The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (PBS) - 1992-07-30
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:05] Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in New
[0:07] York.
[0:07] >> And I'm Jim Lara in Washington. After
[0:09] our summary of the news this Thursday,
[0:12] two senators and two scientists debate
[0:14] the merits and the priorities of
[0:16] building the multi-billion dollar super
[0:18] collider in Texas. We have campaign
[0:20] stump speeches from President Bush and
[0:22] Governor Clinton. And we close with
[0:25] excerpts from a congressional hearing on
[0:27] discrimination against women in the
[0:29] military.
[0:30] >> Funding for the McNeel News Hour has
[0:33] been provided by PepsiCo.
[0:49] Part of helping the world live and
[0:51] communicate better is keeping it well
[0:53] informed. That's why funding for the
[0:55] NewsHour is also provided by AT&T
[0:58] and by the Corporation for Public
[1:00] Broadcasting and viewers like you.
[1:04] >> Some key economic numbers were out
[1:06] today. The Commerce Department reported
[1:08] the gross domestic product advanced just
[1:10] 1.4%
[1:12] during the April to June period, about
[1:14] half the rate of the previous quarter.
[1:17] New home sales jumped 7.9% in June,
[1:20] their first increase since January. And
[1:23] the Labor Department said new claims for
[1:24] unemployment benefits fell sharply to
[1:27] 400,000 in the second week of July. That
[1:30] was their lowest level in more than a
[1:32] year and a half. Judy,
[1:34] >> the report of slowed economic growth was
[1:36] addressed on the presidential campaign
[1:38] trail today. President Bush reacted
[1:40] during a speech in Anaheim, California.
[1:43] The American economy is growing
[1:45] nationally, but not fast enough. And
[1:49] most economists predict the economy is
[1:51] going to get stronger the rest of the
[1:52] year. Nationally, uh, that's true, I
[1:55] believe. But your friends and neighbors
[1:57] do not want to wait for new jobs to be
[1:59] created. They want them now. And on
[2:02] January 29th, I put forward a specific
[2:06] program to spur the economic economy.
[2:09] would not have increased this deficit,
[2:11] but to spur the economic economy with uh
[2:15] incentives to encourage businesses to
[2:18] hire new workers and help Americans who
[2:20] want to buy a home. And for 183 days,
[2:25] the Congress has dillydallied with this
[2:28] plan while we could be creating new jobs
[2:30] for Americans.
[2:33] Democratic candidate Bill Clinton
[2:35] responded at a news conference outside
[2:37] the governor's mansion in Little Rock,
[2:39] Arkansas.
[2:41] Mr. Bush told the American people that
[2:44] he is the man we can trust to answer the
[2:46] phone in a time of crisis.
[2:49] Well, today's economic statistics
[2:51] confirm what the American people have
[2:52] been trying to tell the president for
[2:55] some time now. We are in a crisis, an
[2:58] economic crisis, and it's far more
[3:01] painful than this administration has
[3:03] ever understood. The phone is ringing,
[3:06] and it's been ringing for a long time.
[3:09] Maybe today's statistics will be a
[3:11] wake-up call for the administration that
[3:13] still is offering alibis, not action.
[3:17] >> We will have extended excerpts from
[3:19] recent speeches by President Bush and
[3:21] Governor Clinton later in the program.
[3:24] The National Commission on AIDS came out
[3:26] in opposition today to mandatory AIDS
[3:29] testing for medical workers. It also
[3:31] said such workers infected with the HIV
[3:34] virus should not be required to disclose
[3:36] that fact because patients might avoid
[3:39] seeking treatment from them. Commission
[3:41] said sanitary techniques make
[3:44] transmission of the disease to a patient
[3:46] extremely unlikely. The only known case
[3:48] of Dr. patient transmission was a
[3:51] Florida dentist who was believed to have
[3:53] passed the disease to five patients.
[3:55] >> The nation's top naval officer today
[3:58] told Congress sexual harassment had
[4:00] become a cultural and institutional
[4:03] problem in the Navy. Admiral Frank
[4:05] Keelso said instances of harassment were
[4:08] handled on a case-bycase basis. But Navy
[4:11] brass, he said, had failed to act on the
[4:13] early warnings of a larger problem. He
[4:15] testified this morning before the House
[4:17] Armed Services Committee.
[4:19] >> We have had a zero tolerance policy in
[4:21] place for many years. We have
[4:23] disciplined people who violated this
[4:25] policy. But the sexual harassment
[4:28] landscape has changed dramatically over
[4:30] the past decade. Within the Navy, the
[4:32] numbers of women on active duty and the
[4:34] range of duties which they perform have
[4:36] expanded significantly. Social norms and
[4:39] the treatment of women in the workplace
[4:41] in society at large have continued to
[4:43] evolve. It is absolutely clear that
[4:46] dealing effectively with these changes
[4:48] in our Navy will require innovation,
[4:50] commitment, and leadership from the very
[4:53] top.
[4:54] >> A Russian military official said today
[4:56] that some Americans jailed in Russia
[4:59] after World War II may still be alive.
[5:02] General Dimmitri Vulanov said newly
[5:04] discovered documents show that the
[5:06] Soviet Union imprisoned some 39
[5:09] Americans and there's reason to believe
[5:11] some are still living in the former
[5:13] USSR. Volkgonov is the Russian
[5:16] co-chairman of a joint commission
[5:18] investigating the fate of US prisoners
[5:20] of war. His American counterpart said
[5:23] last month he doubted there were any PS
[5:26] still alive.
[5:27] >> Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
[5:29] reshuffled his cabinet today. He fired
[5:31] his minister of finance and replaced him
[5:34] with the foreign minister. He moved a
[5:35] Shiite Muslim into the foreign
[5:37] minister's post. He also replaced his
[5:40] minister of education and scientific
[5:42] research. Many diplomats said the moves
[5:44] were related to problems caused by 17
[5:47] months of United Nations sanctions on
[5:50] Iraq.
[5:51] >> In the Bosnian capital of Sievo, at
[5:53] least four people were killed and 20
[5:56] injured in the latest battles, which
[5:58] took place overnight. We have a report
[6:00] narrated by Vera Frankle of Worldwide
[6:03] Television News.
[6:07] It was the heaviest fighting in weeks
[6:09] between Serb rebels and the city's
[6:10] Bosnian defenders.
[6:15] Shells fell across the capital, but the
[6:18] fighting subsided by dawn and more
[6:20] international relief flights were able
[6:22] to land. The UN forces in the besieged
[6:24] city hope new radar equipment installed
[6:27] on this hilltop will help them pinpoint
[6:29] the precise location of artillery units.
[6:32] The signs aren't encouraging, but UN
[6:34] soldiers may eventually police a lasting
[6:36] ceasefire in Sievo. Knowing the
[6:38] whereabouts of the heavy guns, the
[6:40] tanks, and artillery will be crucial.
[6:43] Meanwhile, in the search for peace in
[6:45] Croatia, the waring factions held talks
[6:47] on a ship in the international waters of
[6:49] the Adriatic.
[6:51] The British frigate Avenger has been on
[6:54] duty with vessels monitoring UN
[6:56] sanctions against Serbia.
[6:59] Croat and Serb commanders boarded
[7:01] separately to negotiate details of a
[7:03] Serbian army pull out from an area near
[7:05] the port of Dravnik.
