The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news this Monday, the last day of April, President Reagan was cheered by more than a million communists, and he talked of democracy on his last day in China. The government's leading economic indicators dropped for the first time in 18 months. New federal rules designed to ease shopping for funerals went into effect today, and the Supreme Court cleared the way for much cash to follow the PAC route to Presidential campaigns. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: In tonight's headlines these are our main stories. As President Reagan ends his China trip we get a two-pronged assessment of what he did and did not accomplish. Also, from an FTC proponent, we find out how the new rules for funeral costs protect consumers. With a winner and a loser we get two different views on today's Supreme Court ruling on PACs and, from our continuing series on people and places along Route 3, we hear from a different kind of social critic.Reagan's Long March: How Successful?

LEHRER: White House spokesman Larry Speakes said it was a Reagan record. More than one million people lined and jammed along an eight-mile route. Never before in his 20 years of political life has so many turned out to see a Ronald Reagan motorcade. But they were neither Americans nor voters. They were Chinese and communists. It happened this morning in Shanghai, a city of 12 million people, the last stop on Mr. Reagan's six-day visit to China. We have a report on the last three days now from Gene Gibbons of UPI Radio News.

GENE GIBBONS, UPI Radio News [voice-over]: Ronald Reagan at the Great Wall, following in the footsteps of his recent predecessors in the Oval office and countless other tourists, and getting off the beaten path to see the famed terracotta soldiers in ancient Xi'an. These are the images of the President's visit to China that will linger long after Mr. Reagan is back in Washington. He concluded the visit in the city of Shanghai, the vibrant center of China's industrial heartland. And, during a speech to students at Fudan University, he again preached the gospel of democracy and free enterprise, despite apparent Chinese displeasure at his proselytizing.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I draw your special attention to what I'm about to say because it's so important to an understanding of my country. We believe in the dignity of each man, woman and child. Our entire system is founded on an appreciation of the special genius of each individual and of his special right to make his own decisions and lead his own life.

GIBBONS [voice-over]: Similar remarks were edited out of two other Reagan speeches before they were shown on Chinese television. This speech was broadcast in its entirety, but it was broadcast in English, a language few of Shanghai's 12 million people understand. Chinese officials also made it clear Taiwan is still a major sore point. A foreign policy spokesman told reporters an urgent solution is needed for that problem if the Chinese-American relationship is to progress. The Beijing government is unhappy specifically about the level of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. But Secretary of State Shultz downplayed the importance of these points of friction at a news conference summing up the visit.

GEORGE SHULTZ, secretary of state: A lot came before the President's trip; a lot more will come after. But the President's trip and the premier's trip earlier this year together represent sort of high points.

GIBBONS [voice-over]: Even before flying here, Mr. Reagan watched as U.S. and Chinese negotiators initialed an agreement which will clear the way for U.S. involvement in the development of nuclear power in China. He and Premier Zhao signed two other pacts designed to promote trade and cultural exchanges. And, at the final banquet of his stay here the President pointed to these agreements as evidence of the success of his visit.

LEHRER: That report by Gene Gibbons.

As President Reagan leaves China, the Chinese are getting ready for a holiday tomorrow. It's May Day, the Communist world's international workers celebration. Large portraits of people named Marx, Engels, Stalin and Lenin are now in place in Peking, which just yesterday hosted Ronald Reagan.

Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: With some interpretation of the President's six-day trip to China we turn now to two China hands, Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former director of the policy planning staff at the State Department during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Mr. Lord accompanied both of those presidents to China. Also with us is Harry Harding, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Mr. Harding is a former professor at Stanford University, and is the editor of the soon-to-be-published book, China's Foreign Relations in the 1980s. Starting with you, Winston Lord, how successful do you think the President's trip was?

WINSTON LORD: I think it's been very successful. I think it's been about what we hoped for and expected. I would suggest that if the President's advisers say it's the greatest diplomatic achievement since 1815 and he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, you discount that, and if the Democratic candidates say that this is only a political campaign trip, you surely should discount that. It was clearly a warm reception by the Chinese, the million people today, the unprecedented exposure on television to the Chinese people, despite the censorship problem, the economic agreements, the putting to rest to a large extent the domestic debate in this country on the Taiwan issue, and the reinforcement to the Chinese people and bureaucracy the importance of this relationship. So all these factors make it a good trip.

HUNTER-GAULT: You said what was hoped for.

Mr. LORD: Well, I think you could have expected, and we got, two basic achievements out of this trip. First, the concrete agreements like the tax treaty which will make U.S. investment easier, the cultural agreements that will provide for more delegations going both ways, and the nuclear agreement, which was somewhat of a surprise down the homestretch, and it accelerated other negotiation that would have dragged on without the deadlines imposed by this trip. Secondly, there's a public dimension that I've mentioned of reinforcing in the public opinion of both countries the importance of this relationship and telling other important countries like Japan or the Soviet Union that our relations are on track.

HUNTER-GAULT: Harry Harding, do you see it the same way?

HARRY HARDING: Pretty much. I think in addition to what Winston has said I would emphasize some of the limits on the relationship which the trip seems to reflect. First of all, if we thought we were going to persuade the Chinese to return to their earlier policy of a united front with us against the Soviet Union, the Chinese signaled in a number of ways that they're not prepared to do that.

HUNTER-GAULT: Was the censorship of the President's remarks about the Soviet Union, one of those signals, do you think?

Mr. HARDING: That's one aspect of it, and the fact that the highest-ranking Soviet visitor in about 15 years will be coming to China soon also is a concrete sign of this. In addition, as the report that headed the program seemed to indicate, there may be the possibility -- and I emphasize that it's really too early to know exactly what's happened, but there's the possibility now that the Chinese are going to place a bit more pressure on us with regard to Taiwan, specifically the arms sales question, and possibly Deng Xiaoping's view that we should somehow encourage the Taiwan authorities to come to the negotiating table.

HUNTER-GAULT: How did you get that?

Mr. HARDING: How do we know that?

