The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, Charles Krause covers the Americas Summit in Miami, Mark Shields and Paul Gigot analyze the political week, and Elizabeth Brackett reports on the fight over a new kind of school. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders was fired today by President Clinton. Elders was Arkansas Health Department director when Mr. Clinton was governor. Her tenure in Washington has been marked by differences with the administration over legalizing drugs and condom distribution in the schools. Today's departure came after Elders told a meeting that schools should consider teaching masturbation to discourage riskier sexual behavior. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said that comment was "one too many." He said that the President feels that's wrong, that's not what the schools are for, and it's not what the Surgeon General should say. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton opened the summit of the Americas today. The three-day, thirty-four nation meeting in Miami is aimed at expanding trade throughout the hemisphere. Mr. Clinton called for a free trade zone extending from Alaska to Argentina.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If we're successful, the summit will lead to more jobs, opportunity and prosperity for our children and for generations to come. We will have launched a new partnership for prosperity. If we act wisely, then we can make this new world work for us. Trade can be a benefit to our people. When we have the opportunity to sell American products and services around the world, we know we can compete, and we know that means new jobs and a rising standard of living, the core of the American dream. One of the only ways we can create those jobs is to expand trade, especially in this hemisphere, so that's why every American worker in every part of the United States should be glad we are all here today at the Summit of the Americas.

MR. LEHRER: And we'll have more on the summit right after this News Summary.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Defense Sec. Perry today announced $7.8 billion in delays or cancellation of major new weapons systems. Among the changes is reducing funding for the Air Force's F-22 fighter. It means a delay in the introduction of the Stealth attack jet. Perry said that and other cutbacks would have been more severe if the President had not asked for a $25 billion increase in the Defense budget last week. Perry also said today the U.N. had not yet decided to pull its peacekeepers out of Bosnia, but if it did, U.S. forces under NATO command would lead the effort. He said it was consistent with the U.S. leadership role in NATO. He spoke at a Pentagon news conference.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: We are prepared to participate fully and as a leader in this operation, and, therefore, I'll expect we'll have a substantial percentage total, particularly considering that some of the other countries involved already have troops on the ground there. If we go in this operation, if NATO goes in in this operation, we're not going in with a token force. We'll want to go in with a strong enough force that will command respect, because it's my judgment that is the best way of avoiding problems, is having a strong enough force that nobody sees it as an inviting target. And by strong enough, I'm talking not only about numbers but in the kind of armament, weapons they will take in with them.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In Bosnia today, the Serbs allowed a U.N. aid convoy into the Bihac area for the first time in two months. They also released another 67 peacekeepers they have been detaining for more than two weeks. They still hold more than 200. The Serbs also fired three missiles into Bihac, killing one person and wounding seven.

MR. LEHRER: More than 300 people were killed when a fire swept through a theater in Northwest China last night. Many of the dead were children. At least 100 people were injured. A preliminary investigation showed the fire may have been caused a by short circuit. British officials today met with representatives from Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA. The Belfast talks were aimed at bringing Sinn Fein in to all party discussions on the future of Northern Ireland. The two sides agreed to hold another session later this month.

MS. FARNSWORTH: About 30 Cubans are still missing from refugee camps in Panama following two days of rioting. The rest of 1,000 refugees who escaped have been recaptured. Two hundred and thirty- six U.S. soldiers and at least seventeen Cubans were injured. One Cuban drowned while trying to escape. They were protesting the slow pace of their transfer to the U.S. and other countries. Vice President Gore said today there would be no change in U.S. immigration policy.

MR. LEHRER: The Federal Aviation Administration today banned two commuter airplanes from flying in icy weather. They are the ATR-72 and the ATR-42. Sixty-eight people died in the crash of an American Eagle ATR-72 in October. FAA Chief David Hinson said the cause of that crash has not yet been determined but that icing is a likely element. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Americas Summit, Shields and Gigot, and charter schools. FOCUS - TRADING PARTNERS

