Intro
JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The leading headlines this Friday are these. Korean Kim Dae Jung returned home to trouble and house arrest. Vernon Walters was named U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Norfolk Southern won the right to buy Conrail, the eastern freight railroad owned by the federal government. And Lech Walesa said the verdicts in the priest murder case could lead to a new dialogue in Poland. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Judy Woodruff is in New York. Judy?
JUDY WOODRUFF: After tonight's news summary we focus first on Poland in the aftermath of yesterday's verdict in the killing of a Catholic priest with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then we have a special report on a group of Americans who are studying what people in the Soviet Union see on television and a talk with the project with the project director. Next, an issue and debate on the Reagan administration's proposal to cut back on health care spending. And, finally, our usual Friday peek at how the news of the week looked to some of the nation's cartoonists.
News Summary
LEHRER: The return of dissident leader Kim Dae Jung to Korea did not go well today. He accused the police of roughing him up at the Seoul airport, forcibly separating him from his American companions and pushing him into an elevator. From the airport he was reportedly taken to his home and told he could not leave. One of the Americans, former Assistant Secretary of State Pat Derian, said police beat up Kim, but both Kim's wife and the Korean government denied that, and Kim himself said he wasn't sure. Here is a report by Mark Dyson of Visnews.
MARK DYSON, Visnews [voice-over]: Kim's return signified the end of two years' exile in the United States. He went to the U.S. for medical reasons part way through a prison sentence. The South Korean authorities had promised he wouldn't be arrested on his return to the country, but it wasn't to be a peaceful return. Seven thousand police had ringed the airport, and no sooner had Kim's plane touched down than scuffles broke out. In the commotion it was hard to tell exactly what was happening, but Kim and three Americans accompanying him all claim that they were punched and kicked by security men. An estimated 100,000 people had turned up to greet Kim, a large proportion of them students. The students chanted anti-government slogans and held up placards praising Kim as a democratic leader. Very soon there were clashes with the police and about 70 people were arrested. Attempts were made by Kim's supporters to address the crowd, but these were soon thwarted by police. Kim himself has been banned from taking part in any political activity, although the former presidential candidate has said he would fight if the Seoul government refused to hold talks with him. When he returned home he told a news conference his version of what had happened at the airport.
KIM DAE JUNG, Korean Opposition Leader: But they told me, if you use this elevator we can allow you to come with your American friends. But I refused. So they forcefully pushed me into the elevator and very, you know with violence. I nearly felt to be, you know, beaten. But I am not sure I am really beaten or not because the situation was so confused.
LEHRER: The United States lodged a formal protest with the Korean government about the treatment of Kim and his group.
Also on the diplomatic front today, President Reagan named Vernon Walters to replace Jeane Kirkpatrick as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nation. Walters is a retired Army lieutenant general who speaks eight languages. He was the number-two man at the CIA, and has also held several diplomatic posts, including a job as a roving troubleshooter with ambassador rank for President Reagan. This afternoon he talked about his new job.
VERNON WALTERS, U.N. Ambassador-Designate: If this nomination is approved by the Senate, I will do my best to continue the superb work that Ambassador Kirkpatrick has done in the United Nations to restore and enhance the position and the interests of the United States. I think she's done a fantastic job. I think the position of the United States today in the United Nations is quite different to what it was four years ago. And if I can do half as well, I will be quite pleased.
LEHRER: In Poland today Solidarity leader Lech Walesa said the conviction of four secret police officers for murdering Father Jerzy Popieluszko was a good sign. He said it could mean a starting point for a new dialogue between the government and the people, but he said he still had doubts and fears about the future of Poland. The four officers were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 14 to 25 years yesterday following a six-week trial. We will be talking about the verdicts and their consequences with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski later. Judy?
WOODRUFF: The federal government announced a sale today which, if it goes through, would result in the creation of the largest rail system in the country. Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole announced that Conrail, the east coast freight railroad owned by the government, would be sold to the Norfolk-Southern Corporation, a decision reached after offers were received from three different bidders. It's a decision already being criticized for its potential to dominate the nation's rail traffic. But Secretary Dole told reporters it's the right choice.
ELIZABETH DOLE, Secretary of Transportation: -- made clear from the outset that my ultimate decision would be based solely on what would best serve the interests of the public, Conrail's employees and the shippers who rely upon Conrail's services. My aim in selling the railroad has been to select a buyer which will leave Conrail in the strongest financial position after the sale, best preserve service to Conrail's shippers and, consistent with these two criteria, give the taxpayers the best rate of return possible. There can be no doubt that the Norfolk-Southern fully meets these criteria. I ask Congress to act without delay. Now is the best time for taxpayers to get a fair return on their investment. After almost a decade of government stewardship, Conrail is prepared to join all other major freight railroads as a for-profit, private-sector company.
WOODRUFF: A group of farm state congressmen met with reporters today to give their own version of the best way to help the nation's financially strapped farmers. They said their plan, which is a combination of loans and more efficient bureaucracy, is far better than the plan the Reagan administration proposed earlier this week, which they claim didn't go far enough.
Rep. THOMAS DASCHLE, (D) South Dakota: The Band-Aid that they've applied to this crisis is totally inadequate. The fact is that unless we apply more than a Band-Aid, more than just one leg of the total agricultural sector is going to be amputated, and that's going to happen very soon.