HUNTER-GAULT: Right. I mean, how did you come to that conclusion?

Mr. HARDING: Well, there's simply the signs that the Chinese made two points. One was that they felt that the arms sales to Taiwan were not coming down as quickly as they would like to see, and also a report in The New York Times on Sunday that Deng Xiaoping had urged Reagan to help facilitate negotiations between Taiwan and the mainland.

HUNTER-GAULT: But one of the main purposes of this trip, was it not, to try and clear up understandings about those kinds of issues. From what you're saying there's no clearing up of an understanding. There's --

Mr. HARDING: Well, again, it remains to be seen. I'm just looking at some warning signs in the wind. Clearly there is no absolute understanding between the two sides on Taiwan. The issue is not resolved, and it's not likely to become so in the years ahead. What we need is to find ways of managing the issue so that it doesn't complicate the broader relationship. That will require American consistency, consistency to the policies we've already agreed to with the Chinese in the past. But on the Chinese side it also. I think, involves, requires a bit of patience to realize that the Taiwan question is something that time will resolve and quite a bit of time will resolve, and that perhaps further pressure on the United States will prove to be counterproductive.

HUNTER-GAULT: Let me pursue --

Mr. LORD: Let me comment.

HUNTER-GAULT: Yeah, I want to pursue the Soviet question with you. Is that what you were about to address?

Mr. LORD: The Soviet and also on the Taiwan question. By the way, I agree with Harry that there are limits to this relationship. We should have no romantic illusions about the fact that we will have some ambiguities and problems. First, on the Taiwan question, I think the Chinese rhetoric on this trip has been actually quite muted, and they have to raise the issue. They have raised it. The President has given our policy, and compared to the kind of exchanges we had a year and a half ago, I think this relationship, although it will be tough to manage, at least for now, looks less full of friction than it did just a year and a half ago. But it remains to be seen, and I agree with Harry, we've got to watch over the next few months. On the Soviet relationship, the Soviet visitor has been scheduled for some time. The Chinese have been for the last two years moving toward a somewhat more equidistant policy between us and the Soviet Union, and they have several reasons to do so, and I think they'd be doing it under any administration in the United States. Number one, their top priority is modernization, and they don't have the resources to devote to a military buildup against the Soviets, and the army, which has traditionally had some pro-Soviet elements, is probably saying, "We've got to ease relations with the Soviets if you're not going to give us the resources, and we're down the scale on that. Secondly, I think the Chinese see that despite the Soviet military buildup, they have tremendous problems economically and along their borders, and they don't seem quite as threatening to the Chinese as they did 10 or 12 years ago. And, thirdly, since we're in a state of confrontation with the Soviets, the Chinese can take our frigid relations with the Soviets for granted and try to maneuver in the triangle to have the best relations with each side of the triangle, as we did in the early '70s. Finally, if they can get the Soviets out of Afghanistan or to get the Vietnamese out of Cambodia, they would be delighted, although they don't expect that.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how do you think it affected their relations for President Reagan to continue to make those anti-Soviet statements, even after they had made it clear, or at least had signaled, that this was not something that was going over well? Do you think that hurt him any?

Mr. LORD: Well, I think the President -- there are two issues here. One is what the President said correct for U.S.-Soviet policy, and I haven't seen the full text. I might quarrel with some of the exact language. But the issue that's being debated now is whether he should have said this in China, and I think he should. It'd be hypocritical with his views to restrain himself overly in China what he would say in this country. And I don't think we should magnify the Chinese not putting it all on television. We should keep in mind that he's had unprecedented exposure on Chinese television, including directly to the students as well as to the leaders.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you agree with that, Mr. Harding?

Mr. HARDING: Basically, yes.

HUNTER-GAULT: That the President was correct in continuing to speak--

Mr. HARDING: To press a point on the Soviet Union. I think in terms of the censorship, the so-called censorship question, it's useful to make a distinction between the President's comments on the Soviet Union on the one hand and his comments on the United States on the other. I think that the comments on the Soviet Union were perhaps appropriate. We could agree or disagree with his policies towards the Soviet Union, but I think that that's a perfectly legitimate point to make to the Chinese both publicly and privately. As far as the comments about free enterprise and religion and family being the basis of American life. It seems to me that this may not have been particularly well advised to do in quite the way that was done. The Chinese are sensitive, one might even say hypersensitive, to what they see as an American missionary impulse. And I'm not surprised that the Chinese responded the way they did, but there is an important point -- I want to underline it -- that Winston makes. Despite the censorship, the President had much more access to the Chinese media than any previous president did before him.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you agree with that on the family value thing.

Mr. LORD: Well, I rarely disagree with Harry, but I would slightly here. I'm not of the missionary type, either, but I think the President believes in these things strongly, and out of curiosity I had a Chinese friend contact of mine today check the Chinatown newspapers here in New York, and it was interesting that a pro-Peking Chinatown newspaper criticized the Chinese for censoring the President's remarks rather than the President for saying them. So I don't think the Chinese even themselves are all that upset.

HUNTER-GAULT: As I said going into this, you accompanied both President Nixon, who opened the way to China, and President Ford when he went subsequently. How do you assess the whole trip, President Reagan trip, compared to the other two?

Mr. LORD: Well, first, let's keep in mind that this is a process -- U.S.-Chinese relations -- hopefully a long march, and we're not going to reach any single final destination. The first president's trip -- Nixon's -- was dramatic as the opening, but we had serious differences, as expressed in the Shanghai Communique, which laid out both sides' positions on many issues we disagreed with. President Ford's trip was quite frosty. The President was worried about a challenge from a man named Mr. Reagan for the nomination, and the Chinese were going through a period where the Gang of Four had influence; Mao was senile; Zhou Enlai had passed from the scene. So this trip is much warmer and friendlier than either one of those two trips, and I think it marks the achievements of both Democratic and Republican presidents in moving this process forward.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Harry Harding, I don't think you've heard anything there that you could disagree with. Am I right?