[7:08] Under UN mediation, they agreed the
[7:10] mechanics of a Serbian withdrawal, but
[7:12] were unable to fix a date. Diplomats
[7:14] remain hopeful. A successful Serbian
[7:17] withdrawal from Drovnik could at last
[7:19] end the fighting in Croatia. The
[7:22] government of South Africa today agreed
[7:24] for the first time to let United Nations
[7:26] observers monitor protests in the
[7:28] country. The observers were requested by
[7:31] the African National Congress, the
[7:33] country's main black opposition group.
[7:35] It has called a general strike beginning
[7:37] Monday aimed at unseating the white
[7:40] minority government. A UN spokesman said
[7:42] about 10 UN officials will leave for
[7:45] South Africa tomorrow to observe the
[7:47] demonstration.
[7:48] >> And that's it for the news summary
[7:50] tonight. Now it's on to the big super
[7:52] collider debate, Clinton and Bush stump
[7:55] speeches and discrimination against
[7:58] women in the military.
[8:07] The collision course of the super
[8:09] collider is our lead story tonight. The
[8:12] s the super collider smashes proton so
[8:15] scientists can study how the earth began
[8:17] among other things. Building one in a
[8:20] Texas prairie south of Dallas has become
[8:22] a large item in the federal budget and
[8:25] thus a large item of debate. The House
[8:28] has already voted to kill its funding.
[8:29] The Senate takes it up next week. Among
[8:32] the supporters is President Bush who
[8:34] campaigned for it today in Texas. We'll
[8:36] have a full debate of our own after this
[8:38] brief report byWWami Hullman.
[8:41] The super collider is big priority, a
[8:45] big part of our investment in America's
[8:48] future. And when you talk basic
[8:50] research, this is the louver of pyramids
[8:53] at Niagara Falls all rolled into one.
[8:56] And where once we reach for the moon
[8:58] above to explore new frontiers of our
[9:00] universe, soon we'll begin to tunnel
[9:03] below to learn about the fundamental
[9:05] question of science. How our universe
[9:08] began.
[9:09] >> It has been called the biggest
[9:11] scientific project in history with a
[9:13] price tag to match. Original estimates
[9:16] of $4 billion have ballooned to 8.5
[9:19] billion and the actual cost could be
[9:21] even more. The Super Collider is
[9:24] expected to generate 3,000 permanent
[9:26] jobs, and next year alone, 5,800 people
[9:29] are scheduled to be working on the Super
[9:31] Collider's construction.
[9:34] Physicists are hoping it holds the
[9:36] answers to questions of the origin of
[9:38] the universe. The Super Collider would
[9:40] be an underground tunnel or ring 53 mi
[9:44] around, roughly the distance covered by
[9:46] the beltway that encircles Washington
[9:48] DC.
[9:49] The tunnel 10 ft in diameter would serve
[9:52] as a sort of racetrack for two beams of
[9:55] magnetically guided protons, the tiny
[9:58] particles found in the nucleus of atoms.
[10:01] Moving in opposite directions, the beams
[10:04] would reach nearly the speed of light,
[10:06] traveling the 53 m at more than 3,000
[10:09] times a second. At certain points, the
[10:12] two proton beams would collide, sending
[10:15] out a shower of particles. Researchers
[10:18] say those collisions are capable of
[10:20] recreating conditions similar to the
[10:22] theoretical explosion that may have
[10:24] created the universe. Sophisticated
[10:26] computers would record the event,
[10:28] providing data for scientists to study.
[10:31] We think it's extremely important uh for
[10:35] a country like the United States of
[10:36] America in spite of all of its anguish
[10:39] and all of its difficult to be in this
[10:41] business because
[10:42] >> but despite that plea to Congress from
[10:44] Nobel Prizewinning physicist Leon
[10:46] Letterman the House voted in June to
[10:49] kill funds for the super collider that
[10:51] leaves the project's future up in the
[10:53] air until the Senate takes up the issue
[10:55] next week.
[10:57] >> Is the super collider needed or isn't
[10:59] it? For the record, in this election
[11:01] year, Governor Bill Clinton, has also
[11:03] said that he supports the project, but
[11:05] others don't agree. Senator Dale
[11:08] Bumpers, Democrat of Arkansas, opposes
[11:10] the super collider. Senator Bennett
[11:12] Johnson, Democrat of Louisiana, supports
[11:15] it. They are joined by two scientists
[11:17] with different views. Rustin Roy is a
[11:20] professor of materials science at
[11:22] Pennsylvania State University. He is at
[11:24] public station WPSX in University Park,
[11:28] Pennsylvania. Roy Schwitters is the
[11:31] director of the super collider project
[11:33] and a former Harvard University physics
[11:35] professor. He joins us from public
[11:37] station KRA in Dallas. Dr. Schwitzers,
[11:40] in simple terms, why do we need to
[11:43] recreate conditions that may have
[11:45] existed at the beginning of the
[11:47] universe?
[11:48] >> For the past 15 years, we've had a
[11:51] remarkably successful theory of the
[11:53] subatomic world. what we're made of,
[11:56] what the pieces are, and how they work
[11:58] together. But that picture is
[12:00] incomplete. There are inconsistencies.
[12:03] They're profound questions such as the
[12:05] very origin of mass itself that we need
[12:08] to have answers to to understand better
[12:10] how our world works
[12:13] >> in but but in layman's terms, how do you
[12:15] how do you tell the average person like
[12:17] me who doesn't understand science uh why
[12:20] that would have a a meaningful
[12:22] application for them? We have to go back
[12:25] to history. Uh we trace the history of
[12:27] this quest back to the Greeks who told
[12:29] us about earth, air, fire and water. Uh
[12:33] what has come from that quest through
[12:36] the centuries is a better understanding
[12:38] of nature and from that a better ability
[12:41] for man to control it for the betterment
[12:43] of all mankind. I see it very much as
[12:46] part of that historical connection. uh
[12:49] in addition to the uh intrinsically
[12:52] tremendously exciting questions that are
[12:54] posed uh by our current um lack of
[12:57] understanding.
[12:59] >> Dr. Ramroy, that sounds like a worthy uh
[13:02] uh goal. Uh what's wrong with it?
[13:04] Hardly a worthy goal for a nation which
[13:07] is tottering in its technology in which
[13:09] our jobs are threatened in which our
[13:12] high-tech industries are dying to think
[13:14] about these esoterica is exactly what's
[13:17] wrong with national science policy.
[13:19] We've been befuddled by all these bogus
[13:22] statements about the beginning of the
[13:24] universe. We won't know any more about
[13:26] the beginning of the universe or how we
[13:28] are made with whatever papers emerge
[13:31] from the super collider than we did 10
[13:33] years ago. So that will make one little
[13:36] curly cue on the end of a baroque piece
[13:39] of science. But to call that an
[13:42] important issue in today's world where
[13:46] we need to really get on with real
[13:48] science, the kind of science which the
[13:50] rest of us 97 or 98% of American
[13:54] scientists in the research survey by
[13:58] Sigma Zai have voted to say that this is
[14:01] the lowest priority. We represent the
[14:04] real science of America.
[14:05] >> Wait a minute. Who who is the group
[14:06] that's voted? Dr. Roy
[14:08] >> that 3,300 scientists surveyed by Sigma
[14:12] Zai which is the research society of
[14:15] America
[14:16] claimed and they put down their
[14:18] priorities and the super collider got
[14:20] less than 2%
[14:23] of the priority vote.