MS. FARNSWORTH: Our lead tonight is the summit of the Americas, the first gathering of the leaders of North and South America in more than 25 years. Trade is the main topic, but other questions from democracy to drugs to immigration will also be discussed over the next three days in Miami. President Clinton kicked off a summit weekend with a speech to a group of Miami citizens. He said this summit should build on the North American Free Trade Agreement of last year and the new world trade agreement, GATT, which Congress approved last week.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We have a real opportunity here to build on the momentum of NAFTA and GATT. That's what this new partnership for prosperity is all about, creating a free trade area that stretches from Alaska to Argentina. Think about it -- from Alaska to Argentina. People have talked about free trade in this hemisphere for years. It's been talked about and talked about. The difference is here in Miami we have the chance to act, and we're going to take it. [applause] Let me try to describe in graphic terms what this means. Latin America is already the fastest-growing region in the world for American exports. Of every dollar Latin Americans spend on exports, 44 cents buy goods made in the USA. Despite trade barriers that are on average four times higher than ours, Florida alone sold almost $9 billion worth of goods in the Americas in last year alone. And by the year 2005, if current trends continue, our country will sell more to Latin America than to Western Europe or Japan. That's why we're here. That's an investment worth making. But trade is not the only goal of this meeting. The second goal of our summit must be to preserve and strengthen our community of democracy. Continued economic prosperity clearly depends upon keeping the democracies alive and stronger. And we can only do that if we address the dangers to democracy that face all nations. Many of the dangers we face -- consider them -- international crime, narcotics trafficking, terrorism, environmental degradation, these things can only be overcome if we act in harmony.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Charles Krause is covering the summit for us. Earlier today, he taped a discussion about the prospects for the Miami meeting. That discussion took place at the University of Miami, Coral Gables.

MR. KRAUSE: With us now are three summit participants. Eduardo Aninat is the finance minister of Chile. Enrique Iglesias is president of the American Development Bank. And from the United States, Bowman Cutter, deputy director of the National Economic Council which advises the President on economic policy. Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Iglesias, the President spoke eloquently about a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but there were very few specifics. Are you concerned that this might be just more rhetoric?

ENRIGUE IGLESIAS, Inter-American Development Bank: No, I don't think so at all for different reasons. In the first place because the objectives have been espoused very clear. This country wants to move towards a free trade area in the near future. Secondly, because Latin Americans are also expecting to join this effort, and we hope very much that Chile will be very, very soon part of the club. Apart from that, we are not prepared to joint NAFTA, even if we wanted to do so. This is a serious challenge, and although the objective is there, it is time to prepare ourselves for the reality and conditions to meet the challenges and the big, big opportunity that will be realized.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Cutter, the president of Bolivia has suggested publicly that without a specific timetable for implementing free trade in the hemisphere that this could be a disappointing summit from his perspective. Is the United States prepared to, to announce a timetable at the end of the summit?

BOWMAN CUTTER, National Economic Council: Well, I don't know if a timetable would be achieved during the meeting. It really does depend, from our perspective, on whether there is a large enough group of the leaders who want to do that. If I could comment just for one second on the comments already made, because I agree completely with them, is the reason why this is real has really little to do with whether or not there's a particular line or so on. It is that this is the right moment, and it's the right moment both from the perspective of the other nations of the hemisphere and from that of that of the United States.

MR. KRAUSE: Now, there have been reports that the administration was not prepared to have trade as the focus of this summit as recently as a few months ago, and that it really was Latin America that was pushing the United States toward this summit and toward trade as the focus of this summit. Is that true?

BOWMAN CUTTER: No, it's not. We felt that a strong perspective with a strong thrust and a central focus of this summit had to be trade and immigration from the beginning or it simply would not be a success. For some rather arcane reasons having to do with U.S. legislative maneuverings which I won't bore you with, we didn't lead with that in our first consultations, but it has always been the case that we felt if this were not, if trade and immigration were not at the center of the summit, it would not be this successful.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Aninat, there have been reports, and Mr. Iglesias referred to them, that Chile on Sunday at the end of the summit will be invited to begin negotiations to become the next member of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. Can you confirm that, in fact, Chile will be becoming a member?

EDUARDO ANINAT, Finance Minister, Chile: Well, that is the matter of the summit, itself, but I can say that Chile has worked very hard to meet the standards. We are ready to go. We could say that from a Chilean perspective, we are the bride to be. We are prepared in all respects. This is a country which has grown, 11 years non- stop growth, increased its savings, investment rate, and it's been very, very open toward trade. So we look forward to a special relationship with the USA, Canada, and Mexico, and we are hopeful that the summit achieves a lot of progress along this line.

MR. KRAUSE: Why does Chile want to become a part of NAFTA?