Mr. HARDING: No, not at all.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well thank you very much for being with us in Washington, and thank you, Winston Lord, for being with us in New York. Jim? The Pope and the President in Fairbanks

LEHRER: For a brief time tomorrow, Fairbanks, Alaska, will be the most important news dateline of the day. President Reagan and Pope John Paul II will each be stopping over there, Mr. Reagan on his way back from China, the Pope on his way to Korea. The plan is for the Pope and Mr. Reagan to meet and talk briefly at the Fairbanks airport. It's an event to be long remembered by the 27,000 people of Fairbanks. Chuck McConnell of public station KUAC-Fairbanks has more.

CHUCK McCONNELL, KUAC [voice-over]: Normally early May is a waiting rather than an exciting time in interior Alaska. The long winter is over, but summer and the tourists are still a month away. The sun is back. There will be nearly 17 hours of daylight tomorrow. And though there seems to be water and mud everywhere, the ice blocking the rivers has yet to move. Usually in early May there's lots of talk about when the Tanana River ice will actually go out. The nearby community of Nenana runs a lottery in which Alaskans bet on the exact time when the river ice will move, toppling a tripod and stopping the clock in a special watchtower. This years winners will aplit $160,000. But this year the ice classic has been pushed aside by talk of "The Visit" and preparations for it.

GEORGE SUNDBORG, Papal Visit Committee: Well, it takes a lot of volunteers. We don't have a single person paid any kind of a salary to help stage this. We have more than 150 people working almost fulltime on it. And it's going to, we think, attract the largest assemblage of people that has ever occurred in the territory or state of Alaska. We're expecting from 40,000 to 45,000 people, which in Alaska terms is quite large.

BOB STONE, motel manager: They've kind of booked everything that we have, including our meeting rooms. And I guess our biggest specialty is just making sure everything goes as smooth as possible.

RANDY PARKER, school bus driver: May 2nd we're going to transport approximately 45,000 people down Airport Way out to the airport and back. Getting really excited. I think it's great for Fairbanks, and it's a great opportunity for us to be able to help out this way. I'm really glad that I'll get a chance to drive. They can go very smoothly because everybody is adult or mostly adult, or they can go the other way. Some adults can be more cantankerous than children.

RON DUPEE, McDonald's manager: I know that probably just about everything in town except for McDonald's will be shut down that day, but we'll be opening up at 4 o'clock in the morning to accmmodate all the early risers that will be going out to the airport. We have weighed in extra supplies, figuring that this is probably going to be one of the busiest days that McDonald's here on Airport has ever seen.

McCONNELL [voice-over]: The construction season has already started. A new wing of the airport is being rushed to completion for the meeting.

GEORGE PLUCINSKI, telephone company: We feel we'll get it done, but it is a lot of long hours. The wife doesn't see me very much right now.

McCONNELL [voice-over]: George Plucinski of the local telephone company is responsible for all installation work in Fairbanks, and he is busy.

Mr. PLUCINSKI: The White House communications is very definitive. "We need these 10 lines today, these 30 tomorrow." And a lot of our service is spread out. When you come in for an order, you place your order; five, seven working days later you get it. With the White House it's, "We place it today and we expect it tomorrow."

BILL ALLEN, mayor, Fairbanks Borough: The greatest thing about Alaska is that we don't have any tradition. We just go out and get things done. I called the mayor of Dixon, Illinois, President Reagan's birthplace, and asked Mayor Dixon, as a matter of fact, what do I do?" He said, "The first thing you do is relax." And he says, "How many days do you have before the President arrives?" And I said, "Well, we got about 37 days." He said, "Well, don't worry. Everything will come together." And I said, "Well, Mayor, there is another small problem. The Pope is coming also." And Mayor Dixon says, "Oh, my God!"

LEHRER: This time tomorrow it'll all be over for Fairbanks, and the folks there can go back to watching the ice melt.

[Video postcard -- Weiss Lake, Alabama]

HUNTER-GAULT: If there was any question that the economy was slowing down, the doubts were dispelled today. For the first time in 19 months the government's index of leading indicators dropped last month, falling 1.1% in March, following a strong 1.3% gain in February. The leading indicators are the government's forecasting guide, predicting economic activity over the next several months. They include such things as housing permits, stock market prices, orders for both plant equipment and consumer goods. Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige said the decline exaggerates the extent of the slowdown and attributed much of it to bad weather in March. Private economists mostly agreed, but they blamed the slowdown on a sharp drop in building permits last month. In another sign of economic slowdown, the government reported that sales of new homes dropped 4.9% in March. The average price of a new home now stands at $96,000. Jim? Protecting the Public: Funeral Costs

LEHRER: In this era of deregulation, the coming into being of new federal regulations is a rarity, but it happened today to the funeral industry. After 12 years of hassle and lawsuits, Congress, public hearings and elsewhere, very, precise rules went into effect, the consumer disclosure rules from the Federal Trade Commission, their purpose expressed this way today at a news conference by the FTC man in charge of enforcing them.

LEWIS ROSE, Federal Trade Commission: This rule is really designed just to get detailed information to consumers about prices. There is no judgment made by the commission that in fact prices were too high or too low, but really simply that consumers spend approximately $2,400, in fact, were not given detailed information about exactly what that fee was going towards. This rule is designed to give consumers that type of information. The way that it does that is by giving them information about the options available and the prices for each component and allowing consumers to pick and choose the items that they want. It may be that consumers will pick less items, in which case there can be significant consumer savings. It may also be that consumers pick more items. Again, the commission is not really concerned about the price, but just simply that the consumer has the option to pick and choose those goods and services that they want, and what happens to the price will largely be a function of consumer choice.

LEHRER: A further explanation of the new rules now from Patricia Bailey, one of five commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission. All right, what exactly does a funeral director have to disclose, and how must the director disclose it?