[14:24] >> Well, when you when you say bogus
[14:26] statements about the beginning of the
[14:28] universe, what are you what are you
[14:29] talking about?
[14:30] >> I mean those statements are worthless. I
[14:32] mean, what does it mean to say we will
[14:34] know about the beginning of the
[14:36] universe? There's so much that is
[14:38] unknown not only about how we are put
[14:41] together. We're put together as biology,
[14:43] we're put together by chemistry. The
[14:45] physics part is a minor component.
[14:47] >> Do you want to do you want to respond to
[14:49] that Dr. Schwitzers?
[14:50] >> I'm reminded of the uh situation in
[14:53] science about a hundred years ago when
[14:56] uh at that time the chairman of the
[14:58] physics department at Harvard University
[15:00] where I used to teach made similar
[15:02] arguments. He said that science at that
[15:04] time uh was just filling out the last
[15:07] decimal places and not really relevant.
[15:09] He suggested that the brightest students
[15:11] should perhaps go into other areas not
[15:14] into science. Then what happened in a
[15:16] period of a few years uh experimenters
[15:19] uh using new technology discovered
[15:21] X-rays uh the atom the nucleus we had a
[15:26] revolution within a period of 20 or 30
[15:28] years with such esoterica as quantum
[15:31] mechanics and nuclear physics. Well
[15:34] those discoveries of a 100 years ago are
[15:36] the basis of today's world the world is
[15:39] different because of them. the
[15:41] electronics uh revolution couldn't have
[15:43] happened without quantum mechanics and
[15:45] of course we all know the importance of
[15:47] the nucleus. So these arguments have
[15:49] been made in the past and uh in the
[15:51] history of science uh they're being made
[15:53] today and I'm sure they'll be made in
[15:55] the future. But uh the human mind is
[15:58] such that it must understand what's
[16:00] happening in the world around us and uh
[16:03] that's what we're trying to do with the
[16:04] super collider.
[16:05] >> Dr. Roy, he's saying that this basic
[16:07] science has passed your argument by.
[16:10] >> Has it? Indeed. In fact, you funny funny
[16:12] that they have to go back 100 years and
[16:14] 70 years. Yes, quantum mechanics made a
[16:17] revolution. There was no funding for
[16:19] quantum mechanics. Dr. Schwittz doesn't
[16:20] point that out. Mr. Einstein didn't need
[16:23] any funding from the federal government.
[16:24] If they have ideas, they should go ahead
[16:27] and put them out. These are engineering
[16:29] public works projects. We all know what
[16:31] exactly they are. They're public works
[16:33] projects funded by a community that is
[16:37] befuddled by this hyper language and a
[16:41] lot of exaggerations about the benefits.
[16:44] We have never seen a single plausible
[16:47] scenario by which any result from the
[16:51] super collider can influence chemistry
[16:53] or materials or biology. Let us have a
[16:56] simple plausible scenario from anybody
[16:59] on the super collidider team to show how
[17:02] their science can produce any possible
[17:06] beneficial effect.
[17:07] >> What about that Dr. What about that Dr.
[17:08] Schwitters? Are there as Dr. Roy puts it
[17:11] simple plausible arguments describing
[17:13] what the what the practical applications
[17:16] mean?
[17:16] >> Oh, I I believe so. Uh first of all,
[17:18] there will be discoveries that we can't
[17:20] anticipate in the basic science. They'll
[17:22] be of long range benefit like Dr. Roy
[17:25] said probably time scales of 50 to 70
[17:27] years and I can't speculate on the
[17:29] immediate term there are spin-offs
[17:31] already occurring. Uh the challenge of
[17:34] doing this science draws uh very bright
[17:37] people from many walks of life uh in
[17:40] order to meet the technical needs of
[17:42] this great machine. Already we've seen
[17:44] developments in superconducting
[17:46] materials uh in actually uh machine
[17:49] making in an area known as fine
[17:51] blanking. Uh uh I met a fellow last week
[17:54] who said that we're helping his company
[17:56] make better products that he will
[17:58] actually sell to the automo automobile
[18:00] industry. Uh but I think the greatest
[18:03] value is bringing together a cadre of
[18:06] students and researchers and secretaries
[18:09] and technicians who have to face these
[18:11] very uh tough technical and scientific
[18:14] challenges. And in that way we all gain
[18:16] the country gains uh in the ability to
[18:19] deal responsibly with tough technical
[18:22] unknown problems. And clearly in the
[18:25] world ahead of us in the commerce uh in
[18:27] the next century uh without the threat
[18:30] of war we hope a nuclear war uh these
[18:32] kinds of challenges will be uh faced
[18:35] across society. So we're learning how to
[18:37] do those things today.
[18:38] >> Let me bring Capitol Hill into this.
[18:40] Senator Bumpers, if that's the case, uh,
[18:43] how could you be against something like
[18:45] this?
[18:46] >> Well, first of all, I have the
[18:47] responsibility of going home and to
[18:49] explain to my people what I did to try
[18:51] to bring spending under control in this
[18:53] Congress. And uh, even among the
[18:56] American Physical Society, which is
[18:57] 40,000 physicists in this country,
[19:00] they're pretty well split on this
[19:01] project also. But to go home and say
[19:04] that uh you've done your bit for a
[19:07] project that's like it over the lifetime
[19:09] is going to cost not four not five 5.5
[19:13] not 8.3 but 20 billion and that's in
[19:17] today's dollars and hardly a spade of
[19:18] dirt has been turned and I agree with
[19:21] you know there are some other Nobel
[19:23] laureates at Princeton and across the
[19:25] country for example uh Dr. Letterman who
[19:30] is a Nobel laureate said the spin-offs
[19:32] to build this because of the claims of
[19:34] the spin-offs that that societyy's going
[19:36] to gain from it are just crazy. And Dr.
[19:39] Philip Anderson, a Nobel laureette from
[19:41] Princeton said, "The saddest side of all
[19:43] is to see the Department of Energy
[19:45] spreading all these misrepresentation
[19:47] misrepresentations to the public and the
[19:49] Congress about what we're going to get
[19:51] out of this and for all the I'm for
[19:53] this. I'm for this project. I just don't
[19:56] happen to be for it now. We don't have
[19:58] to do it now. What they're looking for
[20:00] will be there 50 years from now to find.
[20:03] And most most physicists will tell you
[20:06] that particle physics physics has not
[20:08] contributed very much to our society
[20:10] since the genesis of a nuclear power.
[20:12] And this is not likely to either.
[20:14] >> What? Well, Senator Johnston, what what
[20:16] about that? I mean, he's saying he's for
[20:18] it, but just not now. We can't afford
[20:19] it.
[20:20] >> First of all, let me say Senator Bumpers
[20:21] is doing a lot to balance the budget.
[20:23] He's got a lot of projects to cut
[20:25] spending that I'm for him with. But his
[20:28] claim first of all and uh Dr. Royy's
[20:31] claim that this is not supported by the
[20:33] scientific community is absolute bunk. I
[20:38] have here a letter signed by 22 Nobel
[20:42] laureates who testified before our
[20:44] committee. uh another 232
[20:49] distinguished scientist in this country
[20:51] and around the world who strongly
[20:53] support this to say that Dr. Leon
[20:56] Letterman who was the lead witness
[20:58] before our committee I wish you had been
[21:00] there Dale he he made
[21:03] well you heard him testify very strongly
[21:05] for this project very strongly for this
[21:08] project and also to say as uh Dr. Roy
[21:12] did that uh that the Sigma Zai came out
[21:16] with a with a poll that said that 2%
[21:19] only 2% supported this this project
[21:22] >> scientific society.