EDUARDO ANINAT: Well, we believe very strongly in integration of world markets, both in trade, both for financial services and especially for the right investment, cross-border investment. In fact, parts of our very strong recovery have been produced, creating good jobs exactly because of being open to trade and investment, and, therefore, we believe that creating a networking throughout the Americas is the real ball game to finish this century in good shape.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Cutter, why is it in the interest of the United States to have yet another member of NAFTA?

BOWMAN CUTTER: Precisely the reasons, the mirror-image reasons that the minister just stated. We believe that trade immigration for the reasons that the President stated, I thought quite eloquently, this morning benefits both American producers and consumers. And it can only do that by benefiting both producers and consumers in the nations with which we're more closely integrated.

MR. KRAUSE: And yet, everyone always says it's a win-win situation. That's what was said about Mexico with regard to NAFTA last year. And the trade figures would indicate that it's a win situation for the United States, but Mexico, in fact, has had some political instability as a result of this. In fact, there's some question about the benefit to some of the Latin countries. Mr. Iglesias, is it sure, are you sure, are you certain that free trade is going to benefit Latin America?

ENRIGUE IGLESIAS: Well, the lessons of history are there. We are not simply inventing history. We are simply reading history. Again, the case of Chile is a very good example, how opening of the economy is proving to be a major engine of wealth of Chile. And the same applies to the whole region. You see Latin America undertook in recent years the very, very dynamic forces of opening the economies not because someone was asking for it, because the countries discovered that it was the best way to modernize the economies, open opportunities for new jobs, and expanding their role in the economies, so history is there, and experience. The reason that things are improving, exactly what it means, opening the economy to the international markets.

MR. KRAUSE: At the same time, you have been one of the Latin American leaders who has been warning Latin America for some time that free trade does not necessarily solve the problems of poverty, the problems of economic inequality, which clearly exists in Latin America, and which the President spoke about today.

ENRIGUE IGLESIAS: Right. Nobody is implying that. What we are saying is that we need to grow and we need at the same time make everything possible to make this growth mean something for the people which is in the social debt that we have in Latin America. But it impossible to get to a solution to the social debt of Latin America if you don't grow, and in order to grow, you must have an expanding economy, and this is implies exports and imports, both of them.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Cutter, from the U.S. point of view now, what are the main obstacles to reaching the hemispherewide free trade agreement?

BOWMAN CUTTER: My own sense is that the major psychological obstacle has gone. As I said in opening, I think we all believe, is that this is the moment, and this is something we want to do, and we believe centrally is in our interest, and it is something that all of the nations in the hemisphere we think have now come to a similar decision. It seems to me now that all of us have within domestically groups that are concerned about its impacts, who fear its impacts, and it is the reason why a political commitment tomorrow is so important is that the leaders need to understand that each of the others is going to constantly push with a high sense of urgency, because there will be continuing opposition to this, even though the vast bulk of the American society now believes this is in their interest. So I think that the real barrier is, is the -- or the real need is to have a continual sense of urgency about moving forward with due speed.

MR. KRAUSE: But at the same time, there have been reports now that the administration, the President is prepared to announce some sort of timetable or deadline for reaching the end of negotiations for a free trade agreement, and year 2005 has been talked about. Is that likely to happen? Is that at leastone of the ways that this urgency can be kind of implemented?

BOWMAN CUTTER: Well, as I've said, we've long felt that a timetable and a deadline would be important if we were joined in that by all of the other leaders in the summit. We have no interest in simply stating that, so that if that emerges, and if we can secure it together, we'd be happy to do it, and yes, it would contribute to the momentum.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Aninat, there is GATT, which is the worldwide trade agreement. There is NAFTA, which Chile apparently will become a member of. Why does the hemisphere need yet another free trade agreement, a hemisphere free trade agreement?

EDUARDO ANINAT: We believe that a lot can be added to existing trade laws by building further momentum on what has been happening because basically the issue of committing all of our countries and our economy, especially, to openness of trade in terms of laws, services, and creating better employment opportunities for all, create a sort of virtue circle. There is income expansion throughout the region, and this will mean further opening of new investment opportunities for the business sector and higher quality jobs for everyone. We believe that we can build on what we have and provide more dynamic to it all.

MR. KRAUSE: But let me ask you this. Maybe, Mr. Iglesias, do you see this Western Hemisphere Free Trade Agreement, is this different than NAFTA? Is it different from GATT, or is it an extension of NAFTA, in other words, each country will simply be invited to join NAFTA as Chile will be?

