Section One: News in Brief
1. President Reagan announced today, that he and Soviet leader Gorbachev will meet in Iceland October 11th and 12th to prepare for a summit between the two leaders in the United States later this year. The announcement came after the release yesterday from Moscow of American reporter Nicholas Daniloff and a court appearance in New York this morning by accused Soviet spy Gennadi Zakharov, who pleaded no contest to espionage charges and was. told to leave the United States within twenty-four hours. Zakharov is now on his way back to the Soviet Union and Daniloff has arrived back in the United States. The movement of Daniloff and Zakharov and plans for the meeting in Iceland were also announced today in Moscow. The BBC\'s Peter Ruff reports.
“The announcement makes it clear that this was at Mr. Gorbahev\'s invitation, and it\'s also pointed out that this is simply a preparatory meeting to a possible summit. It\'s pointed out here that it will enable the Soviet Union to focus on arms issues, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars program, President Reagan\'s refusal to join a test and a possible arms deal involving medium-range Europe. In a separate announcement, the official news agency Tass revealed that Gennadi Zakharov had, as they put it, been released from custody and was returning home. It made no mention of the fact that he\'d pleaded no contest in a court in New York. Then came, the first official confirmation from the Soviet Union that the American reporter Nicholas Daniloff had been expelled, the news item did not refer to him as a spy but as someone who\'d been engaged in inadmissible activity. BBC correspondent Peter Ruff in Moscow.
2. There was the Soviet press today that prominent Soviet dissident and his wife will be allowed to leave for the US by October 7th. Secretary of State Shultz made that announcement in Washington saying Orlov was the driving force behind the Helsinki Monitoring Group of Civil Rights Activists. In 1978, Orlov was sentenced to seven years in a prison camp to be followed by five more years in internal exile. Shultz said Orlov\'s release was in exchange for that of Zakharov and had nothing to do with Daniloff\'s freedom.
第一节 简明新闻
1. 里根总统今天宣布，他和苏联领导人戈尔巴乔夫将于10月11日和12日在冰岛举行会谈，以准备美苏两国领导人将于今年晚些时候举行的首脑会议。这项宣布是在美国记者尼古拉斯丹尼洛夫昨天在莫斯科获释和今天早晨纽约的一个法庭开庭对承认间谍控罪的根纳季扎哈罗夫要求其在24小时内离境之后做出的。扎哈罗夫现正在回苏联途中，而丹尼洛夫已经抵达美国。莫斯科今天也宣布了丹尼洛夫与扎哈罗夫事件的进展和冰岛会议计划。英国广播公司的彼得拉夫报道。
“这份声明清楚地表明，这是由戈尔巴乔夫先生邀请进行的，它也指出，这只是一个为可能举办的首脑会议而进行的预备会议。在此指出，苏联将会把焦点放在武器的问题上，特别是战略防御计划，或者说是星球大战计划。里根总统拒绝参与的欧洲中程武器的试验和军火交易。在另一项声明中，官方通讯社塔斯社透露，根纳季扎哈罗夫已经从关押中被释放回家。他没有提到，他在纽约法院承认控罪的事实。接下来是来自苏联的首次正式证实，美国记者尼古拉丹尼洛夫被驱逐出境，该则新闻没有提到他曾经被当作间谍，而是说他是个参与了不当行为的人。”英国广播公司记者 彼得鲁夫在莫斯科报道。
2. 一苏联记者，著名的持不同政见者和他的妻子将被允许去美国，这是10月7日国务卿舒尔茨在华盛顿宣布的，他说，奥尔洛夫在幕后全力经营着赫尔辛基民权活动家监督团体。1978年，奥尔洛夫被判处7年徒刑和5年流放。舒尔茨说，奥尔洛夫的释放是以扎哈罗夫为交换的，与丹尼洛夫的释放无关。
Section Two: News in Detail
In just eleven days President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev will meet in Iceland for what is described by the two sides as an interim summit or a preparatory summit. The announcement was made at the White House this morning at a news conference held by President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz called to discuss the Iceland meeting and the negotiations which had led up to the release of Nicholas Daniloff yesterday. Negotiations for the release of Daniloff went on for over a month. Today, at the same time that the White House news conference was going on, Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze met with the press in New York. NPR\'s Jim Angle was at the White House, and Mike Shuster was with the Soviet Foreign Minister.
“Jim, since Daniloff was only released yesterday, and the details of the negotiations leading up to his release were not known yesterday, didn\'t this announcement of a summit announced before any discussion of the Daniloff affair come as a surprise?”