[21:23] >> That's right. I have a letter here from
[21:26] the director of that society who says
[21:28] first that it does that this so-called
[21:31] poll did not address the question of
[21:33] whether they favored this nor did it
[21:35] have statistical uh validity.
[21:38] Let me tell you, I know as the chairman
[21:41] of the committee who has heard from
[21:42] these distinguished scientists, they do
[21:44] support this project. What they tell us
[21:46] is that this knowledge is the key to
[21:50] breaking the code as it were of the
[21:52] ultimate secrets of the universe. Dr.
[21:55] Smoot for example who discovered the
[21:57] ripples in space says that this project
[22:00] is essent is essential to determine the
[22:03] nature of the matter the dark matter in
[22:05] space which may be 80% of the matter in
[22:07] space.
[22:08] >> But you heard Dr. Roy say that you know
[22:10] a bunch of people have been as he put it
[22:12] befuddled by hyper language about things
[22:14] they don't even understand.
[22:15] >> I'm sure Dr. Roy is a good scientist but
[22:17] this is not his field. He is not a high
[22:21] energy physicist. Those who are high
[22:24] energy f physicists do support this
[22:26] project. They've been the the Nobel
[22:31] laureates and another 2,000 have uh have
[22:34] written the committee about it and
[22:36] testified before it.
[22:37] >> Judy, if I may interrupt just a moment
[22:39] here, and I'm I'm not trying I don't
[22:41] >> mean to be rude, Bennett, but Dr.
[22:44] Letterman, he's correct. Dr. Letterman
[22:46] is for this project just as I'm for it.
[22:49] But here's what he said. spin-offs would
[22:51] be a crazy reason for building the
[22:53] collider. We don't build it for the
[22:55] spin-offs. We build it because we're
[22:57] curious. Now, $20 billion is a lot of
[23:00] curiosity,
[23:01] >> but he also Well, it's not $20 billion.
[23:03] What a
[23:04] >> lifetime cost of the property.
[23:06] >> It is not the lifetime cost.
[23:07] >> It's much more than $20 billion.
[23:09] >> No, that is just not much more than 20
[23:11] billion.
[23:12] >> Hasn't turned dirt yet and the cost is
[23:14] $20 billion.
[23:15] >> And they're not even talking about the
[23:16] money that they will put. It's a welfare
[23:19] program for the state of Texas and we
[23:21] will be putting out half a billion
[23:23] dollars. Every senator who is being
[23:25] conned by his local constituent to say,
[23:27] "Look, I'm going to get a hund00 million
[23:29] project should remember that that state
[23:32] will send about half a billion dollars
[23:34] every year from now to eternity to the
[23:37] state of Texas." That's a welfare.
[23:39] >> That's just not true. It's just not
[23:40] true.
[23:41] >> You know, the Japanese last year, I took
[23:43] this issue last year. I got 37 votes.
[23:45] I'll do better this year. I may not win
[23:47] it. Got 37 votes last year and one of
[23:50] the chief arguments was that the
[23:52] Japanese who were going to put a billion
[23:53] seven to this would never trust us again
[23:55] if we didn't go forward with it. You
[23:57] know what the Japanese now say? Don't
[23:59] call us, we'll call you. In addition to
[24:01] that, you know,
[24:02] >> what do you mean? They're saying that
[24:03] they don't support the
[24:04] >> Of course not. And they also say, for
[24:05] example, the magnets for this thing
[24:08] which are going to be built in Senator
[24:09] Johnson's state. And I'm not I'm
[24:12] certainly Bennett Johnson is my dear
[24:13] friend. And if I were from Louisiana,
[24:15] I'd probably be sitting in his seat
[24:16] tonight. They're going to get $2 billion
[24:18] out of it just to build the magnets. But
[24:20] the Japanese have done an analysis and
[24:22] say the magnets won't cost 2 billion.
[24:23] They'll cost 5 billion. And you know
[24:25] where they put the money for this
[24:26] project? In their foreign aid bill. They
[24:28] didn't even put it in their science
[24:30] project.
[24:30] >> Well, Senator Bumpers, let me read you
[24:31] something from your fellow your governor
[24:34] Clinton. Of course, he's a Democratic
[24:35] nominee for president.
[24:36] >> A good point, but we don't always agree.
[24:38] Well, he says, and I'm sure you know, he
[24:40] said this in an interview with the
[24:41] NewsHour and NBC two weeks ago during
[24:43] the convention. He said, he said, "I
[24:45] have a bias in favor of projects like
[24:47] this one that seemed likely to generate
[24:48] a whole new range of high tech jobs and
[24:51] high-tech production." What about that
[24:53] argument?
[24:53] >> Well, I don't want to uh to get into an
[24:57] argument over what Governor Clinton
[24:58] said. He's running for president. He has
[25:00] the right to be for whatever he wants.
[25:01] Governor Clinton and I have been very
[25:03] close friends for about 17 18 years now
[25:05] and we'll remain friends regardless of
[25:07] how this comes out.
[25:08] >> Judy, I think you should take
[25:10] presidential candidates out of this. We
[25:12] know what they can say. But let's
[25:14] address the argument about can
[25:16] technology come out of this. I aware
[25:19] that everything that we do in the
[25:20] material sciences, the chemical sciences
[25:23] will help the super collider. It is spin
[25:25] in. There is no spin out. And America
[25:28] has lost its way simply by pretending
[25:31] that there are spin-offs in esoteric
[25:34] fields. We now certainly you will
[25:37] certainly admit that there have been
[25:38] tremendous spin-offs from high energy
[25:40] physics. Now surely you admit that I
[25:43] cannot think of a single one single
[25:47] job producing productivity increasing
[25:50] spin-off from high energy physics if you
[25:53] include anything after 1945.
[25:56] >> Dr. Schwitters, can you uh respond to
[25:58] that?
[25:58] >> I uh could I step in and try to uh
[26:01] >> try to make a few comments. First of
[26:03] all, uh dirt is being dug by all means.
[26:06] We have uh tunnels and buildings being
[26:09] built. The president of the United
[26:11] States kindly visited us this morning
[26:13] and uh saw a lot of the construction.
[26:16] Magnets are being built. We have 2,000
[26:18] dedicated staff. have been working here
[26:20] for three and a half years uh after the
[26:23] site was selected after a national
[26:25] competition. Uh the excitement is there.
[26:28] We have uh 1,600 professional physicists
[26:32] worldwide, half of them outside the
[26:34] country are so excited by the prospects
[26:37] knowing that we won't be uh on the air
[26:40] doing experiments until the end of the
[26:42] decade. They've already committed their
[26:43] scientific futures. We've touched uh
[26:46] 20,000 students and teachers at the
[26:49] kindergarten uh garden level and above
[26:51] throughout the country. This truly is a
[26:54] national project. Uh we're committed to
[26:56] that at the laboratory with modern
[26:58] computers and communications. It's quite
[27:00] possible to have just great involvement
[27:03] and it's that I think it's that
[27:04] exciting.