Rep. BRYON DORGAN, (D) North Dakota: You wouldn't cut defense costs or defense spending if you were in the middle of a war. You wouldn't cut spending on health if you were in the middle of an epidemic, and it seems to me that you don't talk about phasing out farm price supports and ignoring the legitimate credit needs of family farmers when we're in the middle of the kind of crisis we're in the middle of today in agriculture. This short-term credit measure containing some long-term debt restructuring, I think, is a step in the right direction. Our difficulty is we don't have leadership coming from the White House, and we have to develop leadership here in Congress to try and move this now to the Agriculture Committee, through that committee to the floor of the House, through the floor of the House and hopefully through the Senate so that it becomes law and gives these farmers the help that most of them desperately need in the very short term.
WOODRUFF: The congressmen said that the Democratic leaders of the House have agreed to move swiftly on some kind of relief measure for farmers, either by getting a bill through Congress in 45 days or by pressuring the Reagan administration into taking more action than it presently is.
In San Francisco, Bankamerica Corporation said today that its earnings for the fourth quarter of 1984 had been cut by $15 million, to $29 million. That reflected losses in an alleged mortgage security fraud which prompted two insurance companies to refuse to pay for losses on properties said to be grossly overvalued. For Bankamerica Corporation, which is the parent company of the country's second-largest bank, the losses in the affair now amount to $95 million.
Health Care Issue & Debate
LEHRER: We continue our major look at the fight over cutting the federal budget with an Issue & Debate focus section on the big-ticket item called health care. It comes in two gigantic packages, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor. More than 50 million Americans are covered by one or the other, and together they cost the government more than any other domestic program except Social Security. The budget President Reagan sent to Congress Monday would cut $5 billion, 10 of the total budget cuts, from them and, like every other proposed cut, people are upset about them. Ad we're going to take them one at a time tonight, beginning with Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. The major savings would come from freezing hospital fees at this year's level, freezing doctors' fees for a second year and changing participants another $1.30 a month for doctor's bill insurance. Among those protesting those changes is the National Council of Senior Citizens, a group with 4 million members. Their executive director is William Hutton. With us to answer his complaints is Carolyne Davis, administrator of the Federal Health Care Financing Administration, which oversees Medicare. Ms. Davis is with us tonight from Los Angeles and the studios of KCET.
First to you, Mr. Hutton. What would be the harm of these changes?
WILLIAM HUTTON: First, it's absolutely impossible for most older people to meet -- keep pace with the fantastic costs which are being loaded onto the Medicare program. The administration is ignoring the ills in the entire health care system. What has been hurting Medicare has been this spiraling inflation which is all of the system. And instead of that they want to make their particular changes only in Medicare, which is a small part of our health care system and where most of the inflation is.
LEHRER: But specifically, what would be the harm of freezing the payments to hospitals and to doctors, for instance? To the elderly patients? How would they be hurt by that?
Mr. HUTTON: Well, freezing to the payments to the doctors. Let's deal with that first.
LEHRER: Okay.
Mr. HUTTON: It's perfectly all right if all the doctors were accepting assignments. Assignments enable them to accept and pay for their bills without going through the government offices. And there are only 28 of the doctors of this nation who accept assignment on a 100 basis.
LEHRER: In other words, if a shot costs $5 and Medicare pays $5, that's all they charge the patient. That's what you were saying, right? Only 28 of them do that? The rest charge an extra fee?
Mr. HUTTON: Well, the rest not necessarily charge an extra fee, although most of them do. They charge what is -- they're supposed to charge what is reasonable, what is customary, what is prevailing. But they find something else to add on.
LEHRER: Okay. How does that hurt the patient?
Mr. HUTTON: Well, because they will add on to their other costs what it normally -- the extra that they had. In most cases they will charge something else.
LEHRER: Well, let's go to Ms. Davis in Los Angeles. How do you respond to that?
CAROLYNE DAVIS: Well, I think that he brought up two points. First of all, he indicated his concern -- and I think it's very justified -- for the increase in the rate of inflation in the health care sector. When we took office, it was a rate of three times the normal inflation rate. Not only has this administration brought down the overall inflation rate to 4% and sustained it there for the last two years, we've been able to bring the health care inflation rate down to 1 times the normal inflation rate and we are still continuing to look to design our programs to meet those kinds of needs. He mentioned his concern for the Medicare assignment issue for the physicians, and while it is true that roughly about 30 of the doctors have signed up to take a position where they would do the assignment all of the time, it's very important to recognize that if you trend from last July until now, we've found that 65 of every claim -- in other words, of all the claims that are being filed, 65 of all of those claims are now being accepted under an assignment, which means the doctor will not charge any more. Now, that's a 10 increase in these last four months, and I think that's very signficant.
LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Hutton?
Mr. HUTTON: Well, that's probably correct. The figures I leave to Ms. Davis. The truth of the matter is that the doctors are very unhappy. They were promised last October that they would be given something special, something extra if they signed up, and an 8 extra. It used to be only 20%. Eight percent more signed up, and now, instead of getting something at the end of their 15 months of a freeze, they're being told that they're going to have another freeze for another year. And I think that many of them will quit. And I'm afraid that Medicare is becoming a program which, if it goes on at this rate, can only be utilized by the very rich, a program which began for the people is becoming a program only for rich people, for the Gucci people on the West Coast, perhaps.
LEHRER: Speaking of the West Coast, Miss Davis? Are you a Gucci person from the West Coast? Do you deny that?