ENRIGUE IGLESIAS: I think all countries in the region are making efforts on their own and other countries in the region to move towards integration. What we see here is a movement from different sources trying to converge at a certain time in an open, free trade area in the whole region. This is complimentary. And it is also complimentary to the GATT efforts. GATT establishes that there is a possibility, and they welcome the establishment of free trade area as a way to reach the major objectives of a worldwide and open market, so there is no, no opposition to this complimentarity. And this is the way I think.

EDUARDO ANINAT: It's GATT-consistent.

ENRIGUE IGLESIAS: Yes.

BOWMAN CUTTER: If I could add to Mr. Iglesias' comments, with which I agree, the fact is there are other sub-regional groupings in Latin America. There is, there is, for example, the Merca Sur, and the -- of which --

MR. KRAUSE: Which is Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

BOWMAN CUTTER: Which is Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Brazil, and the -- my own sense is that we will see a long-term process of convergence or a fairly rapid process of convergency there.

MR. KRAUSE: All right, gentlemen, we've run out of time, and I thank you very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot, and charter schools. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now, end-of-the-week political analysis with Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Today's news, the going of Joycelyn Elders as surgeon general, how do you read that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Had to go. For one thing, the President found himself, quite aside from her remarks, on the wrong side of the values debate in this country, at least his party on the wrong side. It was seen as permissive. It was seen as excessively tolerant and not strong enough for what people regard as traditional values and obviously what the President wants to be and wants his party to be. And she had become an embarrassment, beyond an embarrassment. The only group of voters, religious group of voters, representing more than 4 percent of the electorate that the President carried, the President's party carried in the most recent elections, Jim, were Catholics, 52 percent of whom voted Democratic. And she's systematically abused them and the --

MR. LEHRER: And the abortion issue.

MR. SHIELDS: The abortion issue, attacked priests for wearing skirts, and all sorts of other things.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. SHIELDS: And so, I mean, she really, she really had become an embarrassment, a burden, and I think in fairness to the White House, this wasn't like the David Watkins, the fellow on the helicopter, and going out to the golf course, and they passed the hat, raised the money to reimburse, and all the rest of it. This came up. Leon Panetta acted on it, and listed Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health & Human Services as ally. She agreed with him. The confrontation was made. The resignation was sought, and it was done.

MR. LEHRER: And it was done? And it should have been done, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: About the best thing you can say about this from the White House point of view is that they did it this week before they would have been forced to do it next week after it had made all the talk shows and it had become really --

MR. LEHRER: This thing came about, we should point out, because of a statement she made that masturbation should -- could be taught in the schools.

MR. GIGOT: Right.

MR. LEHRER: She said it at a thing on December 1st at an AIDS conference. It's going to be published in Monday's U.S. News & World Report.

MR. GIGOT: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: And the White House apparently read this today and got on the phone and fired her, is that --

MR. GIGOT: Yeah. I think that's pretty much what happened. There had been Democratic politicians who'd been urging her to be dismissed even before this for the kind of other statements she'd made, because if you -- when you went around during the election campaign in the South and even in some Northern ethnic districts, there were two issues on the values debate which really you heard a lot about. One was gays in the military, and the other was Joycelyn Elders. And I think that the White House knew that, and then they were looking -- if they weren't looking for an opportunity, they were going to take one that presented itself.

MR. LEHRER: And, in fact, she did 'em a favor, is what you're saying, is that right?

MR. GIGOT: Politically I think so. I mean, I really do. I think a lot of Republicans were happy to have here there for the next two years. No question about it.

MR. LEHRER: Because they could always --

MR. SHIELDS: She was a nice bookend to Jesse Helms every time Jesse Helms said something.

MR. GIGOT: Two weeks ago I said that Jesse Helms was in danger of becoming the Republican Joycelyn Elders. I think I was a little unfair to Jesse.

MR. LEHRER: You know, earlier in the week, the guilty pleas by Webster Hubbell, another friend of the President from Arkansas, the politics aside on this, Mark, this has been an extremely tough two years, has it not, for people who came with the new President, with their President, with their man from Arkansas, to serve in his administration? It's just been one tragic situation after another.