[27:05] >> What about but let me just ask you
[27:06] specifically again about Dr. Royy's
[27:08] point about there's no proven
[27:10] at least in what he says that he's seen
[27:13] up until now application of this in the
[27:16] medical area in the
[27:17] >> Well, that's just demonstrabably wrong.
[27:18] Let me give you several examples. First
[27:20] of all, in the medical area, it turns
[27:23] out we uh plan to use some of our
[27:25] injector accelerators uh for cancer
[27:27] therapy. They have excess capacity.
[27:30] We've already uh begun cooperative
[27:32] programs with a local medical school
[27:34] here in the area of superc conductivity.
[27:37] Uh it's tremendously important to to
[27:39] industrialize this so it's available in
[27:42] other areas of society.
[27:44] >> Dr. Roy it's Could I continue please?
[27:48] >> No preposterous.
[27:49] >> Well I want I want to let him you know
[27:51] you heard what he's saying Dr. Roy. He's
[27:53] saying there is a specific application
[27:55] >> and I'm telling him that superconductors
[27:57] which is my field not his field and
[28:00] superconductors will help him. He can't
[28:02] help superconductors. He talks about are
[28:04] we going to put a super collider next to
[28:06] every hospital? What nonsense are we
[28:08] talking about?
[28:09] >> I think that these kind of exaggerations
[28:12] let me read you what Congressman
[28:13] Livingston
[28:14] >> Could I please try to finish my point?
[28:16] >> Yeah. Let I I told Dr. Schwitters we'd
[28:19] get back to him. Yes.
[28:21] >> Dr. Schwitters.
[28:22] >> Yes. Okay, the point of course we draw
[28:24] on many sciences and that's the great
[28:27] thing about science and working uh we
[28:29] need these to to develop the tools and
[28:32] instruments for our machine and in that
[28:34] process we give back to other sciences
[28:36] in the areas of computing. Now let me
[28:38] let me finish the point on
[28:39] superconductivity though uh two years
[28:41] ago when we began our development of
[28:43] magnets a foot of the wire we need would
[28:46] cost $100. Today it costs $15 because of
[28:49] the developments and the pull of that
[28:52] technology that we've been able to
[28:53] achieve. In a couple of years it'll be
[28:55] down to $1 a foot. This allows other
[28:58] industrial uh applications to come into
[29:01] the market.
[29:02] >> But what about let me just stop you
[29:03] there. What about just quickly Senator
[29:05] Bumper's point that he agrees this is
[29:06] needed but not right now when there are
[29:08] budget constraints, other needs and we
[29:11] can he his point was we could wait 50
[29:13] years and do do what you're saying we
[29:14] need to do now. Well, this is done by pe
[29:17] by people with imagination and spirit.
[29:20] Uh you can't break that chain. We've
[29:22] have a chain that goes back 2,000 years
[29:24] to the Greeks. And you're saying you can
[29:26] just break it. It won't start up again
[29:30] the country today.
[29:31] >> The chain does not lead to particle
[29:33] physics. It leads to chemistry. It leads
[29:35] to materials. I I do not think there's
[29:37] any chain between the Greeks and
[29:40] superconductoring super colliders. The
[29:42] chain is to real science which helps to
[29:44] real people out there. And to claim that
[29:47] this kind of science has any relevance
[29:50] to any part of science, leave alone to
[29:52] society is the most egregious
[29:54] exaggeration that one can conceive of.
[29:57] >> All I can say is you're disagreed with
[29:59] by many distinguished Nobel laureates.
[30:01] >> Indeed, I love it. They're just Noel
[30:03] laurates in physics. Who cares about
[30:05] them?
[30:05] >> All right, just a moment. We're we've
[30:07] only got we've got less than a minute
[30:08] here. Senator Johnson, what is your uh
[30:10] prediction at this point of the Senate
[30:12] uh on on the superconductor?
[30:14] >> I I super collider. I'm sorry.
[30:16] >> Look, most scientists in this country
[30:19] understand that this is the most
[30:21] important science project in America.
[30:23] It's not the biggest. It's not nearly
[30:25] the biggest, but it's uh the most
[30:27] important because this is the key to
[30:30] cosmology, the key to understanding the
[30:32] basic forces of nature, to understand
[30:34] the particles of nature. And I think
[30:36] we're going to win. and and Senator
[30:38] Bumpers,
[30:39] >> I want to make one other point. I think
[30:40] that I will probably not prevail. After
[30:42] all, I have Lloyd Benson who's chairman
[30:44] of the Finance Committee, Phil Graham,
[30:46] who's chairman of the Republican Senate
[30:48] Campaign Committee, and Senator Johnson,
[30:49] chairman of the Energy Committee. But I
[30:50] want to make this point, Judy,
[30:52] >> and that is we can only fund 25% of the
[30:56] applications for medical research out
[30:58] the National Institutes of Health. I sit
[31:00] on the appropriations committee. When I
[31:02] think about all the good grants that we
[31:04] could be making that this is going to
[31:06] squeeze out, and I'm talking about
[31:09] immediate paybacks in cancer research,
[31:11] leukemia, AIDS, you name it.
[31:13] >> All right.
[31:14] >> Well, let me just say
[31:14] >> we're going to have to leave it there,
[31:16] gentlemen. We thank you all for being
[31:17] with us, J.
[31:19] >> Still to come on the NewsHour tonight,
[31:21] on the stump with candidates Clinton and
[31:23] Bush and discrimination against women in
[31:26] the military.
[31:35] One of our tools for covering this
[31:36] year's presidential campaign has been
[31:38] the stump speech. We used it extensively
[31:41] during the primary season and we resume
[31:43] it tonight with a pair of Clinton and
[31:46] Bush speeches. Governor Clinton's first,
[31:48] the 1992 Democratic nominee, made it
[31:51] yesterday in New Orleans, sight of the
[31:53] 1988 Republican National Convention.
[31:57] Today I have come here to the Superdome
[32:00] to the spot where that trail of broken
[32:03] promises and violated trust began.
[32:07] George Bush has talked a great deal
[32:09] about trust lately.
[32:13] Today I was going to talk to you about
[32:15] that very famous phrase that George Bush
[32:18] made in this stadium four years ago.
[32:21] Read my lips.
[32:30] I was going to talk to you about his
[32:32] promise of 15 million new jobs in the
[32:34] first four years. A promise that is 14.5
[32:38] million jobs short.
[32:40] A promise of a kinder, gentler nation. A
[32:44] promise that has been savaged by the
[32:46] political tactics and the division of
[32:48] this own administration.
[32:51] about the only thing we can really trust
[32:53] this administration to do is to give us
[32:56] four more years of the same failed
[32:59] economic policies.
[33:02] But yesterday, something happened that
[33:04] goes beyond even the trust issue and the
[33:08] gall of this administration to hurl the
[33:11] word trust at its opponents.
[33:14] It's beyond broken promises and it's
[33:17] about the acceptance of responsibility
[33:20] by the president.
[33:21] For yesterday, on the day when consumer
[33:24] confidence plunged to all-time lows,
[33:27] when home buying is going down and home
[33:29] and unemployment is going up, Mr. Bush
[33:32] sent his leading economic adviser to
[33:35] Capitol Hill to deliver a message to an
[33:38] ancient anxious people. Speaking on
[33:41] behalf of the president, Richard Darman
[33:43] denied that the president bears any
[33:46] responsibility whatever for the
[33:48] sluggish, stagnant economy. Mr. Darman
[33:52] pointed the finger of blame everywhere
[33:54] but at the Oval Office. Listen to this.