PATRICIA BAILEY: First of all, if a consumer calls a funeral home, that consumer must be told that price information is available over the telephone if they wish to have it. That's first. Second, when you go to a funeral home, all items, goods and services offered by the funeral director must be itemized as to price rather than what has been the customary practice in the past. As you know, or as most people know, you just get one price and then you're not sure what you're paying for and sometimes you have bought items that you didn't want. Those are the two primary price disclosures that are required. Otherwise, the rule requires that funeral providers not misrepresent certain items of -- matters of state law, which we found to be a problem.

LEHRER: Like what?

Comm. BAILEY: Well, for example, there was evidence that there was misrepresentation from time to time that cemeteries, for example, required burial liners or burial vaults. That's, by and large, not true. And other things of that kind. Or that embalming was required by state law, which in most states it is not, except in extraordinary circumstances. The rule also prevents certain unfair practices. That is, it prohibits charging you for embalming unless you have authorized it, and it prevents a funeral provider from requiring you to buy a casket if you want a cremation, a direct cremation.

LEHRER: And all of these grew out of testimony of this 12-year investigation, more or less, that these kinds of practices not necessarily were widespread, but there were cases of these practices having been practiced, right?

Comm. BAILEY: Well, that's right, and widespread, though, is the right word.

LEHRER: Is it?

Comm. BAILEY: In the beginning, because this investigation started back in 1972, and as a matter of law, or certainly as a matter of good practice, the commission does not institute industry-wide regulations without a finding that the practices being addressed are prevalent.

LEHRER: Okay. Now, the funeral directors, many funeral directors, at least, said before this rule went into effect, during the course of the testimony over these many years and repeated it again today, that this is going to result in higher prices rather than lower prices for the consumer. Are they right?

Comm. BAILEY: I don't know whether they're right or not. There is some evidence in states where funeral regulations have gone into effect in the past that there was an initial increase in prices. There may be a variety of reasons for that. Once you start to unbundle the prices, it could be that setting the prices on each item may be set a little higher. Consumers may buy more, I don't know. The evidence does also seem to suggest that after an initial rise prices then go down. And certainly, if the purpose here is to have disclosure so that consumers can ask about price and to bring price competition to this industry for the first time. Our history, over 200 years I think, shows us that we believe that competition will result in the best product and service for consumers at the lowest price.

LEHRER: But the purpose from the FTC's point of view is not to lower the price, correct?

Comm. BAILEY: Well, the purpose is disclosure and to -- I'll tell you what the purpose is.

LEHRER: All right.

Comm. BAILEY: The purpose is disclosure of information so that for once consumers can see what they are getting and pick what they want. Our hope is that this will lead to a crumbling, I hope, of the taboos that surround this whole transaction, of asking about price in the presence of death. I mean, that is such a problem for consumers. In no other transaction that we know anything about is the consumer in such a state of mind and at such a disadvantage, and less rational than they might be at other times. So I hope that this kind of discussion and disclosure will bring about more discussion of price.

LEHRER: But couldn't the consumer also say, "But Commissioner Bailey, what's the point of a regulation if it's going to cause me to pay more in the final analysis?"

Comm. BAILEY: Well, certainly that would not be our intention, and we have, because we don't know precisely what will happen in this context, we have decided -- and it's in the rule -- that we will reevaluate it and within the next two or three years, if that appears to be a problem and it's not being resolved by the marketplace, we can make whatever adjustments we believe are necessary.

LEHRER: The funeral directors, for instance, make the point -- in fact, they use the analogy of going into a restaurant and ordering a full complete meal for one price versus ordering a la carte, and the a la carte always adds up more than if you'd have done it, you know, a complete meal, and that this could happen in the funeral business as well by individualizing everything.

Comm. BAILEY: Well, if you want then to buy everything, it could be -- it's also true that in the past, you see, funeral directors, funeral providers, have not had to itemize the cost of their services. They've added it into the cost of various products. So now that they're going to have to have a price for their services, the adjustment of the price overall may lead to that if the consumer buys everything. But I think that will be only temporary.

LEHRER: You mentioned the susceptibility or the sensitive time this is in a person's life any time they're dealing with a funeral home about anything. What about the person who goes into a funeral home and really couldn't care less about this itemization? All they want to do is get -- and the easiest way out is a package deal. Is there something -- does the funeral director have any flexibility in what he or she can do?

Comm. BAILEY: Oh, yes. The rule also provides that once the prices are itemized and available to the consumer to see, that the funeral provider can also have various packages of services that they will provide. And so they can continue to do that as long as the alternative is available.

LEHRER: All right, Commissioner Bailey, thank you very much.

Comm. BAILEY: Thank you.

LEHRER: Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Britain's opposition Labour Party today accused the Conservative government of knowing that the Libyan Embassy in London was a sanctuary for murder and bombing and failing to act on the information. Labour spokesmen said the death two weeks ago of a policewoman outside the embassy and the diplomatic immunity accorded her suspected killer was a "humiliating defeat which we will hang around the government's neck." The policewoman was killed by gunfire from within the embassy during a demonstration against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. The embassy occupants were allowed to leave safely last Friday. Meanwhile, the embassy building is no longer a diplomatic enclave, and authorities began a search of the building today. We have this report from Michael Cole of the BBC.

MICHAEL COLE, BBC [voice-over]: The police prepared for the search with extreme caution. Long after the last Libyan had left, locking the door behind him, the technical teams began their preparations on the assumption that a booby trap bomb could have been left inside as a last act of Libyan defiance. Water engineers turned off the mains. Gas men disconnected the supply to lessen the damage should there be an explosion. Ambulances were drawn up and firemen stood by. A Royal Navy team arrived with more electronics for looking inside the building before the bomb disposal men crossed the threshhold. Shortly before 4 o'clock office workers were asked to leave the Square, and activity switched to the back of the building. Army bomb disposal experts took charge. Dogs trained to sniff out explosives were brought in. A van with diplomatic plates parked there before the siege was moved to give the fire brigade access. Using a shotgun mounted on a robot, the army shot the lock off the rear door. At two minutes past four, bomb disposal men cautiously entered the building. They made their way through another door into the basement. The search began, and not long afterwards two of the entry team appeared on the front doorstep.

