any slackening now would invite the very dangers America must avoid and could fatally compromise our negotiating position. Our adversaries, the Soviets, we know from painful experience respect only nations that negotiate from a position of strength. American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world. It is America's last best hope of negotiating real reductions in nuclear arms.

Just as we are sitting down at the bargaining table with the Soviet Union, let's not throw America's trump card away. Now the biggest increases in defense spending are behind us, and that's why last summer I agreed with Congress to freeze defense funding for one year and after that to resume a modest 3 annual growth. Frankly, I hesitated to reach this agreement on a freeze because we still have far too much to do. But I thought that congressional support for steady increases over several years was a step forward. But this didn't happen. Instead of a freeze, there was a sharp cut, a cut of over 5 , and some are now saying that we need to chop another $20, $30 or even $50 billion dollars out of national defense. This is reckless, dangerous and wrong. It's backsliding of the most irresponsible kind, and you need to know about it.

HUNTER-GAULT: The man who will be doing much of the fighting on Capitol Hill for the President's defense budget is Defense Secretary Weinberger. When I spoke with him earlier this afternoon, I asked him whether the administration's real problem was that only 22 of the public supported increases in defense spending.

Mr. Secretary, welcome.

Sec. CASPAR WEINBERGER: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: The President went public last night to gain approval for his defense spending plan. Isn't the real problem here that only 22 of the American people actually approve of defense spending increases?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Those are certainly not the polls I've seen. I've seen that there is a poll that says that around 22-25 percent favor an increase in defense spending, and somewhere well over 50, about 48-51 percent, say that they believe that what we're doing is right at about the way it is now. And then there's a small percentage that wants things cut. So if you add the people who want the increase together and the people who feel that the path that we're on is about right, I think you come out with quite a large consensus for maintaining the momentum of the rearmament program that we really had to engage in, to our great sorrow, when we came in in 1981.

HUNTER-GAULT: But that's still down from the 72 support that you had in 1981. What do you think accounts for that erosion?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Oh, I think it's very easy. And as a matter of fact, the analysis of the poll answers showed it. The President's put it very well in talking with me. He says we're the victims of our own success. There's a perception that we have finished this very long, difficult and expensive and unpopular task of regaining military strength. Unfortunately, that isn't quite right, but I think that is why people feel that having now for five years sustained major increases in defense spending, when the normal -- I think the longest we've ever done it in peacetime before is about two and a half to three -- yes, the people are tired of it, they don't like it. People in democracies don't like to spend money on defense. But it is essential that we do it, and particularly in the kind of world in which we live. That's the way we have to measure it.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Senator Grassley, among others, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, said today that the real problem was that people were sick of the waste, fraud and abuse, the $400-and-some for a hammer and the $600 for a toilet cover seat.

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, that's the kind of demagogic cant that Senator Grassley has been putting out for a very long time.

HUNTER-GAULT: But that's one of your Republican people.

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, he calls himself a Republican senator, but he's perfectly free to do that if he wishes. The fact is, he knows that we ourselves uncovered all of this waste, so-called, and all of these large outrageous prices. We found them; we refused to pay them. The $400 price that he always mentions was not paid by the Defense Department. One or two large prices, outrageous prices, were paid, but refunds were obtained, so that the taxpayers are actually not out at all.

HUNTER-GAULT: But that does contribute to the perception --

Sec. WEINBERGER: If I could just finish.

HUNTER-GAULT: Yes, sir.

Sec. WEINBERGER: For people who don't want to spend money on defense, this provides a very convenient excuse, a good campaign tool for people running for reelection. And what it -- the important thing about it is that they use this demagogic approach, and it hurts the security of the United States, because it is designed to, and does, undermine the public support that is obviously essential, has to be essential, for everything we do.

HUNTER-GAULT: There were both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill today reacting to the President's speech, saying it just won't fly. That does put you on a collision course with the Congress, does it not?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, we've had a great many of those collision courses over the past five years. Except for the first year in 1981, most people have said that the President's request has to be reduced. And they say this primarily because they're worried about the deficit or because it's a popular statement to make in a free, open, democratic society that doesn't like defense spending, or for --

HUNTER-GAULT: But there's also --

Sec. WEINBERGER: -- a number of other reasons.