[33:56] The president's chief economic adviser,
[33:58] when asked for an explanation of why we
[34:01] had the three slowest years of economic
[34:03] performance in 50 years since the Great
[34:05] Depression, did the following things. He
[34:08] blamed the Federal Reserve for the slow
[34:10] growth of the money supply. He blamed
[34:13] the nation's lenders for the credit
[34:15] crunch. He blamed Saddam Hussein
[34:19] for the invasion of Kuwait, which is
[34:22] good blame, but hardly the cause of our
[34:24] economic problems here at home. And he
[34:27] blamed Congress for refusing to enact
[34:29] Mr. for Bush's economic program, a
[34:32] limited version of trickle down, which
[34:34] was cooked up for election year after 3
[34:37] years of no action at all.
[34:41] Four years ago, this president promised
[34:44] 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, and a
[34:47] kinder, gentler nation. But most
[34:50] important, he promised to be president,
[34:53] to accept responsibility.
[34:56] and I quote, he said that he saw life in
[34:58] terms of quote missions, missions
[35:01] defined and missions completed. The
[35:04] mission was in America, and I quote,
[35:07] moving forward, always forward. Four
[35:11] years later, we're moving backward. Most
[35:14] Americans are working harder for less
[35:15] money than they were making 10 years
[35:17] ago. Unemployment now numbers 10 million
[35:20] Americans. 10% of our people are on food
[35:23] stamps. Other count's economies are
[35:25] growing faster than ours. Since 1980 in
[35:28] the beginning of trickle down, we've
[35:29] gone from first to 13th in the world in
[35:32] wages. We are not moving forward. Always
[35:36] forward. And all Mr. Bush has to offer
[35:39] is the politics of blame and more of the
[35:42] same. He is still in the grip of a
[35:45] failed idea. Still believing the only
[35:47] way to make an economy grow in a tough
[35:50] global environment is to cut taxes on
[35:52] the wealthiest 1%, raise them on the
[35:55] middle class, let the deficit explode,
[35:58] reduce investment in our future, and
[36:00] stay out of the economic battleground
[36:02] with other nations. Every major economy
[36:05] in the world has a national economic
[36:07] strategy but the United States of
[36:09] America.
[36:16] He still believes that when it comes to
[36:18] offering opportunity for ordinary
[36:19] Americans, the best policy for the
[36:22] government is to do nothing. He still
[36:24] believes that our top economic priority
[36:27] ought to be an acrosstheboard short-term
[36:30] capital gains tax cut for the wealthiest
[36:32] Americans. A tax cut that gives
[36:34] millionaires an average benefit of
[36:36] $100,000
[36:38] and gives folks earning $50,000 a year
[36:40] or less an average of $30. A tax cut
[36:44] that isn't targeted to long-term
[36:45] investment and activities that create
[36:48] jobs and emphasize new technologies. A
[36:51] tax cut just like the past 12 years of
[36:53] windfalls for the wealthy without jobs
[36:56] for ordinary Americans. Let's face it,
[36:59] when Mr. Bush stood here four years ago
[37:01] and said, "Read my lips. No new taxes."
[37:06] What he meant to say was, "No new taxes
[37:11] for the rich."
[37:14] So, I guess that
[37:20] this president actually vetoed an
[37:22] economic package passed by Congress this
[37:25] year and fashioned among others by
[37:27] Senator Lloyd Benson of Texas, a pro
[37:30] business Democrat. That included much of
[37:33] what Mr. Bush says he wanted and even
[37:36] more. an investment tax credit for new
[37:39] plant and equipment, research and
[37:41] development tax credits to keep us ahead
[37:43] in the race for new technologies, and
[37:45] other investments to get this economy
[37:47] going. Why did he veto the bill? Because
[37:50] it paid for those tax incentives by
[37:52] raising taxes on the top 1% of Americans
[37:56] whose taxes have gone down for the last
[37:57] 10 years, and because it didn't include
[38:00] the short-term acrosstheboard capital
[38:03] gains tax cuts.
[38:05] We have disagreements about the economy.
[38:08] But the main point I want to make to you
[38:10] today is that beyond the trust issue,
[38:13] beyond the broken promises, beyond the
[38:16] bad economic policies, there is
[38:18] underneath all this an even more
[38:20] fundamental issue. And that is the
[38:22] failure of the president to assume
[38:24] responsibility for the future of this
[38:26] country.
[38:32] He has demonstrated that he doesn't have
[38:34] a plan to get the economy moving again.
[38:37] But I do. Put the American people first.
[38:40] Invest in their potential, in their
[38:42] jobs, their education, their healthcare.
[38:45] Make government a partner with business
[38:47] and labor and education. Help America
[38:50] compete and win in the global economy.
[38:53] Don't read my lips. Read my plan.
[39:04] Give up the idea of a capital gains tax
[39:07] cut that doesn't distinguish between
[39:09] short-term investments and speculation
[39:12] and long-term investments in new
[39:14] technologies and new jobs. Make America
[39:18] the best educated, best trained, best
[39:20] paid workforce in the world, linked by
[39:22] the world's best systems of
[39:24] transportation and communications.
[39:26] Invest in civilian research and
[39:28] development. Turn American innovation in
[39:30] the laboratories into American jobs in
[39:33] the factories. Open the doors of college
[39:35] opportunity to all Americans. Take on
[39:38] health care cost increases. Control
[39:41] health care costs. And provide a basic
[39:43] package of affordable health care to
[39:45] every family in this country.
[39:53] reinvest every last dollar of defense
[39:56] cuts and retraining defense workers,
[39:58] retooling defense plants, and
[40:00] reinvesting in an American economy for
[40:02] the 21st century. Rebuild our cities,
[40:05] our suburbs, our rural areas.
[40:08] Ask the wealthiest 1% of Americans to
[40:10] pay their fair share of taxes again, not
[40:13] to soak the rich, but to keep from
[40:15] drowning the middle class so that we can
[40:17] all go forward together.
[40:24] My fellow Americans, we didn't get into
[40:26] this mess overnight. We won't get out of
[40:28] it overnight. But we won't get out of it
[40:30] at all unless we change. Unless we
[40:33] abandon trickle down economics, not in
[40:36] favor of old tax and spend and divide
[40:38] the pie economics, but in favor of
[40:40] putting our people first and helping
[40:42] America to compete and win in the world
[40:45] economy. We know that investment
[40:47] economics works. We know that when
[40:50] business and labor and education and
[40:52] government are on the same side, working
[40:54] for opportunity in the world, it works.
[40:57] The people of the United States are
[40:59] hurting. They need a president who will
[41:01] do what George Bush once promised he
[41:03] would do. Use the power of the
[41:06] presidency to help people. If he won't
[41:09] do it, I know someone who will. Thank
[41:12] you very much.
[41:15] The economy was also a major theme of
[41:18] President Bush's speech. He delivered it
[41:20] this morning to employees of the Super
[41:22] Collider in Wakahhatchee, Texas.
[41:26] I come here to talk just a little bit
[41:28] about what we need to do to prepare for
[41:32] the economy of the 21st century. I'd
[41:35] like to start with a story, not about
[41:37] the economy, but football.