Ms. DAVIS: Well, today I'm here on the West Coast. No, I think that our concerns really deal with the whole issue, again, of trying to bring down the overall inflation rate. It is true that we promised the physicians that at the end of the freeze that they would be able to recognize an increase in their actual charges if they signed up. All we're doing is delaying that for one more year. And for those that are signed up, we will still recognize that. It's simply an additional year that we are taking. I think, though, the point has to be made that three-quarters of the funds that go to pay the Medicare physician payments come from the general fund. Now, this particular part, obviously, is a part of our overall concern as we try to deflate that ever-growing debt in the federal government side. People think that premiums pay for most of the cost to pay the Medicare Part B, or physician payments, and that's not true. Only 25% of the premiums are matched then by 75% from the federal government's share.
LEHRER: All right, I just wanted to get to Mr. Hutton on the second part of this, which is the freeze on payments to hospitals. What's the problem there?
Mr. HUTTON: Well, I have no real quarrel with a certain freeze on hospitals because I think that they could take that freeze -- at least most of them. There is an alarming other thing here, of course, is in the fact that hospitals are switching. The whole hospital situation is changing. What we're having is a move over to profit-making hospitals, and many of those profit-making hospitals don't have emergency situations, will not treat patients unless they can pay. Some of them, I think, are also saying that they won't take Medicare patients. And this is a problem. Older people are worrying now that there won't be anyone to take care of them.
LEHRER: Should they be worried, Miss Davis?
Ms. DAVIS: I don't believe that they should be. I frankly believe that in this day and age of competition, what we're finding is we are beginning now to increase the number of beneficiaries who are receiving care in ambulatory surgical settings or under the care of an HMO. We are finding now that hospitals are becoming more competitive and, indeed, most of them are advertising and are trying to market to increase their enrollment, to increase the number of elderly who they would like to accept into their empty beds.
Mr. HUTTON: Miss Davis deals with figures and deals with them very well. I deal with older people. I travel around this country talking to millions of older people all the time. I read their letters. And it's tragic what they're -- I think that they are going to take to the streets over this episode. For the first time in many, many years I feel that the older people, in their despair, are looking of course earnestly to their senators and to their congressmen, and I hope that they are going to help them. After that and while they're doing that I think they're going to get out and muscle everybody to support them.
LEHRER: Is it their position and your position that in this desire or need to cut the budget deficit that Medicare should be completely off-limits and that it should not be touched at all?
Mr. HUTTON: The older people -- in the first four years of the Reagan administration Medicare suffered by about $20 billion, at least. And so now, to bring in, as many are doing, well, now they should share with the military -- of course, we haven't got the military in yet, but that's the latest proposal -- but we already did that. Older people are at their wit's end now, how to keep body and soul together, and now they're asking -- they're going to move up the payments from $15.50 a month, within five years, every year moving it up, to $32.80 a month.
LEHRER: That's the $1.30 a month --
Mr. HUTTON: That's the premiums for the Medicare payments.
LEHRER: Ms. Davis, how about all that?
Ms. DAVIS: Well, I think two things to remember. The $1.30 that he speaks of is a trend from today. We are estimating that if we do have the freezes that we are asking for in that part, we will only be raising those premiums 70, or about $8.60 for the year. Secondly, when Congress initially designed the Medicare program, it's important to remember that 50 of those total outlays were calculated to come from premium increases. Over the years that's not happened, and as I mentioned earlier, only 25 now do. But I think one very important point to remember isthat we have indicated that we would have a hold-harmless on this situation for the very point of view that we don't want the elderly's income to be diminished. That's one of the reasons why the President was very clear, that he does wish to have the COLA increase for Social Security, and we increased the supplemental security income --
Mr. HUTTON: But he's going to take it away from us, it looks. It looks very much like his friends in the Congress are going to move to take it away. And the real problem, when you get down to it, is that I was, you know, attending and going to watch and listen to the Congress' discussion more than -- just over 20 years ago. This is the 20th anniversary of Medicare.
Ms. DAVIS: Yes, it is.
Mr. HUTTON: Twentieth anniversary. And in those days the Congress finally went along with the concept of Medicare because they realized that the older people were paying 20 of their income for health care and they couldn't afford to survive. And now we're way above it.
LEHRER: All right. Mr. Hutton, thank you very much; Ms. Davis, in Los Angeles, don't go away. Judy?
WOODRUFF: We turn now to the Reagan administration's health plan for the poor. Medicaid covers more than 22 million Americans, the majority of them women and children. It is funded jointly by federal and state governments. The President would like to save a billion dollars next year by holding federal Medicaid payments down to $22 billion. The states, which pay almost half the Medicaid bill, would also be encouraged to hold down costs. Not surprisingly, this proposal has also run into opposition, largely from groups representing the poor. One of the strongest critics is Sara Rosenbaum, director of the health division of the Children's Defense Fund, a Washington public interest group.
Ms. Rosenbaum, which of these proposed cuts most concern you?
SARA ROSENBAUM: By far the most dramatic cut that the President proposes to make is in the Medicaid program. Medicaid is the nation's largest program that pays for health care for the poor; it is our major maternal and child health program. It currently pays for care for over 10 million very indigent children, about five million very indigent women of child-bearing age and several million permanently disabled and elderly persons living in institutions.
WOODRUFF: And what difference would these cuts make?