HUNTER-GAULT: Yes, excuse me, I was about to say. One of the new factors in the equation is the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget bill, that you have to have these targets that have to be met; otherwise there's an automatic, across-the-board cut.

Sec. WEINBERGER: We know that, we're very conscious of that, and that's why the President's budget was submitted with -- meeting the Gramm-Rudman deficit target. So that if the President's budget were approved for defense and all the other items, you would be able to have the type of defense increase we have to have in this kind of a world. You would not need taxes, and you would have the other items in the President's budget, and Gramm-Rudman would never come into play. But if it does, if Congress does not go along with the President's budget and the Gramm-Rudman provisions come into effect, then we'll have some very, very serious and very unhappy results for our own security. Just for one thing, we'd have to let about 330,000 people go right out of the active force, because we have no discretion, no ability to set any priorities whatever if that Gramm-Rudman trigger is pulled. So that's why it's so essential that we try to approve the President's budget.

HUNTER-GAULT: But there are those who say that you do have some discretion, in fact that you could simply reorder some of the priorities that you've already set. Instead of purchasing new weapon systems and things like that, you could concentrate on the weapon systems that you already have. I mean, are they wrong, people on Capitol Hill, who say that you're just -- that you're capable of maintaining a strong defense given the revenues and the resources that you have?

Sec. WEINBERGER: No, we've already done very well. We've regained a great deal of the strength we have to. And it was vital that we do it, because for a 10-year period, the whole decade of the '70s, we went down 20 . What a lot of those people are talking about is defense in a kind of vacuum, and you can't figure your defense budget that way; you have to measure it against the potential aggressor that we would face, and that of course is the Soviet Union.

HUNTER-GAULT: But haven't they slowed down their own military spending?

Sec. WEINBERGER: No, unfortunately they have not. That's a very interesting point. It's made sometimes by a number of people who, again, want to cut our budget. What they have done is they have outspent us by over $400 billion in the last few years, and they're on a very, very high plateau. And if they move along that plateau at a little less steep incline, why, a great many people say, you see, now you don't have to spend that much money.

HUNTER-GAULT: But just before the President's speech yesterday in a briefing, one of the senior administration officials said it was a very close call as to who had superiority. I mean, if it's that close, what's the real worry?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, the real worry, first of all, is that you lose whatever balance you may have, and we do not have the balance yet by any means, as the President said, either in strategic forces, and certainly not in conventional. The Soviets have been way ahead in conventional forces for years -- ve million men against a million, two million one, things of that kind. Forty-eight thousand tanks against 14,000. All of these are indications of the degree of the strength the Soviets have. Now, we don't need one more tank than the Soviets do, and we're not trying to get that, but it is essential that we have enough so that they will never feel they could have any slight benefit from attacking us. That is the whole essence of deterrence.

HUNTER-GAULT: But, Mr. Secretary, people who are usually on your side, like Senator Sam Nunn from Georgia and a lot of other Republicans who are not always harping on the $400 toilet seats, are saying that there's a new fiscal reality here now. I mean, surely they, serving on the Armed Services Committee and being in a position to know some of the things that you know, must be aware of all the things that you're saying -- why are they saying that you must reorder your priorities?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, they aren't saying reorder our priorities. They're saying -- you said they are saying there's a new fiscal reality. That's another way of saying they don't think they can get the money. With a very large deficit, a lot of people feel somehow that the threat operates inversely to the deficit, that as the deficit goes up, the threat goes down. Sadly, that isn't so. They are worried about the deficit, and that's understandable. But --

HUNTER-GAULT: Are you worried about the deficit?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Of course, everybody has to be worried about the deficit. But I'm more worried about the situation that would exist if we let ourselves get as far behind as we did in the '70s, and then you have a situation in which you can't guarantee that you can maintain deterrence. And if you can't maintain deterrence, then all of these other programs that everybody talks about become quite meaningless. Because if you don't have enough to preserve the deterrent capability and be able to tell the American people that we are strong enough so that we cannot be attacked, because the attacker will know he can't succeed, then a great deal more than a deficit is lost.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, is there any room for compromise here?