[41:39] story about a freshman who walked out
[41:41] onto the field over at SMU for his uh
[41:43] first football practice. He told the
[41:46] coach, "Look, I can throw the ball 60
[41:48] yards in a perfect spiral. I can run the
[41:51] 40 in 44. My punts usually carry 75
[41:56] yards into the wind." Coach looked at
[41:59] this guy. He said, "Kid, everybody has a
[42:01] weakness. What's yours?"
[42:04] And this freshman said, "Well, some
[42:06] people might tell you I have a tendency
[42:10] to exaggerate a little bit." Well,
[42:14] when we look at our economy, we should
[42:17] resist the urge to exaggerate our
[42:19] problems. And sure, we face some very
[42:21] stiff challenges. But let's not forget a
[42:24] few facts. We are the world's largest
[42:26] economy. No other nation sells more
[42:28] products outside its borders. Exports
[42:32] tremendously high. Inflation is the
[42:34] lowest in two decades. And if you want
[42:36] to talk to the world's most productive
[42:38] workers, you don't have to brush up on
[42:40] your Japanese or your German. The dream
[42:43] team of workers can be found right here
[42:46] in the United States of America.
[43:01] So the question today is not can America
[43:04] compete. We know we can do that. The
[43:05] question is how do we stay number one
[43:07] and share our prosperity with more
[43:10] Americans and create more jobs for the
[43:13] American worker. First, we face some
[43:16] short-term challenges. This morning, the
[43:19] new economic numbers came out. They
[43:21] released telling you something you
[43:22] probably can pick up from conversations
[43:24] down at the local hardware store. The
[43:26] economy is growing, but it's got to grow
[43:29] faster. Economy grew at what 2.9%
[43:33] in the first first quarter and now uh
[43:36] that was stronger than originally
[43:37] reported, but only 1.4% in the second.
[43:40] Housing sales though were much stronger
[43:42] than expected, up 8% in June. But
[43:45] overall, while the national economy is
[43:48] still growing, it is not growing fast
[43:50] enough. And now economists are going to
[43:52] tell you that this kind of uneven growth
[43:54] is not unusual. Since World War II, the
[43:58] first year of every recovery has shown
[44:00] the same pattern with one quarter up and
[44:02] the next quarter down a little bit. Most
[44:04] of the economists, blue chip economists,
[44:07] predict that the economy is going to get
[44:09] stronger the rest of the year. And I
[44:11] believe that they're right. But we have
[44:13] got to act now to guarantee that. On
[44:18] January 29th, January 29th, I put
[44:22] forward a specific program to create new
[44:26] jobs with incentives to encourage
[44:29] businesses to hire new workers and help
[44:31] Americans who want to buy a new home.
[44:34] And if that plan was in place, it would
[44:36] have been creating almost 15,000 new
[44:39] jobs a day, over half a million jobs
[44:42] since February. And for 183 days, the
[44:46] Congress is dillied and dallied while
[44:48] too many Americans are looking for work.
[44:51] And they have made some progress. But we
[44:53] need this program of growth incentives
[44:56] passed right now. And I hope you and all
[45:00] of these people will join me.
[45:10] I hope you'll join me in reminding
[45:12] Congress that we can't wait another 183
[45:14] days. This sign is right. We the people
[45:17] need jobs and we need to stimulate this
[45:20] economy and get those jobs. So help me
[45:23] pass that growth program.
[45:32] No more holding the American economy
[45:34] hostage of politics. Vote for this
[45:36] economic recovery program and put more
[45:39] Americans to work now. Now, that's the
[45:41] short-term program. But the real
[45:44] question on Americans minds is what
[45:46] about 5 years from now? What about 10
[45:48] years, 20? Will America still be the
[45:51] world's leading economy? And that's the
[45:54] question that I want to just focus on in
[45:56] this very special place this morning.
[45:59] It's fashionable this year for people to
[46:01] talk about change, about preparing for
[46:04] the future. But for the past 3 years,
[46:06] without a lot of hype or fanfare, we've
[46:09] put forward a series of dramatic ideas
[46:12] to change America so that we will win in
[46:16] the new economic Olympics.
[46:20] From our unprecedented effort to open up
[46:22] new markets to our products to our
[46:25] program to make our grade and elementary
[46:27] schools as great as our colleges. From
[46:30] proposed record increases in basic lab
[46:33] research, laboratory research to new
[46:35] ways to help our companies get ideas
[46:37] from the laboratory to the marketplace.
[46:40] From new incentives for American
[46:42] businessmen and women to new efforts to
[46:44] rip away the regulations that hinder
[46:47] innovation. And from top to bottom, our
[46:50] entire program is designed to build
[46:52] America for the 21st century. Now, some
[46:56] advocate a very different different
[46:59] approach. They want to arrest
[47:02] protectionist walls around our economy
[47:04] and they suggest that government should
[47:06] invest directly in industry and that
[47:08] maybe it's time we try to have some
[47:10] having some guy in Washington pick
[47:12] economic winners and losers. I don't
[47:14] trust that approach. I trust our
[47:17] businessmen and women to create and
[47:19] innovate. And I trust our workers to
[47:22] perform. And I trust you, our best
[47:24] researchers and scientists, to lead
[47:27] America to a bigger and brighter future.
[47:41] All you need is some tools and that's
[47:43] what our programs provide. First, in an
[47:46] age when knowledge is king, we want
[47:48] Americans to wear the crown. And I
[47:50] admit, I am very proud of our young
[47:53] people's domination in swimming and
[47:55] basketball. But by the year 2000, I want
[47:58] our kids to be champions, not just in
[48:01] the pool and on the court. I want them
[48:03] to be number one in the math class and
[48:06] in the science lab.
[48:11] Our
[48:19] our second priority is to extend
[48:22] America's heritage as the world's leader
[48:24] in technology. The new industries that
[48:26] I've mentioned this morning will
[48:28] potentially create millions of new jobs.
[48:31] We don't want them nurtured in Germany
[48:32] or Japan. We want them built here in
[48:36] Texas, here in America. The programs
[48:39] that we put forward to build America are
[48:42] all prejudiced. Yes, they are prejudiced
[48:45] to the future, loyal only to our
[48:47] children. But we can make this
[48:49] investment without new taxes or budget
[48:52] busting spending today. Human
[48:55] imagination is still our compass and
[48:58] human ingenuity and yearning for
[49:00] progress our only power. And to those
[49:03] who would sacrifice tomorrow for today,
[49:06] I say trust in America's future. Trust
[49:09] in America's incredible capacity for
[49:13] renewal and innovation. And trust in the
[49:16] spirit that is here today. For ours is
[49:19] an eternal voyage to greatness. And each
[49:22] and every one of you is a part of that
[49:24] voyage. Thank you for listening. And may
[49:27] God bless Texas and God bless the United
[49:30] States of America. Thank you very much.
[49:33] Thank you all.
[49:42] >> Next tonight, an update on women in the
[49:44] military. Today, the House Armed
[49:46] Services Committee called up the chiefs
[49:48] of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
[49:50] Marines to find out how the services are
[49:52] dealing with allegations of sexual
[49:54] discrimination, harassment, and even
[49:56] abuse. The latter issues have become
[49:58] more explosive since reports surfaced
[50:01] that Navy aviators assaulted several
[50:03] women, including some fellow officers at
[50:06] an aviators convention. Our report was
[50:08] prepared by congressional
[50:10] correspondentWami Hullman.