Ms. ROSENBAUM: In order to understand how severe these cuts are, you have to understand both what the cuts would do and the context in which the cuts come. This is now the fourth year in which we've suffered proposed cuts in the Medicaid program or actual cuts in the program. Between 1981 and 1982, 700,000 children lost their Medicaid benefits. Between 1982 and 1983, an additional 200,000 children lost their Medicaid benefits. We project in a report that we're to release next week analyzing the President's budget that an additional two million children who might have qualified for Medicaid under old program rules, because they are so poor, can no longer get the benefits because of the restrictions in the program.
WOODRUFF: And so what will that mean?
Ms. ROSENBAUM: What that means is that the program is shrinking rapidly in relation to the need among poor children and women for care. And now, of course, what the President proposes to do is to put a flat ceiling on the amount of federal Medicaid dollars that are available to provide essential health services for the poor. And I'd like to give you an example of how that would work. If there were 10 babies in a hospital all in need of intensive in-patient care and federal Medicaid dollars in the amount that we now enjoy ran out after the ninth baby, the federal government is essentially saying to the states or to the cities or to the hospitals, "So be it. If you have the money to come up with the care for the 10th baby, fine. We're not paying any more than we currently pay."
WOODRUFF: All right, let me stop you right there. Carolyne Davis, you also have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Is that the way it would work?
Ms. DAVIS: Well, I don't believe so. I think from our point of view we believe that there is still some inefficiencies within the whole Medicaid system. We know the states have made improvements over these last few years, and I believe that our figures show that the number of children that we are prepared to help has remained pretty consistent over these periods of time, with one exception, and that is the group that was over the age of 18. The 18-to-21-year-olds were removed from that AFDC consideration because it was believed that they were of work age and could get work. But let me return to the other issue, and that is that I believe when you look, you find that there is roughly $400 million that go out to pay for people who are not eligible. In other words, they are beyond the income levels and shouldn't have received this care. There's an additional $500 million that could be recouped from going after the individuals who have other kinds of insurance, what we call the third-party insurance carriers, rather than make Medicaid the first carrier. Now, that's $900 million that we believe can successfully be brought in to use appropriately within the program.
WOODRUFF: So you're saying a lot of the people who are now getting Medicaid are eligible for other sorts of medical cost assistance.
Ms. DAVIS: There are --
WOODRUFF: Miss Rosenbaum, what about that?
Ms. ROSENBAUM: If that is the Reagan administration's concern, then let them put forward a proposal tailored to get at the fraud and wste that allegedly exists in the program, tailored to control high institutional costs. What the President's proposal does is to go after the program with an absolute meat axe, and to suggest that someone will step into the breach to fill in the overkill that happens when you put an absolute limit on the amount of federal funds that are available to the program, is simply incorrect. To give you an example, when President Reagan was governor of California in 1972, at a time when there were in fact no federal cutbacks proposed in the Medicaid program, he sharply curtailed services to pregnant women and children and until he was enjoined by the California Supreme Court for placing mothers and children "on the altar of false economy," there were pregnant women who were losing their benefits simply because they were an easy target and an easy way to cut back. It is very difficult to tailor cuts appropriately, and what has happened here is that the administration, despite its rhetoric about and concern for children, has taken the easy way out.
WOODRUFF: All right, without going back into the California history, Ms. Davis, is this a meat-axe approach?
Ms. DAVIS: No, I really do not belive so. What we intend to do is give increased flexibility to the states to manage their programs. For example, the waivers that we are now giving to states to fund children and older citizens to be able to be cared for in their home, where it perhaps is less costly than to have them institutionalized -- we have some severely disabled children who have now been cared for at home. And it's these kinds of programs that we think that the states will continue to show initiatives on. Likewise we know that it is cost-efficient to enroll the people in an HMO or a primary care provider.
WOODRUFF: A health maintenance organization.
Ms. DAVIS: A health maintenance organization. That's right. We think that it is incumbent upon the states to continue to look at these kinds of efficiency measures. And, finally, I'd like to point out, too, that the states -- all but seven of the states have surpluses in the neighborhood, ranging up to $5 billion totally. Now, it seems to me that in a point in time when the federal government is facing such signficant problems in its budget, that if we can control our budget and keep our inflation rate down, we're doing the best service we can to the elderly. And then I wanted to make one more point because Sara mentioned --
WOODRUFF: I just want to get back to her on that point. Ms. Rosenbaum, do you think the states will pick up the slack, as Ms. Davis is suggesting?
Ms. ROSENBAUM: I can't imagine why Dr. Davis thinks that the states are going to pick up $6 billion-worth of slack when we can see what has happened to this program in the past three years. It's true that a large number of states, in fact the majority of states, are desperately seeking progressive ways to hold down costs. At the same time, 30 states have limited eligibility and, as Dr. Davis pointed out, some of the limitations occurred among older children. And I don't know why older children are any more disposable than younger children. However, in every state --
Ms. DAVIS: Because I think the 18-to-21-year-olds --
Ms. ROSENBAUM: Excuse me, let me finish, please. In every state children of all ages have been denied vital Medicaid benefits ranging from newborns through children aged 18 and over.
WOODRUFF: But the states do have a --
Ms. ROSENBAUM: And as many states have also cut back on benefits.
WOODRUFF: Her point was the states have a surplus; many of the states have a surplus.
Ms. ROSENBAUM: It's true that some states have a surplus. I'm told that in fact, while 14 states are proposing tax rebate programs this year, another 16 have legislation pending to raise taxes because they see that whatever small surplus they had is fast disappearing.
WOODRUFF: Let me just quickly ask you, Ms. Rosenbaum, what should the administration have proposed? As you know, there's a $200-and-some-odd-billion deficit. Where should the cuts have come? Should this area have been avoided altogether?