HUNTER-GAULT: Lebanon's Christian president, Amin Gemayel, and its Moslem prime minister, Rashid Karami, today succeeded in proposing a long sort government of national unity. They named five Christians and five Moslems to a new cabinet for an equal division of power between the warring factions. Two proposed members of the cabinet were Druse leader Walid Jumblatt and Shiite Moslem leader Nabih Berri. They had led the recent fighting against President Gemayel. Late tonight Berri refused the offer. Before taking power the new cabinet must be approved by a majority vote in the Lebanese Parliament. The announcement came just hours after renewed mortar and rocket attacks between the rival factions in Beirut.

This country's annual days of rememberance of the millions who died in Nazi death camps some 40 years ago was marked today by a symbolic groundbreaking for a $100-million Holocaust memorial museum to be housed in two buildings near the Washington Monument, the museum will include displays of the Nazi terror, European ghetto life, and a computerized archives based on German records. Hundreds of people stood in a drenching rain at the groundbreaking as speaker after speaker recalled the bitter memories that they had either lived or that had touched them in some way. Later, during a memorial service at the Capitol Rotunda attended by government officials, members of Congress and others, there were more who remembered. Among them was Elie Wiesel, chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. An Auschwitz survivor, Wiesel came to America to teach, write and to protest.

ELIE WIESEL, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council: I think the world has unleashed madness 40 years ago, and that madness is still dominating spirits and minds of too many countries. There are too many signals of danger, racism, anti-semitism, bigotry, fanaticism. We are scared of what humankind could do to itself. Therefore, we tell the story.

GEORGE BUSH, Vice President: The Holocaust teaches us this: there are no more dangerous myths than that man is perfectable and perfect peace is attainable on earth. Delusions of earthly perfection lead to the murderous thought that life must first be purged of its defects. Hitler sought to make Germany the land of the perfect race. Lenin sought to cleanse the Russian people of their human weaknesses. But all that their followers found was desert and darkness of night, and their victims laid tragic testimony to the obsessions and to the cruelty. May we the living, while aware of the evil, work always to inspire the goodness that lies potential in each of us. And then we will truly honor -- truly honor -- the victims of the Holocaust.

HUNTER-GAULT: The two-day observance began last night at Washington, D.C.'s Kennedy Center.Helen Hayes and James Earl Jones were among the many who joined in the evening of prose, poetry and music, much of it written by Holocaust victims. The museum is expected to be in full operation by 1988.

Jim? PACs and the Supreme Court

LEHRER: The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a multi-million-dollar non-decision today about the 1984 presidential election. The high court said it would not decide a case involving spending limits on political action committees before the election, meaning a lower court decision stands for now, meaning there are no limits on what an independent political committee can spend on behalf of a presidential candidate. The Democratic Party had sought the court decision before July as a way of thwarting what they charged are conservative PAC plans to plow more than $20 million into President Reagan's re-election effort. Judy Woodruff picks up the story from there. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, the important thing to remember here is that this only affects the independent political action committee. Those are organizations that are not formally affiliated with any presidential candidate.Presidential federal election law has prohibited these independent PACs from spending more than $1,000 on behalf of a presidential nominee. However, two federal court panels have said the law is unconstitutional, ruling in favor of two conservative groups seeking unlimited spending and against the Democratic Party and the Federal Election Commission, which had brought the court challenge. Whether the election law will be changed or not is a decision that the Supreme Court today effectively postponed until 1985. That paves the way for unlimited spending by independent PACs this presidential election year. To assess the ramifications of all of this, we turn now to the head of the largest independent conservative PAC, and one that was involved in the court case, Terry Dolan, executive director of the Antional Conservative Political Action Committee, otherwise known as NCNAC -- NCPAC. And, on the other side, we have Ann Lewis, who is political director fo the Democratic National Committee. First of all, Ms. Lewis, just what impact is this going to have on this year's elections?

ANN LEWIS: Well, I think it's really too bad, because what we're looking at is the integrity, perhaps the credibility of a presidential election campaign. The effect will be, barring this Supreme Court ruling -- and of course what we had asked for was an expedited ruling. We said the issue is so important, the stakes are so high, let's have that decision before the 1984 election. The effect is to leave open the possibility that independent committees will be able to raise and spend large sums of money totally outside the public funding for presidential candidates.

WOODRUFF: How much harm are you saying that's going to do the Democratic Party? You obviously have an interest in that.

Ms. LEWIS: Well, remember, it is both the Democratic Party and the Federal Election Commission who have said in this case, "We want to enforce the law." In fact, the American people said, through the Congress, when the Federal Election Campaign Fund Act was passed, that they wanted this law on the books, that we were trying to minimize the effect of large amounts of money on the presidential campaign. We have a system right now, when it works, that is a good example of democracy in action, with public financing. It is voluntary giving. All of us who paid our taxes on April 15th, some of us checked off those boxes, so it was a voluntary giving by the taxpayers. It is voluntary acceptance by the candidates.And we say to the candidates, "If you accept those public funds, in return we ask you not to raise money on your own." We think that's the way the system ought to work. What I am afraid we will now have in the 1984 is a system in which one candidate on one side going around that law might in fact see lots more money raised on behalf of their campaign. We think that acts against the integrity, against the credibility, against the spirit and letter of the present law.

WOODRUFF: Are you going to go so far as to say this hurts the Democrats and helps the Republicans?

Ms. LEWIS: I'll go so far to say based on what we saw in 1980, where independent committees on behalf of now-President Reagan, then-Candidate Reagan actually raised and spent $10 million. That was more than one-third again as much as each of the two candidates got from public funding. So clearly that's a real disparity. That's a great disadvantage for one candidate who accepts public funding, who lives within the spirit of the law and is then faced with that large amount of money on the other side.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Dolan, what do you think the effect of this non-decision is going to be?