[50:12] >> The so-called tail hook scandal, the
[50:14] aviators convention last fall, where
[50:16] assaults on women allegedly took place,
[50:19] was not officially the subject of the
[50:21] hearing, but it clearly was on many
[50:23] minds. Until tail hook, we dealt too
[50:25] often with sexual harassment at the
[50:27] local level, one case at a time, rather
[50:31] than understanding it as a cultural
[50:32] issue that had to be addressed
[50:34] throughout the Navy. No one regrets more
[50:37] than I that it took an instant of this
[50:39] magnitude to focus our attention and our
[50:42] best efforts on correcting what clearly
[50:44] is an institutional problem. The hearing
[50:47] on sexual harassment in the military
[50:49] quickly focused on the ongoing debate
[50:51] over the ban on women in combat. Armed
[50:55] Services Committee Chairman Les Aspen.
[50:57] One of the points that all of the
[51:00] witnesses agreed to yesterday and and uh
[51:04] came up several times during the the
[51:07] testimony yesterday
[51:09] was the fact that they thought that the
[51:12] combat exclusion
[51:14] was at the root of part of the problem
[51:16] here. uh that the fact that when women
[51:20] in a combat aren't admitted into the
[51:25] combat excluded from combat that they're
[51:27] therefore secondass citizens and
[51:30] therefore what that means is that an
[51:33] attitude pervades in the military that
[51:36] they are secondass citizens and
[51:38] therefore it is at least fair game to
[51:43] treat them with discrimination.
[51:45] it not sexual harassment doesn't justify
[51:47] sexual harassment but it does in effect
[51:50] condone discrimination. Mr. Chairman,
[51:53] first of all, I believe the combat
[51:55] exclusion
[51:57] uh law is discrimination
[52:00] against women and second that it works
[52:04] to their disadvantage in a career
[52:08] context.
[52:10] as uh Congresswoman Sharter said, you
[52:13] don't see any women at the table here
[52:15] and it may well be because they have
[52:17] been denied this experience of of active
[52:20] participation in combat. Uh I I remain I
[52:25] haven't changed my mind. I have thought
[52:26] about it since the sex harassment
[52:28] problems popped up and I still think it
[52:32] is not a good idea for me to have to
[52:35] order women into combat. Combat is about
[52:39] killing people.
[52:42] And I'm afraid that even though logic
[52:45] tells us that women can do that as well
[52:47] as men, I have a very traditional
[52:50] attitude about
[52:52] wives and mothers and daughters being
[52:54] ordered to kill people. Combat in the
[52:57] sense that we usually associate with the
[52:59] direct combat role is looking another
[53:01] human being in the eye and killing him.
[53:04] And it's not a pleasant job. And often
[53:06] time it's not done with a precision
[53:08] guided munition in all cases. It
[53:10] sometimes is done with your hands. It's
[53:12] done with a shovel and it's done at
[53:14] close range. And it's not it's not good.
[53:17] It's debasing.
[53:19] And it's something that I would not want
[53:21] to see women involved in. And for which
[53:24] I do not believe and I'm grateful that
[53:27] this is my perception that women are are
[53:30] suited to do. I really worry about where
[53:34] women are in the military. I hear that
[53:38] if you are a killer, you're therefore
[53:41] it's debasing, so you must be debased.
[53:44] Does that mean then that that we're
[53:46] going to just stipulate men are debased?
[53:48] So, this is okay. I don't think they're
[53:50] that debased. Um, I think they can still
[53:53] treat women whether or not they're in a
[53:55] combat category with some respect. I
[53:57] remember the military that was the
[53:59] officer and the gentleman. We hear from
[54:01] young women how they are terrified to
[54:04] come forward and say these things
[54:05] because of this um ability of the
[54:08] accusers to be able to fight back and
[54:10] fight back very powerfully. I know the
[54:12] gentleman from Virginia tends to think
[54:13] that it's the women who are doing the
[54:15] men. Many of the women I think by these
[54:17] statistics have been done in by the
[54:19] military by trying to solve this.
[54:21] >> Representative Ike Skelton returned to
[54:24] the sexual attacks by male Navy flyers
[54:27] alleged in the Tail Hook incident. He
[54:29] asked the military commanders whether
[54:31] the culture shared by male aviators may
[54:34] lead them to commit sexual misconduct.
[54:37] What is there if anything
[54:41] in the culture or the psychology of
[54:44] those who fly
[54:47] that makes them different
[54:50] regarding
[54:53] incidents of this sort? I think that
[54:55] naval aviators because of the difficulty
[54:59] and the danger of coming aboard ship
[55:02] uh tend to think of themselves maybe as
[55:04] the you know the the ones that are even
[55:07] farther out on the edge of the envelope
[55:08] than anybody else. So uh now some of
[55:12] this as people mature over time it it uh
[55:18] it it gets a leaning of common sense.
[55:20] But by and large I like lieutenants that
[55:23] feel this way.
[55:25] Uh they they uh they need supervision.
[55:29] That's why we have majors and lieutenant
[55:31] colonels. But if a person as a
[55:34] lieutenant or a junior captain isn't
[55:37] really kind of uh
[55:40] working at at the edge of the envelope,
[55:43] then then he may have limited potential
[55:46] as a warrior from from my personal uh
[55:49] observation. So
[55:52] I don't know if it's built into the
[55:53] culture. I guess people are attracted to
[55:55] it who have that kind of uh feeling and
[55:59] and so that's what makes supervision so
[56:02] important. What happened at at Tail Hook
[56:05] was something that you might expect of a
[56:08] bunch of lieutenants who get together
[56:10] and have too much to drink. And and the
[56:12] tragedy of it was that there wasn't a
[56:14] lieutenant colonel there to to put his
[56:18] foot down. That's that's the thing that
[56:20] we that I I'm I'm not speaking for Frank
[56:22] here, but I'm sure that occurred to all
[56:25] of us is that that's the kind of
[56:26] activity that some mature person should
[56:29] have stepped in and stopped. Some
[56:31] members of the Armed Services panel
[56:33] complained that the investigation into
[56:35] the Tail Hook scandal, said to involve
[56:37] dozens of Navy flyers, has named none of
[56:40] them 10 months after the alleged
[56:42] incident. Sources in the Defense
[56:44] Department, which took over the probe
[56:46] from the Navy, said today a
[56:48] determination is expected within two
[56:50] months.
[56:50] >> Opportunity and sexual harass.
[56:57] >> Again, the major story of this Thursday
[56:59] was the economy. The gross domestic
[57:01] product rose just 1.4% the second
[57:04] quarter of the year. Good night, Judy.
[57:06] >> Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for
[57:08] tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you
[57:09] and good night.
[57:12] Part of helping the world live and
[57:14] communicate better is keeping it well
[57:16] informed.
[57:19] That's why funding for the McNeel Lair
[57:21] NewsHour is provided by AT&T
[57:26] and by PepsiCo.
[57:33] PepsiCo
[57:36] and by the Corporation for Public
[57:37] Broadcasting and viewers like you.
[57:44] This is PBS.
[57:47] Funding for local broadcast of the
[57:49] McNeel Lair NewsHour has been provided
[57:51] by Davis Wright Tmaine, a law firm
[57:53] serving businesses and individuals from
[57:56] offices in Oregon, Washington,
[57:57] California, Idaho, Alaska, and
[58:00] Washington.
[58:04] >> I take one teaspoon full of acid. Then
[58:08] add half teaspoon