Ms. ROSENBAUM: What I can tell you is that we cannot afford the cut that the administration has proposed here. It costs $600 to provide a pregnant woman with complete prenatal care. And the interesting thing about that, of course, is that it is exactly what it turns out we pay for a toilet seat to the Navy. It costs $1,000 a day to take care of a high-risk newborn who has gone without -- whose mother has gone without adequate medical care. Those children will continue to show up at our hospital doors. We cannot afford to make undifferentiated cuts in the program.
WOODRUFF: Ms. Davis, how do you respond?
Ms. DAVIS: Well, it is important to remember that this last year Congress passed additional legislation that in effect now mandates that pregnant women, for the first time, if they qualify for AFDC, must be covered from the moment when they are medically indicated as being pregnant. So we will be getting prenatal care services. In addition, it's mandated too that all of those newborns up to the age of five will be being covered. And I think that's very important. Weestimate that there'll be an additional 65,000 newborns that will be added and covered this year. It's a mandatory program. So I understand her concern for women and children. We are equally concerned, and we believe that these kinds of measures -- obviously the states know it's cost-effective to cover the treatment for prenetal care.
WOODRUFF: Well, I have a feeling this is not one we're going to resolve tonight. I'm sure we'll be continuing it in the future. Sara Rosenbaum, Carolyne Davis, thank you both for being with us.
Ms. ROSENBAUM: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: Jim?
LEHRER: Still to come tonight on the NewsHour, we focus on Poland with Zbigniew Brzezinski. We have a special report on Americans who study what Russians watch on television, and we have our weekly sampling of newspaper editorial cartoons. Poland: Weighing the Verdict
LEHRER: We focus next on Poland and the verdict of guilty pronounced on four secret police officers for murdering a Catholic priest. His name was Jerzy Popieluszko, and he was an outspoken friend and supporter of the Solidarity union movement. He was kidnapped last October and killed. His body was then thrown into the water of a reservoir in northern Poland. The four secret police officers were arrested and charged shortly after the body was found. Their six-week trial was shown in Poland and around the world on television. The prosecutors made their case easily because the three who actually did the killing confessed, while Polish Premiere General Jaruzelski made his case to the people that the government was determined to punish the killers. The verdicts of guilty came yesterday. The prosecutor had demanded the death penalty for the ringleader, but all four received prison sentences -- the leader and another of 25 years, the other two of 14 and 15 years. Zbigniew Brzezinski is here to give perspective to the trial's outcome. Dr. Brzezinski was born in Poland. He served as national security adviser to President Carter and is now a senior adviser at the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington. Dr. Brzezinski, first, was there any surprise just on the fact that they were found guilty?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: No, that they were found guilty was not a surprise. I would say there might have been a mild surprise regarding two of the verdicts. That is to say, the principal killer was more than a killer. He in effect tortured the person that he killed, did not get the death penalty --
LEHRER: That's the captain, the ringleader.
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: That's the captain. And some people expected -- and, I suspect, many wished -- that he would get the death penalty. So that was a bit of a surprise, but he did get the highest second and very frequent penalty for murder, which is 25 years.
LEHRER: What is your feeling about why he didn't get the death penalty?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, I suspect that it's part of Jaruzelski's unwillingness to push issues to their ultimate extreme. He is not a person who forces issues to resolution. He shrinks back at the critical moment. And when we last talked about this case, a week or 10 days ago, we talked about the fact that the case involves an internal struggle within the regime as well, with the secret police and all of that. And I suspect that Jaruzelski did not want to confront the prospect of having to execute someone whom the secret police basically likes and favors and I suspect even admires. The second surprise was that the colonel, who was not directly implicated in the killing but who was convicted of instigating it, got 25 years. That's a little more. That's a little more than many people expected.
LEHRER: Now, why would they have done that?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: I think they were trying to send a message to the higher ranks in the secret police that you can't start instigating this kind of stuff, that this is politics, that this is threatening to the regime, that, in effect, this kind of vigilantism of the upper echelons in the secret police is not going to be tolerated. So there are two messages; one of compromise -- no execution of the principal culprit, but also a tough mesasge to the upper echelons of the secret police bureaucracy, "Don't undertake any private initiatives like this on your own."
LEHRER: Is it your feeling that this was a real trial, that it was not ordained from the beginning that these four men would be found guilty and these are the sentences they would get?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: I think it was a real trial in the sense that proper procedures were followed, testimony was taken, the key parties had an opportunity to address themselves to the issue, including lawyers for the Church and for Father Popieluszko's family. It may not have been a trial that went far enough in exploring the possibility of higher-ups being implicated. There were overtones of it. You remember a vice minister of the secret police testified and then the issue kind of gets dropped. But as far as those directly involved are concerned, I think it was a trial, and on the whole the sentences were stiff and fair, with the exception, perhaps, of the principal killer escaping the death penalty, which he certainly merited.
LEHRER: But when you said that Jaruzelski didn't want things to go any further, I mean, it was kind of a compromise thing, you were suggesting that Jaruzelski said or decided what the sentences were going to be rather than those five judges.
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Ah, well, in that sense, Jim, you're right. It's not a totally true or real trial in our sense. Judges in a Communist country are not independent agents. They're instruments of the political system. And no doubt this trial was a political trial, which had many ramifications to it, including Jaruzelski's relationship with the society. So I'm sure that there was some internal consideration at the highest political level as to what the sentences ought to be.