MR. SHIELDS: Jim, one Republican pointed out to me this week, Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan went back to California after eight years in Washington, picked up the pieces of their life very easily, not that it had shattered in any way but they just resumed what they've been doing and with their life very much intact. George and Barbara Bush, I mean, the sting of defeat inflicted pain no doubt, but after 12 years in town went to Houston, and their life was a full one and a rich one. Bill and Hillary Clinton, regardless of what happens in 1996, if he runs or doesn't run, if he wins or doesn't win, if he serves another term, it'll never be the same. I mean, if you think about Vince Foster, if you think about Web Hubbell, who was a close and dear friend, who really, Web Hubbell is the best, I think, of Arkansas in Washington by Washington's judgment. I say that in the most positive sense. Everybody who worked with him thought highly of him that I know. He was a guy who had the trust, he had great judgment. He could make a decision, and out of nowhere, $390,000, and so --

MR. LEHRER: Here again, for those who've been asleep the last few days, $390,000 which he admitted that he --

MR. SHIELDS: Stole.

MR. LEHRER: -- stole through false billing at his law firm back in Little Rock. This was long before he came to Washington and started working for the Justice Department.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. And William Kennedy, the other counsel in the White House is going back to Arkansas.

MR. LEHRER: And you mentioned Watkins. This has been a long list.

MR. SHIELDS: It really has.

MR. LEHRER: What is the Web Hubbell thing, specifically, Paul, other than the personal tragedy and all that sort of thing, are there likely to be some Whitewater ramifications from this, or is too early to know?

MR. GIGOT: Well, the key word is cooperating. That's what he's doing with the special counsel. There's an auditor who also from - - not the Rose Law Firm, but the from the Madison Guaranty, the savings & loan, who also cut a deal, who is, who is also cooperating, so there could very well be. There's also a question about Web Hubbell was in the Justice Department when the President fired all of the sitting U.S. attorneys in early 1993. And then there was a -- we know at that time there was a criminal referral that was made from the Resolution Trust Corporation on the savings & loan to the Justice Department that was not acted upon by one of the replacement attorney generals that were appointed. We might find something out about that. That's something that the special counsel and the hearings are going to explore.

MR. LEHRER: And with the Republicans in charge of the House and the Senate, there are going to be plenty of opportunities for Web Hubbell to come before a hearing, raise his right hand, and answer those kinds of questions. Is that what you're suggesting?

MR. GIGOT: Well, Al D'Amato is, of course, a reticent fellow who doesn't really like to -- absolutely. There's going to be plenty of opportunities, and they're going to take them I think early and often.

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I do. I think that in the same sense, Jim, the President may have gotten a little lift in this whole thing by the fact that Ken Starr, a certified Republican with Republican credentials is there, and if there's going to be any restraint on Sen. D'Amato, which --

MR. LEHRER: Because he will now be chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

MR. SHIELDS: The Senate Banking Committee, Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, a far more moderate and I think prudence given to Sen. D'Amato, at least he's never sung E-E-A-I-O on the Senate floor, House floor.

MR. LEHRER: Which Sen. D'Amato did.

MR. SHIELDS: Sen. D'Amato has, replete with pictures of Porky Pig. You know, I think that there is --

MR. LEHRER: People don't know what that's all about.

MR. SHIELDS: Al D'Amato is a figure of some informality. How's that? Is that --

MR. LEHRER: That's fine. All right. Let's go to the Times-Mirror polls this week, Paul. There are a lot of things in it, but none of it too good for the President. But one, in particular, that 2/3 of the Democrats polled wanted Mr. Clinton challenged for the 1996 Democratic nomination. Is that as stunning as it appears to be, just starkly said like that?

MR. GIGOT: I think astonishing. I can't think of a President, a sitting President, in a comparable position. Really, I mean, Ronald Reagan was down in terms of approval rating as low as Bill Clinton is now in 1982, but Ronald Reagan lived through the recession. He hadn't had his party run away from him in 1982 the way Bill Clinton did in 1994, and he had a theme. He had a narrative. He said, "Stay the course. We'll come out of the recession. If you listen to me, follow me, we'll come out." They did, and he had a course back. The problem with the President, I think, and what these polls reflect is that there is no theme there. There is no narrative. He gave a very forceful speech this week in Washington to the Democratic Leadership Council, forceful in the sense of passionate, almost angry, but it didn't have a road map. It didn't say here's how we're going to get back to the majority, here's how we're going to win in '96.

MR. LEHRER: But now he's apparently going to make a speech this coming week, Mark, where he's going to lay out some guide posts, et cetera. It's a tough road though, right?