Sec. WEINBERGER: Well, the compromise -- and this is always an interesting point -- the compromise has occurred over the last three years. The compromise occurred last year. Bear in mind, we have come in, this budget that everybody now is attacking as being too high, this budget is $3.5 billion dollars below what the Congress told us to come in with last August -- $3.5 billion below that. Furthermore, the Congress promised the President that he would have this year a zero growth, we would have no increase this year, but next year -- that is the year for which we're budgeting -- we'd have 3 increase. We didn't get zero; we got minus six. And so those are the compromises that have been made. If you keep on compromising and we're then way below what is a safe margin.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, Mr. Secretary. I think I hear you say no compromise. Thank you very much for being with us.

Sec. WEINBERGER: Very nice to be with you again, thank you. Defense vs. Deficit

MacNEIL: We turn now to two key players in the congressional debates that will determine how much of what the President and Mr. Weinberger want the Congress will give them. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas is the principal author of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget bill. Democrat Sam Nunn of Georgia is one of the Senate's most influential voiceson defense matters. Both senators join us from Capitol Hill.

Senator Nunn, are you one of those who thinks that the threat operates inversely to the deficit?

Sen. SAM NUNN: Robin, I think there are two threats we face now. One is the continued Soviet threat and the other is the threat of fiscal policy that's out of control. I think we have to have a budget in defense that deals with the Russian threat, but I also think we have to take into account in the overall deficit the defense spending. And the effort to get the deficit down I think has to include all elements of government spending, including but not limited to national security.

MacNEIL: And that means that this budget as it stands is not affordable, is that correct?

Sen. NUNN: Well, if the President's basic premise of no increase in revenues continues, then I think the defense spending that he's advocated will not be funded by Congress. I hope we can get as high a number as possible, but my own realistic assessment is that we will be fortunate in a no-revenue-increase environment to get a zero level of defense spending. That is, holding the defense budget last year harmless for inflation.

MacNEIL: Senator Gramm, since you helped create the new fiscal reality, so-called, is this defense budget affordable within that reality?

Sen. PHIL GRAMM: Well, I think it depends on what you're willing to do. If you're willing to reorder priorities, if you're willing to terminate what the President calls low-priority programs -- and I believe they are low-priority as compared to national defense -- I think the President's shown in his budget that you can meet the targets, that you can achieve the requirements of Gramm-Rudman and you can provide an increase in defense. Now, I would say, Robin, that I think that Sam will agree that the President's proposed increase in defense is fairly modest. It's 2 real growth in outlays. It's certainly a substantial move from what has been proposed in the past. So I think compromise is already occurring.

MacNEIL: Two percent increase? It's generally being reported as an 8 increase after inflation is taken care of.

Sen. GRAMM: Well, there is a difference between budget authority, which is a commitment to spend in the future, and outlay, which is what the deficit is measured in. And if you look at outlay, what you're actually spending this year, the President has proposed a 2 real increase by modifying the inflation adjustment factors in defense procurement. So it does represent, I think, a recognition of the fiscal reality. Now, whether we're going to get that package or not, I don't know. As I look at the programs that are proposed to be terminated or changed, I don't see them as being higher-priority than a 2 real growth.

MacNEIL: You're talking about domestic programs.

Sen. GRAMM: That's right.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, are you in agreement on the 2 real growth?

Sen. NUNN: Well, I don't want to confuse everyone, but it depends on your starting point. The President is using outlays as his starting point, and I think that's what Phil is talking about. Outlays are a subjective guess. It's a question of how fast we spend money to build a ship, and the ship may take five years to build, or how fast we spend money to build airplanes. Budget authority, on the other hand, is the authority to spend money over a period of time, and that is not subjective; that is a determined feature of the defense budget. And that growth, depending on where you start last year, if you start with the appropriation number of last year you get one growth rate; but if you start with a lower number, which is the sequestered number that took place after approximately $13.7 billion was cut under the Gramm-Rudman provision, then the growth rate is 8 . So it depends on the beginning point, and everyone chooses their own reference point.