LEHRER: All right, now let's talk about that for a moment. I mentioned and you just said it as well, that Jaruzelski had a lot at stake in this trial, and he wanted to show -- he said he wanted to show the people of Poland that justice can work and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Did he make it? Was it shown?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think it was shown up to a point because those directly implicated, and even a person who was somewhat indirectly implicated, got what they clearly deserved. I suspect that for a very large proportion of the Polish people, probably for the overwhelming majority, it was not enough because most of them strongly feel that the upper echelons of the secret police maybe all the way up to the Politburo, were involved and no effort was made to smoke them out. So in that sense I think Jaruzelski will not have entirely succeeded. There is going to be a residue of resentment against him.
LEHRER: All right, now Walesa said today that this should be a first step toward a new dialogue between the government and the people; in other words, the verdicts. What do you think he's talking about?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, you know, Walesa has shown remarkable political acumen and skill. He's talking about something very fundamental, and it's this. The Communist system in Poland has not taken on. It's being rejected by society the way a body rejects an artificial graft. In that setting there is an economic calamity. If Poland is to be put together again, and it's negotiating now with the IMF for a loan, it will need a prolonged period of genuine reform and austerity. Austerity will only be possible if the regime reconciliates with society. And reconciliation of society means, to put it most simply, a dialogue between Jaruzelski and Walesa, between the regime and the nation. And so far the regime has been unwilling to undertake it. And that even goes further, you know. In a sense what we're talking about here is a crisis of a system, of a system not only in Poland but in Eastern Europe. And if you look at the Communist world as a whole -- in China, massive reforms, revitalization of the economy by moving away from a rigid system; in the Soviet Union, paralysis and uncertainty regarding the future leadership; in Eastern Europe, crisis, uneasiness, even turmoil as in Poland. It's a symptom of a much broader Communist-wide unease and potential turmoil.
LEHRER: Well, what specifically do you think may come of this? I mean, do you really think that Jaruzelski might be willing to sit down now with Walesa and talk?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: I personally doubt it. I personally doubt it. I doubt that he has the vision and the courage to do it. My guess is, judging by his record of the last several years, that he'll try to muddle through by making some concessions, talking a little bit, but never biting the bullet on the needed reforms, on the needed reconciliation. And the reason for that is that ultimately what Moscow wants in Poland is neither revolution nor recovery. And Jaruzelski offers the best way of avoiding these two extremes.
LEHRER: Now, why would Moscow not want recovery?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Because a country which is healthier, more vital, is also a country more able to promote that regarding which it is most united, namely, the desire for national independence. And Soviet control over Poland is very important to the Soviets for their control of East Germany, for their position in Central Europe. And therefore, keeping the country unhealthy but not in turmoil is the ideal strategy, and Jaruzelski performs it.
LEHRER: Of course the victim in this case, Father Popieluszko, was a Catholic priest. The Church has made no statement since the trial began, of any consequence, and has said -- it said after the verdict yesterday they wouldn't say anything until next week. How do you read that?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, the Church has been very cautious, very careful. The Church doesn't want an explosion. But the Church knows that it has gained a martyr, and that martyr has given both the Church and the faith that it represents a tremendous injection of spiritual power. It has given it a cause and a sense of commitment, which is going to carry it forward for many decades. And the Communist regime realizes that. I think fundamentally the Communist regime realizes that it has lost the struggle with the Church, and the question is how, in that context, do the two sides accommodate so that there is a balance and no political explosion?
LEHRER: And how does the Church now use this power?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: It uses it largely for its own purposes, which is to enlarge its sphere of influence, access to school, to education, to spiritual control. You know, it's an amazing paradox that 40 years after Communism in Poland the state radio broadcasts the mass every Sunday morning.
LEHRER: When we talked about this, as you say a few weeks ago, when the trial was just beginning and it was on television all over the world, we talked then about -- and you said -- that this is a most significant event for the Communist world. Now that it's over, how significant was it?
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: I think it is very significant. It's another stage in the progressive discrediting of the Communist type system that's been imposed upon Eastern Europe. It's now 40 years since Yalta, and 40 years after Yalta that system throughout Eastern Europe has proven itself to be inefficient and unacceptable. I was just speaking to a very high U.S. government official who had just come back from Roumania. He told me he was sitting there at lunches with steam pouring out of his mouth and out of the mouths of his hosts because there is no heat. Embassy families from different nations have been evacuated, Food lines throughout Eastern Europe, unrest in Poland, the same problems in the Soviet Union. It tells you something about a large, historic failure with the consequences of which we'll have to live for the next decade or so, but for which the time must come to make the necessary adjustments so that its failure remains peaceful and progressive and that it yields gradually to something much more acceptable.
LEHRER: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you very much.
Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Thank you, Jim.
LEHRER: Judy? Video for Ivan
WOODRUFF: Our focus now turns from the politics of the Popieluszko trial, which was a subject of coverage on Polish television, to the medium itself and how it is used in the Soviet Union. Until recently, few in the West had had much first-hand exposure to Soviet television, but now, thanks to an innovative project at Columbia University, scholars can watch up to 16 hours a day of the same television programs seen by Soviet viewers.
[voice-over] "Vremya" -- "Time" in English -- the name of the Soviet Union's main nightly newscast. It's seen at 9 p.m. in Moscow, 9 a.m. the next morning in Siberia, and at four in the afternoon at Columbia University's W. Averill Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
Each day graduate students in Soviet studies cram into this tiny room when the newscast begins. Language training is an obvious benefit. Another is more subtle.