TERRY DOLAN: Well, first of all, I must appreciate Ann's sense of humor for analyzing the issue the way she did, first of all, to declare that when people are prohibited from voluntarily contributing to presidential candidates their private money, calling that a voluntary system, and when all of us taxpayers are forced to give our money to Walter Mondale or to Ronald Reagan that is not voluntary in any way, shape or form. Secondarily, what we have now is a system by which organized labor is going to spend anywhere from $10, $20, $50 million to another $100 million to elect Walter Mondale. I would like that arrangement, too, if I were supporting Walter Mondale. And I say anywhere from $10 million to $100 million because this law doesn't even force them to disclose what they spend in behalf of Walter Mondale. We have no idea how much organized labor is spending in behalf of Walter Mondale. At least with the independent groups that we represent we disclose everything.This is a very important First Amendment issue. We have been granted the right to express our support for any presidential candidate. It applies to Democrats as well as Republicans, and it just so happens that so few people think it's worthwhile spending their own money to elect a Democratic candidate.

WOODRUFF: Well, are you arguing that there should be no limits on what independent groups --

Mr. DOLAN: Certainly.There should be no limits on what this television program says. There should be no limits on what the Democratic National Committee says. There should be no limits on what The New York Times prints about candidates, and there should be no limit on what Americans want to do to independently express their preference for a candidate.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Lewis, can you respond?

Ms. LEWIS: Well, let's go back, because I think we have in fact stated the case pretty fairly. I did say voluntary giving. It is voluntary. That's on the front of our tax form. "Please check if you want this dollar to go into the fund." We are not in fact assessed, and that's very important. We came to that conclusion as a country. We saw some things in the 1972 presidential election that troubled us. We concluded this election is too important. We don't want to choose a president of the United States according to who is able to tap the largest sources of money. We only want our candidates to have roughly equivalent chances to reach the public. That's the fair way to do it. It is that concept of relative equality, of fairness, that is at stake right now.

Mr. DOLAN: Does that mean --

WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that?

Ms. LEWIS: There was a reason why that law was put on the books. What we are contesting is exactly the language that was passed by the Congress, which very explicitly said that other than an authorized committee, once a candidate accepts public funding, once you accept --

Mr. DOLAN: This is an important question.

Ms. LEWIS: -- independent committees cannot spend more than $1,000.

WOODRUFF: That point you just made, though, I think is a fundamental one, that there ought to be a roughly equivalent amount spent by each side.

Mr. DOLAN: I tell you what. I will promise on this television program that we will cease our activities when Ann Lewis and the Democratic National Committee stops organized labor from spending any money to support their candidate. Will you do that?

Ms. LEWIS: You mean, you don't want organized labor to talk to their own members on behalf of their candidacy? We're not trying to stop you from talking to your members --

Mr. DOLAN: I don't want organized labor -- organized labor is going to --

Ms. LEWIS: -- on behalf of your candidates.

Mr. DOLAN: -- spend $20, $50 million to elect Walter Mondale. Will you stop that huge amount of money, which you say you're against?

Ms. LEWIS: Organized labor is speaking to their own members on behalf of their own constituency --

Mr. DOLAN: They're spending money to elect Walter Mondale, aren't they?

Ms. LEWIS: -- in communication with their own members.

Mr. DOLAN: But they're spending huge amounts of money.

Ms. LEWIS: Will you say that you'll spend your money only talking to your own members? Because then we've got a very different group.

Mr. DOLAN: Wait a minute. You just attacked-

Ms. LEWIS: Then we don't have an independent committee.

Mr. DOLAN: You just attacked spending huge amounts of money outside of public financing, of taxpayer financing --

Mr. LEWIS: I talked about --

Mr. DOLAN: Will you stop organized labor --

Ms. LEWIS: I talked about using huge amounts of money to communicate on television, on media, to all kinds of voters in that kind of arena. There were major differences when organizations talk to their own members.

Mr. DOLAN: What are the differences?

Ms. LEWIS: Organizations have built-in constituencies, built-in accountability --

Mr. DOLAN: Twenty million to one constituency is okay, but $20 million to the average American is not. I don't see what the difference is.

Ms. LEWIS: Well, I think most of us agree that living up to the rules is okay, living up to the laws is okay.

Mr. DOLAN: I agree with that.

Ms. LEWIS: Again, the laws state that organized labor, members of labor unions, can contribute money and they can use that money, again, to communicate with their own members. When we talk about independent committees, and that's real difference, we're talking about people who have no members, who have no bylaws, who don't have a way in which the people who contribute that money can participate.

WOODRUFF: But two federal courts have said that that law is not constitutional.

Ms. LEWIS: The two district courts have said the law is not constitutional. What we were hoping for the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. The Supreme Court, in fact, divided, and it is the Supreme Court that we're now asking to rule because, of course, they're the arbiter of constitutionality.

WOODRUFF: Let me try to get back to what I said was a fundamental point a minute ago, and that was, Mr. Dolan, do you agree with Ms. Lewis that the candidates should each have roughly equivalent amounts of money to spend in this race, that that's the democratic way --

Mr. DOLAN: No. No. Again, well, it's very much the Democratic way because --

WOODRUFF: I don't mean Democratic Party with a capital D. I mean --

Mr. DOLAN: Right. Well, there's twice as many Democrats as Republicans. Whenever you're a minority you want to limit -- excuse me. Whenever you're a majority you want to limit what the other guy can spend, because if you stop him from competing with you then you're going to probably win. There are twice as many Democrats as there are Republicans. I do not see why we have problems spending money to communicate to voters how politicians stand on issues. As a matter of fact, I like the idea that organized labor spends tens of millions of dollars to help Democratic candidates. I just want to have the same right they do. That's all

WOODRUFF: Let me ask you this. Your organization is planning to spend, what, eight, nine, 10 million at least this year?

Mr. DOLAN: Somewhere in that neighborhood.

WOODRUFF: He already will get, as will the Democratic nominee, some $48 million, 24 before the nominating convention and $24 million afterward. Why does he need another -- why does there have to be that extra money spent?

