英語高級聽力16課（附譯文與圖片）

Lesson Sixteen

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.

第一節 簡明新聞

1. 裏根總統今天宣布，他和蘇聯領導人戈爾巴喬夫將於10月11日和12日在冰島舉行會談，以準備美蘇兩國領導人將於今年晚些時候舉行的首腦會議。這項宣布是在美國記者尼古拉斯丹尼洛夫昨天在莫斯科獲釋和今天早晨紐約的一個法庭開庭對承認間諜控罪的根納季紮哈羅夫要求其在24小時內離境之後做出的。紮哈羅夫現正在回蘇聯途中，而丹尼洛夫已經抵達美國。莫斯科今天也宣布了丹尼洛夫與紮哈羅夫事件的進展和冰島會議計劃。英國廣播公司的彼得拉夫報道。

“這份聲明清楚地表明，這是由戈爾巴喬夫先生邀請進行的，它也指出，這隻是一個為可能舉辦的首腦會議而進行的預備會議。在此指出，蘇聯將會把焦點放在武器的問題上，特別是戰略防禦計劃，或者說是星球大戰計劃。裏根總統拒絕參與的歐洲中程武器的試驗和軍火交易。在另一項聲明中，官方通訊社塔斯社透露，根納季紮哈羅夫已經從關押中被釋放回家。他沒有提到，他在紐約法院承認控罪的事實。接下來是來自蘇聯的首次正式證實，美國記者尼古拉丹尼洛夫被驅逐出境，該則新聞沒有提到他曾經被當作間諜，而是說他是個參與了不當行為的人。”英國廣播公司記者 彼得魯夫在莫斯科報道。

2. 一蘇聯記者，著名的持不同政見者和他的妻子將被允許去美國，這是10月7日國務卿舒爾茨在華盛頓宣布的，他說，奧爾洛夫在幕後全力經營著赫爾辛基民權活動家監督團體。1978年，奧爾洛夫被判處7年徒刑和5年流放。舒爾茨說，奧爾洛夫的釋放是以紮哈羅夫為交換的，與丹尼洛夫的釋放無關。

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

第二節 詳細新聞 美蘇首腦冰島會談前的政治交易

在短短11天裏根總統和蘇聯領導人戈爾巴喬夫將在冰島會晤，這被雙方描述為臨時的首腦會議或是首腦會晤的籌備會議。這一消息是在白宮今天上午的一個由裏根總統舉行的新聞發布會上宣布的，國務卿喬治舒爾茨在昨天召集的一次關於冰島會晤的討論會上，提到了尼古拉丹尼洛夫的獲釋談判。就丹尼洛夫的釋放談判進行了長達一個多月。今天，在同一時間，白宮新聞發布會正在進行中，蘇聯外長謝瓦爾德納澤會見在紐約的記者。全國公共電台的吉姆安吉爾正在白宮，而麥克舒斯特則在蘇聯外長那邊。

“吉姆，自從丹尼洛夫昨天獲釋，促成他釋放的談判細節到昨天一直不為所知，這樣的在討論這次峰會前公布丹尼洛夫事件的商議結果，是否顯得突如其來？”

“顯得突如其來的是我們不知道它會這時候發生。如果你看到截至今天在籌備和討論首腦會晤的整個情況就不會覺得驚訝了。當然，在美國已表示不會出席峰會之前，丹尼洛夫案件勉勉強強地解決了，總統今天說，如果丹尼洛夫仍然被扣留，他就無法參加這個首腦會議前的籌備會議。今天，問題得到了解決。至少我們聽到這個問題的解決的其他細節，包括這根納季紮哈羅夫事實，他被指控為蘇聯間諜，在承認控罪後紐約法庭準許他離開美國。該問題的解決為首腦會議的籌備工作掃清了道路。這次會上，當然是由戈爾巴喬夫總書記提議的，有關此次預備首腦會議，在一封9月19日蘇聯外長謝瓦爾德納澤寫給裏根總統的信中提到。當然是在解決了紮哈羅夫問題之後才宣布的，雙方均表示，他們認為丹尼洛夫問題應參照一個或兩個細節解決，現在在今年晚些時候舉行首腦會議沒有任何障礙了。”

“在今天上午的新聞發布會上裏根總統和國務卿舒爾茨強調，沒有過尼古拉丹尼洛夫交易之說。吉姆，是這是一項交易嗎？”

“嗯，很明顯，丹尼洛夫的獲釋，紮哈羅夫的快速審判和遞解出境，以及釋放蘇聯持不同政見者都是一攬子事情中的一部分。但是延伸說明是很重要的，尤其是在外交界用先例原則術語來講，美國堅持認為，這裏沒有任何交易。他們說，丹尼洛夫未經審判而被釋放，暗示著承認了（交易存在），如果你願意，在蘇聯看來，他不是個間諜。另一方麵，紮哈羅夫，承認了間諜罪的指控，在一定意義上，按美國的說法，以他的立場。裏根總統今天在白宮發言強調，他說這是兩回事。‘兩者被釋放的事之間沒有聯係。我不知道到目前為止你在說什麽。但也有其他安排，關於紮哈羅夫，他被釋放了。’瑪爾戈，總統指出美國在這一整套所涉及的事項隻包括了這樣的貿易，蘇聯允許人權活動家尤裏奧爾洛夫和他的妻子10月7日離開蘇聯。”

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.