STUDENT, Harriman Institute: One of the most interesting things for a Western audience is to see how the Soviet Union portrays like -- zagranitsa, as they say -- on the other side of the border, how events and life in the West are protrayed to the Soviet people.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Foreign policy specialists, the professionals, are enthusiastic, too. It takes Pravda and the rest of the Soviet print media 10 days to reach the U.S. It takes split seconds for the TV signal to make its way from a Soviet satellite to a $35,000 receiving dish on a rooftop at Columbia's Manhattan campus.
The student viewers have access to 15 hours of daily programming. The news is followed by an exercise program, the Soviet version of the Jane Fonda workout. Children's programming features less violence, more cooperation and harmony than American kiddie shows. Adult programs often glorify the Soviet role in World War II, pride in military service and the nation's war-fighting capacity.
Soviet television news is still not as sophisticated as American broadcasts. That's both refreshing and boring for Jonathan Sanders, assistant director of the Harriman Institute.
JONATHAN SANDERS, Harriman Institute: The refreshing part is that in choosing their anchor people the Soviets go for people who can speak well, have good diction, know how to read, not pretty faces, not high cheekbones, not blond hair and blue eyes. Some people actually wear glasses on Soviet television. No contacts. Their production values are plain. That's what's kind of boring. There are no teleprompters. People read things. And they will read a whole speech.
WOCDRUFF [voice-over]: The Soviets admit their shortcomings, but vow to catch up in this area too. Henry Trofimenko is a Soviet scholar visting at the Harriman Institute.
HENRY TROFIMENKO, Soviet scholar: I think, you see, we are open to pick up the best what is in another country's TV and to transfer it -- the technique, the methods, you see, the presentation -- to our TV, you know, to improve it and to widen the audience.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Future improvements in the medium won't change the message, and the message is socialism is succeeding. Soviet newscasts are led with good news. Farm production is up. Factories are exceeding their goals.
ROBERT LEGVOLD, Harriman Institute: It's almost always upbeat, upbeat in terms of the success of Soviet domestic and foreign policy.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Robert Legvold is associate director at the Harriman Institute. He talked with reporter David Shapiro.
Mr. LEGVOLD: It says something about their priorities, that the first thing they want to talk to the Soviet people about is what's happening within their country, and the second thing, then, is what's going on in the world on the outside.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: What's going on outside is not good news, according to Soviet television. Natural disasters, world unrest and the general decay of capitalist societies, much of it cast as the result of U.S. policies. Analysts like Jonathan Sanders identify a new theme running through Soviet broadcasts.
Mr. SANDERS: One of the most interesting lines, and one of the most chilling that we've seen is the emergence in Soviet television of a real sense of a kind of neo-Stalinism setting in the society, an emphasis on coercion and control, an implication that Soviet citizens should stay away from foreigners, a strong line that the United States is engaged in spy activity. They took a clip from the CBS Evening News, which actually showed guerrillas in the jungle of Nicaragua with English lettering of the words about assassination and killing, with the CIA shield superimposed in the upper corner which said, not only in their voice-over but in the very image, "These are Americans. They are engaged in spy activity. They are trying to kill people by orders."
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The message reaches a wide audience. A populace notoriously short of consumer goods is surprisingly well equipped to receive the state's one-way communication.
Mr. TROFIMENKO: The intelligentsia watch it and the working people watch it. I think it's has appeal to various sectors of the population.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But according to experts here, Soviet audiences may not be taking in the same message Soviet programmers intend.
Mr. SANDERS: People watch it with filters, and sometimes in the coverage of a protest, of a labor strike, the Soviets will be sitting there -- and I've sat with my Soviet friends and watched TV in Moscow and other places. And they won't be looking at the picket signs or what the voice-over, the reporter, is saying. They'll say, "Hey, look at that Mickey Mouse shirt that guy's got on. Do you know a foreigner who can get me a shirt like that?" So not everything penetrates the way people who are creating it want it topenetrate.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Sanders insists Soviet television, despite its faults and its one-sided message, is a positive force for the Soviet people, who are finally getting a look at the outside world.
Mr. SANDERS: This is something that was completely missing in the generation that grew up in the 1930s and that is still in power at the highest reaches of government in the Soviet Union today. And it will have a cumulative effect on the way people look at the world in the Soviet Union.
WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The experts hope that when the television generation comes of age and comes to power in the Soviet Union its views of the world may be more temperate. Meanwhile, the television generation of American Sovietologists will keep studying the medium and the message.
[on camera] For more now on the message and the medium in the Soviet Union, we turn again to Jonathan Sanders, assistant director of the Harriman Institute. He is in charge of the Soviet TV monitoring project, as we said, at Columbia University. Mr. Sanders, first of all, at the end there you were talking about the next generation of Soviet leaders. What is the Soviet television news saying now about Mr. Chernenko, the Soviet leader, and his health? Of course, we know he hasn't been seen in some time.
Mr. SANDERS: I got up at 4 o'clock this morning to turn on my Soviet television to see in fact if they'd say anything about Chernenko. They reported rather matter of factly, "Mr. Chernenko is back at work at the Politburo. He has ended his vacation and he is resuming his normal duties," the same way it came over Tass and the wire services. No pictures of him, no coverage of him going to the Politburo, but just a very matter of fact report at the top of the news with all the official communications.