Mr. DOLAN: Well, again, somebody should ask organized labor why they are spending 20, 30 million to elect --

WOODRUFF: Well, we can ask organized labor, but they're not here. I mean, why?

Mr. DOLAN: For the very same reason, as I said. The Democrat gets this amount, the Republican gets this amount.Then organized labor spends almost as much as the Democrat will again to help elect him. Ours is a drop in the bucket. We're not going to spend $40 million. If we're lucky we'll spend $10 million in a period of two years in behalf of Ronald Reagan. All we're trying to do is even the score a little bit.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Lewis?

Ms. LEWIS: Well, I'm glad to hear acknowledgement now that there are twice as many Democrats as Republicans. I think that's a testimony to the good sense of the American voter.

Mr. DOLAN: I never denied that.

Ms. LEWIS: But what we're now talking about is how do we elect the president of the United States in November, 1984, and again, like any other election we're talking about, we have for the presidential election public funding. And when the Congress passed the Public Funding Bill, which was such a new step for us, the idea that we would use taxpayers' money, built into that, to avoid loopholes, to avoid candidates going around it, to avoid so-called independent committees that would actually, outside the law, raise and spend large amounts of money, the Congress said that independent committees would only spend $1,000 each. Clearly written. Because if you're going to have public funding, if we're going to use public funds, if we're going to ask people to contribute, they have a right to believe in the system. And it's that credibility that's at stake right now.

WOODRUFF: You're shaking your head.

Mr. DOLAN: Well, again, you know, we're against big money unless it's big labor's money. That's crazy. That just makes no sense. If big labor can spend $40 million or $20 million, there's absolutely no reason why other groups shouldn't be able to do the same thing.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask you both this. Is there a point of diminishing returns in spending money in a campaign? Do you get votes for every extra dollar or million dollars that you spend, or how much does it take?

Ms. LEWIS: Fortunately an election is not a stock option fight. The number of votes you get is not directly proportionate to the dollars you have to spend. And I say fortunately because, as you know, we've been outspent consistently, eight to one, 10 to one, 12 to one, and we've won in 1981, '82 and '83. We've won most of the elections that have been held. So no, it's not directly proportional. But the issue we're talking about is, can you get your message across? Can you communicate with the voters? And it takes a certain amount of money to do that. If the other side has so much money that they can sort of baffle your message, that they can surround your message, then you have trouble communicating. That's the problem we're talking about.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Dolan?

Mr. DOLAN: Well, I would say, first of all, that, I forget who it was that said 50% of all the money spent in politics is wasted. The difficulty is figuring out which 50% it is. So the question is, when you don't know what to do you spend as much as possible, as much as you can raise. But, again, to the key question. I totally agree that right now Ronald Reagan will be outspent by tens of millions of dollars because organized labor and the National Organization for Women and the NEA and all the other various liberal interest groups --

WOODRUFF: You say he'll be outspent. We don't know.

Mr. DOLAN: Well, I don't think there's any question. Would you deny that?

Ms. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely I'll deny that. And look at the level of spending over the last three years.

Mr. DOLAN: Well, you will not ask organized labor to stop spending money in behalf of Walter Mondale, would you at least ask him to disclose every penny they spend?

Ms. LEWIS: Well, I'm glad we're finally talking about groups besides organized labor --

Mr. DOLAN: Would you ask him to do that?

Ms. LEWIS: Can we talk about groups communicating with their members?

Mr. DOLAN: Sure. I'd be happy to -- yes.

Ms. LEWIS: Would you talk about groups communicating with their members?

Mr. DOLAN: But would you ask him to do that?

Ms. LEWIS: I'm sorry, I think we're getting waved at.

WOODRUFF: Go ahead.

Mr. DOLAN: Well, I wish she'd answer my question. Will she ask him to disclose it?

Ms. LEWIS: I will ask because I am convinced they're living up to the spirit and the letter --

Mr. DOLAN: Do you want --

WOODRUFF: And on that point we'll stop and one day we'll continue this. Ann Lewis, Terry Dolan, thank you for being with us.

Mr. DOLAN: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Spring storms have been pounding the Midwest for two days, causing widespread destruction and death. Fifty tornados ripped through Oklahoma and Arkansas. Hurricane force winds whipped through Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. And nearly a foot of snow piled up in southern Minnesota. Record cold probed as far south as Texas and Mississippi, but the most brutal force of the storms was felt in Mannfred, Oklahoma, a town of some 1,600 people 20 miles west of Tulsa where a powerful twister roared through Sunday morning. The Oklahoma National Guard was patrolling Mannfred today, enforcing a curfew, assisting with the cleanup of vast destruction, and discouraging looting. The tornado hit at 10:30 Sunday morning. It demolished four churches, three schools and 100 homes. Most of the 30 people injured were attending church. A 70-year-old man was killed outside the Assembly of God church when his pickup truck was slammed into a building. The tornado that plowed through Mannfred was the second killer tornado to hit Oklahoma in four days. A total of 447 tornados have been reported so far this year, 270 of them in April alone. There were only 235 tornados sighted in all of last year. The National Severe Storms Forecast Center saidtornados this year have caused more deaths -- 101 -- than at any time since 1974.

[voice-over] A funeral for Count Basie was held in Harlem today, not far from where he learned to play the piano some 60 years ago at the side of Fats Waller. Hundreds of fans began lining up early this morning outside the venerable Abyssinian Baptist Church to pay their respects to the Count. The Reverend Samuel Proctor of the Abyssinian Church eulogized Basie as a man who had achieved the highest of his profession yet left a legacy of a well-ordered life. Among those paying tribute was Basie's long-time musical associate, Joe Williams. Count Basie came to Harlem as a teenager in the 1920s.He went on to perform for presidents and kings. He died Thursday at the age of 79.