美國最高法院1987年1月對莉蓮加蘭德案做出裁定，支持莉蓮加蘭德的訴訟請求。圖為莉蓮加蘭德和女兒在一起

第三節 特別報道 美國最高法院審理加州一產假訴訟

今天在美國最高法院，一件涉及產假的案件：問題在於，各州應該要求雇主保證懷孕工人能夠在一段有限的無薪假期後可以返回原工作崗位。全國公共電台的尼娜托滕伯格報道。

9個州已有的法律或法規，要求所有雇主必須保護因懷孕或分娩員工的飯碗。根據最高法院規定，此案將在今天聽證，這些法律將被決定是壽終正寢還是繼續有效。選做判例標準的案件來自加州。莉蓮加蘭德是加利福尼亞州聯邦儲蓄信貸的接待員。 1982年，她生了小孩後，回去工作的時候發現她的工作沒有了。

“在為加州聯邦工作了三年半的時間，有人告訴我當時他們不再為我提供同樣的崗位。我的問題是，‘好吧，我已經工作這麽多年了怎麽辦？’ 他們說，‘你來培訓我們為你這個職位雇用的新人’。我感到很震驚。”

加州聯邦官員們說，加蘭德不應該感到震驚，已經告訴過她，如果因為懷孕請假她的工作無法得到保證。但事實是，加州法律規定在該州，所有雇主提供最多4個月的懷孕假。休假是無薪的，而隻對婦女，因懷孕或分娩而身體無法工作時有效。法律要求這些工人返回後除非業務上的需要，否則應該擔當相同的工作。因此，當莉蓮加蘭德被告知她不能繼續原來的工作時，她對銀行提出歧視指控。然後，銀行在法庭上質疑加州的分娩休假法律，稱這是州法律，屬於非法性別歧視。以該銀行的推理應該是這樣：聯邦法律基於懷孕的規定就是就業歧視，但國家法律規定：懷孕婦女可以休假，而患有其他疾病，如突發性心髒病和中風的男子卻不能有同樣的休假時間。加州法庭應對說，州法律中沒有規定男女之間的區別，對雙方無論患有何種疾病都一視同仁，但產假隻針對懷孕員工。此外，加州法院認為，加州法律上男女之間處於平等地位，讓他們都不會因為有了孩子而失去工作。懷孕假案子產生了一些歧義。裏根政府與加州商業界站在一邊，他們認為聯邦法律不應該對懷孕有特殊規定。各大主要的全國婦女組織都同意，但認為解決問題的方法是每個人都在生病的時候得到無薪休假。其他婦女組織，尤其是在加利福尼亞州的，認為挑出懷孕的特殊待遇不是性別歧視。女權主義者貝蒂弗裏丹便在維護加州法律。


加州州府辦公樓，形似美國國會大廈

“這不是對男性的歧視，事實上婦女在生育孩子。這是一個不爭的事實。如果男人能懷上孩子，如果男人能十月懷胎，如果男人可以會產生的陣痛，你知道，他們也應該能懷孕。你不是歧視男性，你應該認識到生活的事實：女性確實和男性不一樣。”
至於其他方麵，銀行方麵的律師，特德奧爾森律師認為，懷孕的特殊待遇，顯然是歧視，而加利福尼亞州的公司正在冒著風險，有一群人依據的是聯邦法律和另一批人依據加州法律。

“加州法律規定懷孕有特殊待遇，聯邦法律要求懷孕需同等待遇。雇主有權知道應該遵循哪項法律。”

事實是，雖然，大部分加州商界機構，絕大多數是都給與產假。唐巴特勒，一位製造商招商協會主席，這是對該法律提出訴訟的一方。

“我們必須要回頭看看，是誰去規定的產假政策。是聯邦政府，是加利福尼亞州，還是我們這些雇主規定的？而你們員工，選擇在我公司的條件下工作或在另一家公司的條件下工作。我相信，這就是建立這個國家的偉大的自由企業製度。如果我們要立法規定，那麽，我們要刪掉一些獎勵...”

“不過，基本上你不會願意被告知還有一個產假政策。”

“對。”

今天上午在最高法院，法官路易斯鮑威爾提出了一個關鍵問題，他對加州副檢察長馬裏昂約翰斯頓提出了一個假設的情況。“讓我們假設”，鮑威爾法官說，“一個男人和一個女人在同一公司，同一天的離開工作：他是因為病了，她是因為要生孩子了。當他們同一天又返回工作，但根據加州法律，她獲得了工作回來，他卻沒有。這樣公平嗎？”法官鮑威爾這樣問。律師約翰斯頓回答說：“這可能不公平，但它合法。符合加州的法律，”她說：“隻要求雇主一樣對待所有的雇員，無論男人和女人，同樣對待懷孕問題。但是，由於男人不能懷孕，他們就不能請假。”加利福尼亞州一個案件的裁決不到明年是不會有指望的。我是尼娜托滕伯格在華盛頓報道。