WOODRUFF: So how do you read that? Does that tell you he's okay, or does that tell you --
Mr. SANDERS: That tells me that's what the official news is saying, and I can't see behind the Kremlin wall. So until I know differently, more or less I'll accept that they're saying he's back; maybe he is back. They're not saying he has a cold.
WOODRUFF: Have they acknowledged that? Of course, the head -- I guess the editor of Pravda or Tass was saying the other day -- quoted as saying -- that he was in ill health. They haven't acknowledged that.
Mr. SANDERS: He's been in ill health for a long time. One of the things that was quite interesting this fall was we thought that something very untoward had happened to Chernenko, and then all of a sudden in the middle of September he was not only on television making official appearances, he was on every night. They almost created opportunities for him to be on, to present medals, to make speeches --
WOODRUFF: But that's not happening now?
Mr. SANDERS: It's not happening now, but even then he was huffing and puffing, and he did not look well. So they can use the medium when they really want to force an issue. They may have forced the issue so much with television that he tired himself out.
WOODRUFF: You suggested in this report that this next generation of Soviet leaders will be influenced one way or another by television. How so? Can you predict in any way what effect it's going to have?
Mr. SANDERS: Surely. One thing we're seeing within the last year is more Soviet leaders feeling confident in talking in press conferences, in having one-on-one dialogues and having "Meet the Press" kind of situations. So they're willing to use the media. They're willing to entertain questions in a live or semi-live format with Western reporters. They're also much more willing to understand the world outside the Soviet Union. This is absolutely crucial. The generation that grew up under Stalin, Chernenko and all his cohorts, got a sense of the world very late in life. They felt uncomfortable. We joked about their suits. They didn't have good manners. And we've seen Gorbachev, the prime example we see in the West of the new generation, doing a fabulous job in England. So it's that kind of thing.
WOODRUFF: And what bearing will that have, do you think? Does that mean they've got more moderate views than their elders?
Mr. SANDERS: Absolutely not. We should not confuse a willingness to talk and to accept the West or the rest of the world on equal terms with moderate views. It means they have self-confidence, that they're not necessarily acting out of complete fear and running away. It means that they can deal with us in the same way we deal with France and other people, at least in negotiations, not necessarily in the substance, but in the form. And form is terribly important.
WOODRUFF: Just one other thing. We've just heard the conversation, the interview on Poland. How has the Polish trial been reported to the Russian people?
Mr. SANDERS: Not very much at all. What's been reported of late is things going on that aren't too good in the West, like a train crash in Minnesota or a civil war in Chad. Not too much on Ethiopia. So the Soviets don't say lots of things.
WOODRUFF: Do they know that four former security police have been convicted?
Mr. SANDERS: The intelligentsia listens to Voice of America and BBC and Deutscheswelt and they sure are following that very closely and they know that their own medium is not, and that contrast teaches Soviet people a great deal about the truth and the manipulation in their own medium.
WOODRUFF: Fascinating. Thank you, Jonathan Sanders, for being with us.
Mr. SANDERS: My pleasure.
LEHRER: Again, the major stories this Friday. Korean dissident leader Kim Dae Jung was allegedly roughed up and placed under house arrest by police upon his arrival in Seoul. The U.S. government protested the action. Veteran diplomatic intelligence and military officer Vernon Walters was named by President Reagan to replace Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the United Nations. And Norfolk Southern won the right to buy Conrail, the eastern freight railroad owned by the federal government. The end result would be the largest railroad in the country. Judy?
WOODRUBF: Now it's time for our regular Friday look at the news of the week through the eyes of the editorial cartoonists. As you might expect, the Reagan budget proposal, especially its big boost in defense spending and big cut in domestic items, came in for a pretty rough going-over. Poking Fun
ARCHAEOLOGIST, deciphering odd script [Mike Lane cartoon, The Evening Sun, Copley News Service]: Near as I can tell, they stopped at mid-point, passed a balanced budget amendment and then continued on with the Tower of Babel.
GENERAL, to another officer, opening Valentine box [Margulies cartoon, Houston Post]: Mine's filled with school lunches! How about yours?
CHILD, stabbing long arm try to steal school lunch [Toles cartoon, The Buffalo News, Universal Press Syndicate]: SPRONG! Must be budget time again in Washington. Nobody else would want to take this stuff.
Pres. RONALD REAGAN, as William Tell, trying to shoot defense spending apple off head of American public; hits heart instead [Bill Day cartoon, The Commercial Appeal]: Ooops!
ZHOUSEWIFE, on telephone [Gamble cartoon, Florida Times Union, Register & Tribune Syndicate]: Henry, you better get home in a hurry. A man just took our subsidies and left a missile in the garage.
Pres. REAGAN, with Caspar Weinberger in uniform, to congressmen dressed as soldiers [J. Morin cartoon, The Miami Herald, King Features Syndicate]: Okay, Congressmen, we're off to battle the budget deficit. Ready, about face! Forward march! [they go in opposite directions]
CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense, as Gen. Patton in film "Patton" [Gamble cartoon]: We may be outnumbered but we're prepared to battle in hand-to-hand combat to the last man before giving up one penny of our budget.
Pres. REAGAN: But, Cap! Declare war on Congress?
NARRATOR [Wright cartoon, Miami News]: Another shocking example of waste is this small Cap now being used by the military. Said to be made of plastic, it is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. This Cap is referred to technically as Weinberger.
WOODRUFF: That's the way the cartoonists saw it. Good night, Jim.
LEHRER: Good night, Judy. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer; thank you and good night.