[Video postcard -- Dillon, Colorado]

LEHRER: Again the major stories of the day. President Reagan ended his China visit in the midst of Shanghai's 12 million people, one million of whom came out to see him. The economic indicators are down, but the expers say not to worry, it's mostly the weather's fault. As of today new federal regulations require funeral directors to operate their businesses a bit differently. And the Supreme Court cleared the way for political action committees to spend unlimited funds in the 1984 presidential election. Tales from Route 3

LEHRER [voice-over]: Finally, it's now time for Part 2, Story 2 about Person 2 on our trip up and down Route 3. That's Illinois State Highway 3, 140 miles from East St. Louis down along the Mississippi River to Cairo, a trip that involves changes in scenery and lifestyle, politics and beliefs. Tonight the focus is on the northern beginning, the St. Louis area, and on a man named Onion, Richard Onion Horton. He works for the federal government as a personnel management specialist. He also hosts a radio talk show every morning, appears on a weekly television panel show, and writes a column in a weekly black community newspaper. Onion Horton is a man with a lot on his mind.

RICHARD ONION HORTON: My column every week basically is -- well, I'd say it's 48 weeks of the year is on race discrimination in sports. The other four weeks I might write about Grenada or a killing we've had here in St. Louis or something that might happen in El Salvador or whatever. But I think people have such a false image of sports because we see it so glamorous and if one would be lulled into thinking that all was fair in sports when we see the Hershel Walkers and the David Thompsons and the Jackie Robinsons. We see all these people that are on the surface. We don't see the people that are overlooked. We don't see the people in management who never have almost no chance whatsoever of moving up. There aren't any Bart Starrs who can go from quarterback of the Green Bay Packers to coach, no black man can do that. And these are the things that I write about.

LEHRER [voice-over]: And that's what he tells graduating high school football players like Gerald Walls and his parents about.

HORTON: So you're taking some vacation now with football over, right?

GERALD WALLS: Going out for track.

HORTON: You're going to be out there with the track people. You're a shotputter, huh?

Mr. WALLS: That's right.

HORTON: Well, that's great.

[to students] What my main message would be to study while you're in high school because today, with the situation it is now, there are so many great athletes that if you aren't the exception, you're going to be canned in one year. There are no more four-year scholarships. They can drop you any time.

[to parents] I guess you are very pleased, the two of you, right?

Mr. and Mrs. WALLS: Yes, very pleased.

Mr. HORTON: Well, you know, one thing I wanted to mention, too, is what I always mention to parents about the -- be sure and read that contract. They're going to bring you a piece of paper and I think you should well ask that you have a commodity here, and what they're looking for, basically, is some beef on the hoof. In the past those scholarships said, "As long as you did your work in the classroom you could stay." If you got hurt the first day, you still had four years of scholarship as long as you kept your grades up. Now you can make A's in every class and be dropped at the end of the year. So the colleges have no dedication as far as academics are concerned. The NCAA has a requirement of only nine hours a semester. You are only required to carry that much. As long as you pass those nine hours a semester you are eligible for athletics. Nobody can get a degree with nine hours a semester for four years. In fact, not even for five years. So that's what happened. The colleges -- you look at the end of four or five years, Shirley or Johnny has never flunked a subject, and yet they don't have a degree. So it's quite obvious the only thing they're interested in is having the people there to bring in money. And that's why I said the choice would be easy there but for one thing. Black mercenaries. That's all they are. Athletic mercenaries.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Onion attends a high school sporting event every night. He says he prefers watching high school athletes more than the pros.

Mr. HORTON: I can think of no worse model than a professional athlete. I think it's ridiculous to see these boys clubs go out and bring in these athletes. I'm telling you when you pick up the paper and look at the number of the ones going away for drug cures, if I want to get a dopehead, I could get a local one, go out on the corner and bring him in right off the front of a church or right off the boys' club lot and let him tell the people. Why go and pay a dopehead a lot of money that's making a couple of hundred thousand dollars. I think they're the worst possible image any black child could have. I think I'm being fair when you look at their record. I haven't -- I think all you gotta do is ask anybody in St. Louis how involved are black athletes in this town? And I don't think they're unique here.I think if you went all over the country -- imagine, if you will, a black man, with the racial situation what it is in this country, making the statement that he can't get involved because he's an athlete. You know, it's just unbelievable. These are the people that are benefiting from all the busted heads, all the dying, the everything. Who was the first one that integrated the hotels in St. Louis? It wasn't a black janitor. It wasn't the black folks that lived here. It was black athletes that came here and went to the Chase Hotel. They've reaped the fortune of everybody's suffering, and an overwhelming majority of them haven't done anything. Floyd Patterson flew into Selma, I think, in an airplane after the National Guard got there. He rolled in, everything was -- the head-knocking was over just as soon as the athletes start showing up. We got people with Phi Beta Kappa rings and can't get a job, and here's a guy that can be a mental midget and can jump real high and he can make a million dollars a year. Now, I think there's something wrong with a system where a personcan get by simply because of their brawn. And a person can have a tremendous brain and never make anything. Is that what this country was structured? You know, well, we'll take our athletes. Give me the one with the strong back and the weak mind, and run him through. And I think this success is the very thing that's driven the wedge.They all of a sudden taste this good life and they don't want to be around this blackman that's suffering or a black woman. That's why they make the statements, "I'm not a politician, I'm an athlete." I'm not a politician, either, but it sure don't make me like what's happening to black people.

[to athlete] What would you like to do when you go to college? You got any idea what particular course?

ATHLETE: Political science.

Mr. HORTON: Good, politics.

My life is different from my father's primarily because I can walk down the street at night and not figure that I'm going to get blown away.Every day my dad's greatest victory was getting home alive every day. My dad lived in the '30s and '40s and '50s while there was open season on black people. They could kill a black man and nothing would be done about it. Nothing now is done, but the atmosphere is a little better. They don't shoot us like they do. They don't castrate us and lynch us like they did in the '30s, '40s and '50s. My dad was what they called a shoeshine boy. They've upgraded that to bootblack now. But my dad was always able to keep me aware of what America really was, that it was a country built on a lie, and that every time they open their mouth that they told a lie, and I never forgot that.

LEHRER: Onion Horton. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim.That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Good night.