“What was a surprise is that we did not know it was coming. It is not a surprise if you look at the overall context of preparations for a summit and the discussions so far. Of course, the US had said it would not attend a summit until the Daniloff case wag resolved, and the President said today that he could not have accepted this pre-summit preparatory meeting if Daniloff were still being held. Today the matter was resolved. At least we heard that the other details of the matter\'s resolution, including the fact that Gennadi Zakharov, the accused Soviet spy, was allowed to plead no contest in a New York court and allowed to leave the United States. The resolution of that matter cleared the way for summit preparations. The meeting, of course, this pre-summit meeting, was proposed by Secretary Gorbachev, in a letter delivered to President Reagan by Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on September 19th. The announcement of this meeting today at the same time as the resolution of Zakharov\'s status is a way of both sides saying that they consider the Daniloff matter resolved with the exception of one or two details and that no obstacles now exist in the preparations for summit later this year in the US.”
“At the news conference this morning both President Reagan and Secretary of State Shultz stress that there had been no trade for Nicholas Daniloff. Jim, was this a trade?”
“Well, clearly, Daniloff\'s release, Zakharov\'s quick trial and departure, and the release of the Soviet dissident were all part of one package. But to the extent that definitions are important, especially in the diplomatic world and in terms of principles and precedents, the US has insisted that there was no trade involved here. They say Daniloff was released without a trial, an implicit acknowledgement, if you will, by the Soviet, that he is not a spy. Zakharov, on the other hand, in pleading no contest to espionage charges, allows, in a sense, the US assertion that he was as to stand. President Reagan sought to emphasize today in his remark at the White House that these were separate matters. “There is no connection between these two re-eases. I don\'t know just what you have said so far about this. But there were other arrangement-. with regard to Zakharov that resulted in his being freed. Margo, the President\'s referring there to what the US sees as the only trade involved in this whole package, and that is the Soviet agreement to allow Soviet human rights activist Yuri Orlov and his wife to leave the Soviet Union by October 7th.”
Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
第二节 详细新闻 美苏首脑冰岛会谈前的政治交易
在短短11天里根总统和苏联领导人戈尔巴乔夫将在冰岛会晤，这被双方描述为临时的首脑会议或是首脑会晤的筹备会议。这一消息是在白宫今天上午的一个由里根总统举行的新闻发布会上宣布的，国务卿乔治舒尔茨在昨天召集的一次关于冰岛会晤的讨论会上，提到了尼古拉丹尼洛夫的获释谈判。就丹尼洛夫的释放谈判进行了长达一个多月。今天，在同一时间，白宫新闻发布会正在进行中，苏联外长谢瓦尔德纳泽会见在纽约的记者。全国公共电台的吉姆安吉尔正在白宫，而麦克舒斯特则在苏联外长那边。
“吉姆，自从丹尼洛夫昨天获释，促成他释放的谈判细节到昨天一直不为所知，这样的在讨论这次峰会前公布丹尼洛夫事件的商议结果，是否显得突如其来？”
“显得突如其来的是我们不知道它会这时候发生。如果你看到截至今天在筹备和讨论首脑会晤的整个情况就不会觉得惊讶了。当然，在美国已表示不会出席峰会之前，丹尼洛夫案件勉勉强强地解决了，总统今天说，如果丹尼洛夫仍然被扣留，他就无法参加这个首脑会议前的筹备会议。今天，问题得到了解决。至少我们听到这个问题的解决的其他细节，包括这根纳季扎哈罗夫事实，他被指控为苏联间谍，在承认控罪后纽约法庭准许他离开美国。该问题的解决为首脑会议的筹备工作扫清了道路。这次会上，当然是由戈尔巴乔夫总书记提议的，有关此次预备首脑会议，在一封9月19日苏联外长谢瓦尔德纳泽写给里根总统的信中提到。当然是在解决了扎哈罗夫问题之后才宣布的，双方均表示，他们认为丹尼洛夫问题应参照一个或两个细节解决，现在在今年晚些时候举行首脑会议没有任何障碍了。”
“在今天上午的新闻发布会上里根总统和国务卿舒尔茨强调，没有过尼古拉丹尼洛夫交易之说。吉姆，是这是一项交易吗？”
“嗯，很明显，丹尼洛夫的获释，扎哈罗夫的快速审判和递解出境，以及释放苏联持不同政见者都是一揽子事情中的一部分。但是延伸说明是很重要的，尤其是在外交界用先例原则术语来讲，美国坚持认为，这里没有任何交易。他们说，丹尼洛夫未经审判而被释放，暗示着承认了（交易存在），如果你愿意，在苏联看来，他不是个间谍。另一方面，扎哈罗夫，承认了间谍罪的指控，在一定意义上，按美国的说法，以他的立场。里根总统今天在白宫发言强调，他说这是两回事。‘两者被释放的事之间没有联系。我不知道到目前为止你在说什么。但也有其他安排，关于扎哈罗夫，他被释放了。’玛尔戈，总统指出美国在这一整套所涉及的事项只包括了这样的贸易，苏联允许人权活动家尤里奥尔洛夫和他的妻子10月7日离开苏联。”
Section Three: Special Report
Today in the Supreme Court of the United States, a case involving maternity leave: at issue whether, states may require employers to guarantee that pregnant workers are able to return to their jobs after a limited period of unpaid disability leave. NPR\'s Nina Totenberg reports.