MR. SHIELDS: It is a tough road, Jim. I think that there's no question that all of the -- as the Times-Mirror poll, itself, reflected -- I think it just confirms what all of us see. All of the attention, the energy, the momentum has shifted to the Republicans. People want to give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. They want to give them a chance now. People's optimism now resides with the Republicans, just as it resided with the new President two years ago, and so we had this activist conservative majority in the Congress. We never had an activist conservative majority.

MR. GIGOT: Don't act so shocked.

MR. SHIELDS: No, but we've never had one before. We've never had one. It's a brand new thing. So they're trying to get their act together, and they had some stumbles this week. They're used to just getting up there and voting no. And now they're trying to put together a positive program, and you got to cost the thing out, you got to do this, and there's got to be some problems, but there's no question, Jim, that the most unsettling figure in that whole poll for the Democrats was self-identification, i.e., to ask people do you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican? When Ronald Reagan swept into the White House in 1990, Americans still by a two to one margin described themselves as Democrats, rather than Republicans. And that poll showed 35 percent of thought of themselves as Republicans and 30 percent Democrats, and that has to be -- it's an enormous change.

MR. LEHRER: Now the stumbling Republicans, as Mark referred to, Paul. On Newt Gingrich, he said yesterday that it was a mistake for him to have done what he did on "Meet the Press" last Sunday which was raise this issue of 1/4 of the White House staff having been drug users in recent times. Was it a mistake?

MR. GIGOT: I think it was.

MR. LEHRER: He's right when he says it.

MR. GIGOT: He's right. That's right for a couple of reasons. But the main one I think is that it stumbled all over his story. I mean, the next day, he said this on Sunday, the next day on Monday, he was nominated and voted Speaker-to-Be by the Republicans. It ought to have been a triumphant moment with the focus on a speech that he was delivering, the message that he was delivering. Instead, he was in a nasty give and take in an interview with Leon Panetta.

MR. LEHRER: I did an interview with Dick Armey that night and spent half of it on that issue because I thought we had to, because Panetta had responded that day and all of that, which makes your point.

MR. GIGOT: That's right. Look, I don't agree with Mark that this has been stumbling. I think nobody has dominated this city in a way that Newt -- in a long time the way that Newt Gingrich has in the last month. I mean, he sneezes, and the town, you know, looks all over him. He is really dominating the agenda. The problem is that he's so glib, he's so kind of good on his feet that he has a little bit of the Clinton problem. Sometimes he talks too much and stumbles on his own message. I think he's got to learn that discipline.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I don't think there's any question, Jim. You only go on those Sunday shows for one reason, and that is the print story that's going to be in the Monday papers. That's the only reason that any political figure goes on those shows. You don't go on there because of the size of the audience.

MR. LEHRER: Monday is a slow news day.

MR. SHIELDS: Monday's a slow news day. You could dominate it. You could go out and say, this is the day I'm announcing I'm going to run for lieutenant governor of Montana, and, gee, say, oh, Lehrer announces he's running for lieutenant governor of Montana, so Paul is right. I mean, Gingrich goes on the air, and he gets a story that lasts till Wednesday, till Wednesday!

MR. LEHRER: And we're talking about it tonight.

MR. LEHRER: We're still talking about it. He's ending up at a reporters' breakfast on Thursday, and, he said, geez, I shouldn't have said it. So I mean, was it a misstep? Yes, it was a serious, serious misstep on his part. Newt Gingrich has a very serious problem. He has to prove at every opportunity he's the smartest guy in the room. I mean, it is a compulsion on his part. And it really is. And he is going to leave you with --

MR. GIGOT: I agree with Mark. The thing is he is the smartest guy in the room in an awful lot of rooms in this city, and that is also the President's problem, because Newt Gingrich is controlling the agenda, and he has a story. He has a story of reform; he has a story of change; he has a story of cut government; and we're going to improve your lives by giving some taxes back. That's a very powerful theme right now, and it's a theme the public, as Mark says, wants to hear.

MR. SHIELDS: It's a powerful theme, Paul, but it is not -- I don't think he is the smartest guy in every room on every --

MR. GIGOT: Not every room.

MR. SHIELDS: And I think that it is a sure prescription for political cover for coming back and trying to explain it the next day --

MR. LEHRER: It's one thing to talk about Jesse Helms and whatever, or Joycelyn Elders. What causes Newt Gingrich to make a mistake like that? And what does that say about him?