MacNEIL: Let me get back to things I can understand. You have already told Secretary Weinberger, Senator Nunn, in an early hearing that military spending would have to be cut to avoid what you called a fiscal train wreck next October. Describe the wreck.

Sen. NUNN: Well, I think the wreck -- and I voted for the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment -- that is the train wreck. It's a calculated train wreck, it's a forcing mechanism that requires to do in the Congress and in the White House what both branches have refused to do -- that is, to get together, try to work out an overall five-year plan and deal with the deficit and also protect our security and our vital domestic programs. Whether that train wreck occurs or not depends on whether we get out in front and whether we can work with the White House in coming up with an overall plan. I'm not sure whether it's going to happen or not. I think the court decision which took away the automatic cuts on the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings without further congressional action greatly weakened the leverage over the White House. I think the leverage politically is still on Congress, so we'll just see what happens.

MacNEIL: Senator Gramm, we just heard Secretary Weinberger say that if the Congress doesn't go along with this defense budget, you can't reach agreement, you and the White House, and the provisions of your new law come into effect, then he said we will have a very serious and unhappy result for our defense. So that's a train wreck on the defense side. Senator Nunn sees a train wreck on the fiscal side. What do you see?

Sen. GRAMM: Well, I think Sam and I see a train wreck overall. I think nobody can benefit from Congress not doing its job, not adopting a budget, not enforcing it. And I am confident that we're going to do that. I am confident that no matter how the Supreme Court rules, that Gramm-Rudman is going to work, because we had the tools in the overall package to strengthen the budget process and force choices. Now, whether we're going to choose a direction of policy setting that I'm going to be happy with or whether we're going to choose another one, that's up in the air. But I'm convinced the choice is going to occur and that the nation is going to benefit. I am hopeful that we can provide for the common defense and can continue the progress we've made. Certainly if we are not able to approach the President's defense number this year, we have tightened up in the past -- last year represented a retrenchment year, and there are weapon systems on the drawing board through development that cannot be built if we do not go to a figure that's close to the President's figure. And so I think you are going to see some substantial impact if we can't reach close to that figure.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, let's put it even more simply. In your view as an expert in the Congress on defense, does the Pentagon need everything in terms of equipment and other expenditures that the President is asking for this year?

Sen. NUNN: Well, without any doubt, we face a serious threat. Without any doubt, we do not have the conventional capability to meet that threat in Europe and perhaps in other places in the world. In terms of the nuclear balance, I think we do have a deterrence on both sides. I think we have a degree of stability there, but I think in the conventional arena Secretary Weinberger's correct, we do have some deficits. I think it's important, though, that we understand that U.S. spending alone, no matter what it is, is not going to close those gaps. The President showed charts last night on television, U.S. versus Soviet tanks, planes, ships, et cetera. Even in the last five years, if the details of those charts were revealed, it would show that the gaps increased, not decreased. So we have to count on our allies. That's one element that has not been stressed nearly enough. It's beginning to be stressed by Ambassador Abshire in NATO now, but we are not going to close the gap ourselves. It has to be a NATO-versus-Warsaw Pact kind of comparison. That's the kind of chart the President should have used rather than just U.S. versus Soviet. The second element is reorganization. Phil and I, Senator Goldwater and others are in the middle of a struggle in the committee. We are emerging, I think, pretty soon with a reorganization bill that will have our military people play on one team. We've got to be able to have all the services working together to be effective. That's another strong element of how we get more for our dollars. Another feature that's awfully important is the Packard report. Dave Packard is head of the commission that will report to President Reagan tomorrow on procurement reform. I think that report will make clear that there are a number of management changes that need to take place in the Pentagon so that the money is better spent. Now, if we do those things -- allied contribution, reorganization, procurement reform -- I think we can begin to turn around the public mood, which still wants a strong national security but does not necessarily want to spend more money on it. And I think the gap between the security wishes and the money spent is based on the perception of the American people there's too much waste in the Pentagon, and also the perception that we have to do something about the deficits.

MacNEIL: What does that add up to you, Senator Gramm, in terms of what the President is likely to get from the Congress, given the public pressures Senator Nunn's just described?