Nine states already have laws or regulations that require all employers to protect the jobs of workers who are disabled by pregnancy or childbirth. Depending on what the Supreme Court rules in the case it heard today, those laws will either die or flourish. The test case is from California. It began with Lillian Garland, the receptionist at California Federal Savings and Loan. In 1982, she returned to work after having a child and found she had no job.
“After working for California Federal for over three and a half years, I was told at that time they no longer had apposition available for me. My question was, ‘Well, what about the job that I\'ve had for so many years?’ And they said, ‘We hired the person that you trained in your place.’ I was in shock.”
Officials at California Federal say Garland should not have been surprised, that she\'d been told at the time she took pregnancy leave that her job was not guaranteed. But the fact is that California law requires all employers in the state to provide up to four months\' disability leave for pregnant workers. The leave time is unpaid, and it is only available to women who, because of pregnancy or childbirth, are physically unable to work. The law does require that such workers get back the same job unless business necessity makes that impossible. So when Lillian Garland was told she couldn\'t have her old job back, she filed discrimination charges against the bank. The bank then challenged the California pregnancy disability law in court, claiming that the state law amounted to illegal sex discrimination. The bank\'s reasoning went like this: Federal law bans discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, but the state law mandates disability leave to women for pregnancy while denying the same leave time to men who are disabled by other ailments, such as heart attacks and strokes. California counters that the state law does not discriminate between men and women, that it treats them both the same as to, all, ailments, but grant disability leave only to pregnant workers. Moreover, California argues that the state law in fact equalizes the situation between men and women, allowing them both to have children without lost their job. The pregnancy disability case has produced some strange bedfellows. The Reagan Administration is siding with the California business community in arguing that federal law requires no special treatment for pregnancy. Many of the major national women\'s organizations agree, but argue that the way to cure the problem is to give everybody unpaid disability leave in case of illness. Other women\'s organizations, particularly in California, argue that singling out pregnancy for special treatment is not sex discrimination. Feminist Betty Friedan defends the California law.
“It\'s not discrimination against men to do something about the fact that women give birth to children. It\'s a fact of life. If men could carry the baby, if men could go through the nine months, if men could have the labor pain, you know, they also should have coverage for pregnancy. You\'re not discriminating against men; you\'re recognizing a fact of life: that women are different than men.”
On the other side, the lawyer for the bank, Ted Olson, argues that special treatment for pregnancy is obviously discrimination, and that California companies risk being by one group of people if they follow federal law and by another group of people if they follow state law.
“The California law requires special treatment of pregnancy; the federal law requires equal treatment of pregnancy. An employer entitled to know which law it must follow.”
The fact is, though, that much of the California business community objects, most of all, to being told that it has to provide a disability leave. Here is Don Butler, President of the Merchants an Manufacturers Association, which is a party to this law suit.
“What we have to get back to, though, is who\'s going to set the disability leave policies. Is the federal government, is the state of California, or are we, the employers, going to set? You, the employee, have the choice of working for our company under the following conditions or working for another company under other conditions. And I believe that that was what built this country to be a great free enterprise system. And if we\'re going to legislate it, then we\'re going to destroy a lot of the incentives to ...\'
“But basically you don\'t want to be told to have a disability policy at all.”
“Right.”
In the Supreme Court this morning, perhaps the pivotal question was asked by Justice Louis Powell, who posed a hypothetical situation to California Deputy Attorney General Marion Johnston. Let us assume,” said Justice Powell, that a man and a woman in the same company leave their jobs on the same day: he, because he is ill; she, because she\'s about to have a child. And they return on the \'same day, but under the California law she gets her job back and he does not. Is that fair? asks Justice Powell. Lawyer Johnston responded, It may not be fair, but it\'s legal. California law,\' she said, “simply requires that employers treat all their employees, men and women, in the same way with respect to pregnancy. But, since men don’t get pregnant, they don\'t get the time off.” A decision in the California case is not expected until next year. I\'m Nina Totenberg in Washington.