MR. GIGOT: I think he's got so much in his head and he just -- he -- first of all, part of it is he's not used to being Speaker of the House, and he was used to knocking off these things and saying a lot of things that people thought, that people didn't give a second thought to when he was in the minority, and now put into headlines, bold print, Monday morning, and talked about for a week. That's the first problem. The second thing is he just loves to talk, and he's good at it, and he has a lot of things in his head, and a lot of messages he wants to deliver, and he has to discipline himself the way Mark says to say the three or four points he really wants to make.

MR. LEHRER: Can he learn that?

MR. SHIELDS: We'll find out. I mean, I think the problem is deeper than that. Newt Gingrich is an insurgent. Newt Gingrich is a guerrilla fighter. He is a guy that had to get attention. When you were a back bench Republican, Jim, you couldn't get arrested in this town and get covered. I mean, let's be frank about it. Nobody paid any attention. Nobody knew their names. They knew they were good, gray fellows up there who were going back to a Rotary Club somewhere. Now all of a sudden, he's Speaker of the House, and in order to get attention when you're in that back bench, you have to say things that are increasingly more provocative, maybe even outrageous, and that was Gingrich's formula. He would say things that were interesting and insightful and outrageous.

MR. LEHRER: And outrageous as it may appear, we have to go now. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Paul. FINALLY - CHARTER SCHOOLS

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, a Michigan debate about something called charter schools. Supporters say they're the way to improve the quality of public education. Opponents claim they will seriously harm it. It's a debate that's being closely watched in many states with similar laws. Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW reports.

MS. BRACKETT: The Noah Webster Academy is one of the most innovative and controversial schools in the state of Michigan. There are no students here, only a room full of teachers talking on the telephone. Parents who home school their children can call in any time for help.

TEACHER: [on phone] It's very important for her to begin to see how that number system works in relationship to adding and subtracting.

MS. BRACKETT: Noah Webster's 1717 students are located in homes throughout the state of Michigan. Parents teach their children using workbooks, lesson plans, and study guides they have purchased. They are guided through the process by teachers back at the academy. Noah Webster was founded after the state legislature passed a law last December allowing for the creation of charter schools. The law said a charter school was a public school but one that operated outside the traditional system, independently of a board of education, but one that would still be eligible to receive public funds just like any public school. Noah Webster was one of ten schools granted charters for this school year. Home schooling is not new in Michigan but applying for state funds in order to set up a network of home schoolers is. Under the law, founder David Kallman would have been eligible for $10 million in state aid. He had hoped to use the money to connect all his home schoolers via an interactive computer network.

DAVID KALLMAN, Noah Webster School: We don't have classrooms. That's the whole point. This is a new type of learning. it's a new type of educational process.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Gov. John Engler has made charter schools a centerpiece of his education program.

GOV. JOHN ENGLER, Michigan: Charter schools will become centers of excellence or, at minimum, centers of innovation. They will allow parents and students and teachers to have more choices. And I think the one thing that is troubling today in public education in America is the only people who have choices are people who arewealthy. That's wrong, and we ought to, we ought to change the system. And that's exactly what we're doing in Michigan. And we'll succeed. The charter school movement won't be turned back.

MS. BRACKETT: It may not be turned back, but it has hit a considerable snag. Critics who thought schools like Noah Webster should not be receiving state funds filed a lawsuit. Two months into the school year, a Michigan circuit court judge ruled that the charter school law violated the state constitution. The court found that since the charter schools were not governed by any publicly- elected board like the State Board of Education, they did not meet the definition of a public school. That means, says constitutional law professor Philip Pryogoski that they were not entitled to state funds.

PHILIP PRYOGOSKI, Thomas Cooley Law School: From a state constitutional perspective, I think the problem is that under the Michigan constitution public money can only be spent for public schools, and that because of the lack of control inherent in this entire system, the charter schools may not be public.

MS. BRACKETT: The governor did not like the decision.

GOV. JOHN ENGLER: I'd sort of argue that it really isn't up to the judge, that the legislature gets to decide what public schools will look like, not this judge, and I think it's one more example of judges that really function as legislators with robes on, inserting their judgment for that of the legislature, and that's fine, except they're not in the legislative branch.

MS. BRACKETT: But Noah Webster was also in trouble with the state superintendent. After the lawsuit was filed, Superintendent Robert Schiller ruled that the academy could not receive state funds because it violated some of the few rules governing charter schools. Students were not taught at a single site, and the main teachers, usually parents, were not certified.