Sen. GRAMM: Well, obviously it's going to be a tough debate. About 80 of the real cuts that have been implemented in the last three years from current services have come out of defense. So we are going to have a tough debate. My concern, and going back to a point that Sam made, is that we are dependent on a contribution from our NATO allies. And we have pushed them for years to accept a commitment to a 3 real growth. If we fall off that commitment too often ourselves, our credibility in pushing them will start to decline. So it is going to be a tough battle. We have got to force Congress to look at every program. Is a strong defense preferable in terms of the marginal priority to Amtrak or Conrail or Legal Services? These are decisions that are going to have to be made, and we're going to have to make our case, those of us who are strong for national defense. And the important thing about Gramm-Rudman is it's going to force Congress to choose. There's going to be a winner and a loser other than the taxpayer and the working people of America.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, besides the things you mentioned, what weapon systems or requests could the Pentagon do without this year, and do you think Congress may in the end force them to do without, to reach something that will respect the fiscal reality?

Sen. NUNN: Robin, without naming specific weapons, let me just give you a general assessment. I think if we do meet the targets of Gramm-Rudman without a tax increase, we're going to have to choose in the defense budget as well as between defense and domestic, as Phil has indicated. Within the defense budget, I think we're going to have to take a close look at new starts that in the next three to five years will spend hundreds of billions of dollars.

MacNEIL: Is that, for instance, the Midgetman? Is that one of those new starts?

Sen. NUNN: Well, it would include that. It would include many other systems.

MacNEIL: The Stealth bomber?

Sen. NUNN: It would include that, although I'm very much for both of those programs. I think we're going to have to look at other new starts in the conventional area, and there are many of them. We have a new fighter plane in the Navy, a new fighter plane in the Air Force, a new transport plane in the Air Force. All of those things have to be reviewed, and I think we have to look at the cost of those programs and what we could do with that funding if we put it on existing production lines. The big problem in the waste in the Defense Department now --

MacNEIL: Excuse me, Senator. Give us an example of something that could be spent on an existing weapon in production instead of a new one?

Sen. NUNN: Well, you've got F-15s and F-16s. You've got all sorts of aircraft being bought now, but they're being bought in such small numbers that we're paying for a lot of overhead that we're not really getting our unit cost back because we have too few units being produced with too much overhead. What I would like to see us do is take a look at new starts, see how many of those programs are essential, fund those; but those that aren't essential, delay them three to five years, put that money in the existing production line, make those programs much more efficient, go ahead and buy them out and then start the others. The problem with the military, they have an insatiable appetite to start new programs all the time; they never finish a program at maximum production rates. Therefore, the waste that people talk about on toilet seats and hammers and screwdrivers is minor, very minor, compared to the waste in producing at too low a rate in multiple programs.

MacNEIL: Senator Gramm, as I understand what Senator Nunn's saying, in order to bring the defense budget in in conformity with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, some of the weapon systems that the President is asking for are going to have to be dropped or deferred. Do you agree with that?

Sen. GRAMM: Well, obviously if you are going to refuse to make the reordering decisions that the President has proposed or offer some substitutes for that, and you reduce the level of expenditures in defense, you're going to have to do many of the things that Sam is talking about. I think you need to realize that we have had jammed up in the budget a lot of new starts where we've done engineering, we've done research, and these programs are starting to ramp up. And we're going to have to make some decisions this year, if in fact we take another big hit in defense, to terminate programs that we have done research and pre-construction on, and to eliminate those weapons from procurement. And I can mention a few easily. The C-17 clearly is in jeopardy, a new transport plane aimed at having strategic capacity for big loads, long hauls and then the ability to land on short fields.

MacNEIL: Many argue that you could just go on making C-141s and serve the purpose and build a few more ships.