美国最高法院1987年1月对莉莲加兰德案做出裁定，支持莉莲加兰德的诉讼请求。图为莉莲加兰德和女儿在一起
第三节 特别报道 美国最高法院审理加州一产假诉讼
今天在美国最高法院，一件涉及产假的案件：问题在于，各州应该要求雇主保证怀孕工人能够在一段有限的无薪假期后可以返回原工作岗位。全国公共电台的尼娜托滕伯格报道。
9个州已有的法律或法规，要求所有雇主必须保护因怀孕或分娩员工的饭碗。根据最高法院规定，此案将在今天听证，这些法律将被决定是寿终正寝还是继续有效。选做判例标准的案件来自加州。莉莲加兰德是加利福尼亚州联邦储蓄信贷的接待员。 1982年，她生了小孩后，回去工作的时候发现她的工作没有了。
“在为加州联邦工作了三年半的时间，有人告诉我当时他们不再为我提供同样的岗位。我的问题是，‘好吧，我已经工作这么多年了怎么办？’ 他们说，‘你来培训我们为你这个职位雇用的新人’。我感到很震惊。”
加州联邦官员们说，加兰德不应该感到震惊，已经告诉过她，如果因为怀孕请假她的工作无法得到保证。但事实是，加州法律规定在该州，所有雇主提供最多4个月的怀孕假。休假是无薪的，而只对妇女，因怀孕或分娩而身体无法工作时有效。法律要求这些工人返回后除非业务上的需要，否则应该担当相同的工作。因此，当莉莲加兰德被告知她不能继续原来的工作时，她对银行提出歧视指控。然后，银行在法庭上质疑加州的分娩休假法律，称这是州法律，属于非法性别歧视。以该银行的推理应该是这样：联邦法律基于怀孕的规定就是就业歧视，但国家法律规定：怀孕妇女可以休假，而患有其他疾病，如突发性心脏病和中风的男子却不能有同样的休假时间。加州法庭应对说，州法律中没有规定男女之间的区别，对双方无论患有何种疾病都一视同仁，但产假只针对怀孕员工。此外，加州法院认为，加州法律上男女之间处于平等地位，让他们都不会因为有了孩子而失去工作。怀孕假案子产生了一些歧义。里根政府与加州商业界站在一边，他们认为联邦法律不应该对怀孕有特殊规定。各大主要的全国妇女组织都同意，但认为解决问题的方法是每个人都在生病的时候得到无薪休假。其他妇女组织，尤其是在加利福尼亚州的，认为挑出怀孕的特殊待遇不是性别歧视。女权主义者贝蒂弗里丹便在维护加州法律。
加州州府办公楼，形似美国国会大厦
“这不是对男性的歧视，事实上妇女在生育孩子。这是一个不争的事实。如果男人能怀上孩子，如果男人能十月怀胎，如果男人可以会产生的阵痛，你知道，他们也应该能怀孕。你不是歧视男性，你应该认识到生活的事实：女性确实和男性不一样。”
至于其他方面，银行方面的律师，特德奥尔森律师认为，怀孕的特殊待遇，显然是歧视，而加利福尼亚州的公司正在冒着风险，有一群人依据的是联邦法律和另一批人依据加州法律。
“加州法律规定怀孕有特殊待遇，联邦法律要求怀孕需同等待遇。雇主有权知道应该遵循哪项法律。”
事实是，虽然，大部分加州商界机构，绝大多数是都给与产假。唐巴特勒，一位制造商招商协会主席，这是对该法律提出诉讼的一方。
“我们必须要回头看看，是谁去规定的产假政策。是联邦政府，是加利福尼亚州，还是我们这些雇主规定的？而你们员工，选择在我公司的条件下工作或在另一家公司的条件下工作。我相信，这就是建立这个国家的伟大的自由企业制度。如果我们要立法规定，那么，我们要删掉一些奖励...”
“不过，基本上你不会愿意被告知还有一个产假政策。”
“对。”
今天上午在最高法院，法官路易斯鲍威尔提出了一个关键问题，他对加州副检察长马里昂约翰斯顿提出了一个假设的情况。“让我们假设”，鲍威尔法官说，“一个男人和一个女人在同一公司，同一天的离开工作：他是因为病了，她是因为要生孩子了。当他们同一天又返回工作，但根据加州法律，她获得了工作回来，他却没有。这样公平吗？”法官鲍威尔这样问。律师约翰斯顿回答说：“这可能不公平，但它合法。符合加州的法律，”她说：“只要求雇主一样对待所有的雇员，无论男人和女人，同样对待怀孕问题。但是，由于男人不能怀孕，他们就不能请假。”加利福尼亚州一个案件的裁决不到明年是不会有指望的。我是尼娜托滕伯格在华盛顿报道。