ROBERT SCHILLER, Superintendent of Schools: That did not meet the test of our laws for the state of public schooling. In fact, to take it to the extreme, one of the concerns that we had was that if that was permitted to be funded as a public school, well, to what extent could we throughout our public school system, allow anyone to teach any of the students and create an entire educational system through a 1-800 phone number?

MS. BRACKETT: Kallman insists that Noah Webster meets the state standards for a charter school.

DAVID KALLMAN: There are attendance records kept. There are tests. There are grades. There are reports and paper work sent back and forth. We have phone contact. We have audio-visual and other ways of having contact with the families. We have standardized testing that's required by the law to ensure that children are learning. The proof is in the pudding. You know, we'll be able to prove at year end that children are academically progressing.

MOTHER: [teaching children] And I'll tell you when to go. Go.

MS. BRACKETT: Noah Webster was a target for critics not just for where students were being taught but for what they were being taught. Democrats even used a Noah Webster curriculum as a campaign issue in the recent gubernatorial election.

AD SPOKESMAN: Now Engler's plan will funnel millions more from public to private schools, including a network of home schools sponsored by the far right, where parents teach a curriculum of creationism and fundamentalist doctrine.

TEACHER: [on phone] You're using what curriculum now?

MS. BRACKETT: About half of the Noah Webster students do use a religious-based curriculum. The other half use a well-respected correspondence school curriculum. Howard Simon of the American Civil Liberties Union says that while his organization has defended the use of religious curricula in home schools, it opposes the use of any state funds to pay for such education.

HOWARD SIMON, American Civil Liberties Union: Our concern is to defend, I think, a very traditional, perhaps the most traditional idea in our society, separation of church and state, and our concern, principally, is the diversion of tax dollars here, public education dollars, to -- that would be used to the support of non- public, private, and sectarian education. And I think it's the governor who's being a radical here, trying to divert public moneys to the support of private and maybe even parochial education.

MS. BRACKETT: Noah Webster has Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant families who use separate curricula based on their own religion. But Kallman argues that does not violate the division between church and state.

DAVID KALLMAN: You're not in a classroom where a teacher is standing up and using some particular curriculum, and so it might

MS. BRACKETT: How many of you would not be in school if you were not here?

MALE STUDENT: I wouldn't.

FEMALE STUDENT: I wouldn't.

SECOND FEMALE STUDENT: I'd try to go somewhere, but --

FEMALE STUDENT: If this school shut down and didn't get any funding, I can honestly say I wouldn't go to another school, even if I had the choice, because, I mean, this is my niche, this is my habitat.

MS. BRACKETT: Two bills have been introduced in the lame duck session of the state legislature. One would fund the eight approved charter schools for the remainder of the year. The second would try to bring the charter law in line with the Michigan constitution. Prof. Pryogoski says that will not be easy.

PHILIP PRYOGOSKI: The whole idea of charter schools is that are to be autonomous, are to be independent from state control to provide choice and diversity in education. And I don't know how you reconcile increased control by the state board of education with the autonomy and independence of the schools.

MS. BRACKETT: The governor says there is a way to resolve the conflict.

GOV. JOHN ENGLER: I think we probably should abolish the state board of education. Michigan is a state that's probably committed to local control. In fact, there's no question what is that board doing and for what purpose. It ought to get out of the way, that's what we really ought to do.

MS. BRACKETT: But the critics aren't buying it. They say the governor's real goal is the privatization of public education.

HOWARD SIMON: He has got an ideological commitment to somehow divert public money to the private sector thinking that based on some ideological analysis that the way public schools are going to be improved is by competition with non-public schools. What he wants to accomplish can be accomplished by stimulating all sorts of experimentation and innovation within the public school setting. If he did so, he would not be running afoul of the Michigan constitution which requires that public tax dollars stay under public supervision.

MS. BRACKETT: But Engler is in a good spot to prevail. He just won reelection, 61 percent of the vote. This coming year he'll also have the support of a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican-controlled state board of education. That should bode well for Michigan's charter schools.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This week, the Michigan Senate approved the two bills introduced to help charter schools survive. The Michigan House is expected to vote on the bills early next week. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Friday, Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders was forced to resign after remarks she made about sex education. President Clinton called for a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina at the opening of the Americas Summit in Miami, and the Pentagon announced cuts of more than $7 billion in high-tech weapons. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Elizabeth. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.