Sen. GRAMM: Well, you could. They don't have the same capacity, and I think that's one of the decisions that will probably be made to some degree if in fact we move toward a tighter budget. We're looking at expenditures on the Midgetman. I have never thought much of that weapon system, and I'd be glad to chuck it overboard. But I think we have a lot of promising weapons. Sam and I agree about the advanced technology bomber. Tremendous capacity, tremendous pressure on the Soviets. A lot of investment already made. Clearly that's jeopardized if we can't maintain a steady procurement.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, let's go back to the thing you mentioned right at the beginning of this. If you can't get everything and stay within Gramm-Rudman, and you don't want to invoke the automatic cuts in Gramm-Rudman, because that would produce the train wreck you described, and which Secretary Weinberger doesn't want, would you favor, as an influential member of the Armed Services Committee, a tax increase in order to pay for what's necessary?

Sen. NUNN: Robin, I think that certainly is something I would support in order to protect our national security. That's the dilemma I see with President Reagan's position. He talks about our national security, but he doesn't want to pay for it with taxes. I don't want a big tax increase. I favor tax reduction, and I think everyone does. But in order to protect our nation, yes, I'd vote for a tax increase. Now, my formula would be two-thirds spending cuts, one-third revenue increases. Republicans are smart enough to call it revenue enhancement, Democrats still dumb enough to call it tax increases. Revenue enhancement one third, two thirds spending cuts, and that ought to all be in one package so it would have to go for deficit reduction. The President's going to have to come to that decision one way or the other this year. The longer he waits, the more the interest on debt goes up, the more the deficit goes up, the more our competitive position in the world erodes, the more the farmers are going broke because they can't export -- all of those things are happening. We're paying a price now for these deficits.

MacNEIL: I don't think your colleague, Senator Gramm, agrees with you on the tax increase.

Sen. GRAMM: Well, the bottom line is that even under Gramm-Rudman, revenues from economic growth and the fact that two million people are going to work next year will mean that government overall can continue to grow. And I think many people who are proposing a tax increase are really saying, let's bail the Congress out, let's don't force the Congress to reorder priorities, let's raise taxes so that government can go on spending as usual. And I think that's a reservation that I have about it, and I think that's a reservation the President has, and a lot of it goes back to our experience in 1982 where we did raise taxes and spending continued to mushroom.

MacNEIL: Senator Gramm, how do you assess the President's ability, starting with his speech last night, to turn public opinion and maybe congressional opinion around on this issue? Can he do it this time?

Sen. GRAMM: Well, turning opinion around, building a base of support is a relative thing. Can the President get every penny of defense that he's asked for? I think clearly that he cannot. He has never done that. Even in 1981 he didn't do that. But I think there is a lot of strength out there for defense. I see more strength in the Senate this year for defense than last year, in part because of what we went through and in part because of a recognition now that we are beginning to effect a buildup that we have funded, that's been very expensive, that's been verysuccessful. The $400 hammers that were never bought get a lot of coverage; but the real success in weapons below cost, delivered early, improved efficiency, longer runs -- that gets lost.

MacNEIL: Can I just ask Senator Nunn in a few words, do you think the President starting last night is going to turn public opinion around sufficiently to get what he wants this time?

Sen. GRAMM: No, I do not, because people are very concerned about the deficit and they do not believe that the money is being spent in the most effective and efficient way. I don't think the President can change people's minds on that point under these kind of fiscal pressures.

MacNEIL: I have to thank both of you, Senator Nunn, Senator Gramm, for joining us from Capitol Hill. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Our Lurie cartoon tonight has another view of the President's defense budget dilemma.

[Ranon Lurie cartoon -- Reagan making speech from Oval Office. "We must be prepared!" He begins wearing armor. "Our enemies are arming. Let's be strong!" His entire face is covered. "We shall protect ourselves." He walks away, fully covered in armor, except he has no pants, just shorts labeled "Deficit."]

MacNEIL: And now a final look at today's top stories. The presidential commission investigating the shuttle Challenger explosion continued hearings. The makers of the shuttle say they told NASA officials they could not assure that it was safe to fly. President Reagan and Secretary Shultz renewed the administration's plea for aid to the contras fighting in Nicaragua. Congressional leaders said the President will not be getting all the defense dollars he wants from Congress, despite his speech to the nation last night. And in Rome, prosecutors asked for an acquittal in the case of three Bulgarians charged with plotting to kill Pope John Paul.

Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Thank you and good night.

The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (2024)

References