The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, senators scrapped over the shuttle investigation. California police said the Filipino newspaper murder was domestic, not political. A convicted spy killed himself in a Virginia jail. And Eastern Airlines pilots voted to strike. The details are in our news summary coming up. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, Elizabeth Brackett summarizes what we know after a week of disclosures about the space shuttle disaster. Then Judy Woodruff profiles the senator who's suddenly one of the most influential men in Washington, Phil Gramm of Texas. Finally, a major focus section on President Reagan's call to resume military aid to the contras in Nicaragua. We debate the military arguments and the political pros and cons. News Summary

LEHRER: Key members of the U.S. Senate went to war today over the shuttle Challenger investigation. Democrat Ernest Hollings fired the first round, holding a news conference to call for the resignation of NASA chief William Graham and for a Senate investigation of the Challenger accident. Hollings also had critical words for the presidential commission which is already investigating.

Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS, (D) South Carolina: Any commission of this kind at a national level has a dual function. It serves, yes, as a jury for the investigation. There's no question about the complement of this commission and its capability to serve as that jury. They're all persons of renown and outstanding records. But they'll also serve as investigators. And I was amazed earlier this week, having been in business for two weeks, that they hadn't even employed an investigator and rather resented the idea.

LEHRER: Senator Hollings is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and its space subcommittee. The chairmen of those two committees, both Republicans, countered Hollings' move with a news conference of their own. Senators John Danforth and Slade Gorton said the Congress should stay out of it for now.

Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: We think that the investigation of the disaster should be conducted in a very systematic and professional way. We believe that that is best accomplished by the Rogers commission being permitted to go ahead with its work without interference on the part of a congressional committee. We think that when the Rogers committee proceeds with its work, there will be plenty of opportunities for us to fill in any perceived blanks, if there are any, and for us to reflect on the policy implications of that commission.

MacNEIL: In northern California, workers were struggling today to rebuild a levee that burst last night, sending a wall of floodwater over two towns. Some 36,000 people had to leave their homes in a hurry in the communities of Linda and Olivehurst when the levee gave way near the confluence of the Yuba and Feather rivers. The area under water today was more than half the size of the city of San Francisco. Officials say it would be at least another day before anyone would be allowed to return home.

LEHRER: The apparent political murder of the anti-Marcos newspaper executive turned out to be something very different. Police in Glendale, California, today charged the son and the son's girlfriend in the death of Oscar Salvatierra, Los Angeles bureau chief ofthe U.S.-published Philippine News. Salvatierra was shot to death Wednesday at his home. Because he was an outspoken critic of the Marcos regime, members of the U.S. Congress and others immediately suggested the killing was political. The arrest was announced by Police Chief David Thompson.

Chief DAVID THOMPSON, Glendale, CA Police: There has been widespread speculation that Mr. Salvatierra's death was politically motivated by pro-Marcos supporters. Our ongoing, thorough and exhaustive investigation has [not] discovered or revealed any evidence whatsoever to support that position. On the contrary, we believe from the evidence available to us that Mr. Salvatierra's death was a result of domestic violence within the home and committed by his 17-year-old son.

LEHRER: A spy committed suicide today in his Virginia jail cell. Former CIA analyst Larry Chin was convicted two weeks ago of spying for China for more than 30 years. U.S. marshals said Chin was found dead this morning. A plastic bag was tied around his head.

MacNEIL: In economic news, the government reported that Americans' personal income fell for the first time in eight months and consumer spending dropped in January. The fall in personal income was 0.1%, and in spending 0.4%. Analysts said the weak numbers were skewed by special factors and did not necessarily mean a downward trend for the economy. Traders on Wall Street weren't worried about the news either. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up nearly 25 points today and over 33 points for the week overall.

Eastern Airlines pilots today authorized a strike at midnight next Tuesday if no contract agreement is reached before then. The financially troubled airline said it would shut down all operations and lay off most of its 40,000 employees if it is struck by its pilots, flight attendants or machinists.

LEHRER: The 14-year-old boy with AIDS did return to school in Kokomo, Indiana, today, and almost half of his fellow students stayed home. We have a report from Kokomo by correspondent Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: AIDS victim Ryan White was back where he wants to be today, in classes at Western Middle School in Kokomo, Indiana.

REPORTER: What do you think of your first day back in school? Was it everything you hoped for or --

RYAN WHITE, AIDS victim: Yeah, it was a lot of fun. I'm glad I'm back.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: After 14 months of negotiations, the local health department, Ryan's lawyers and school officials agreed on special precautions designed to prevent Ryan from spreading AIDS to his teachers or classmates. The precautions are far more stringent than those recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control. And in spite of them, nearly half of Ryan's schoolmates did not show up for classes today.

WENDY RAYL, 7th grader: I don't want him in school because of the disease. And I guess he misses his friends, too, and wants back.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The low turnout reflects continuing mistrust among many of these students and their parents of the reliability of current medical knowledge about AIDS.

ALLEN SHEPHERD, parent: Every piece of proof that you can give me, I can give you a case that I've heard just the opposite. And until they can come out and say there is no danger in AIDS, I feel like there is a danger. It's a deadly disease, and I don't want to take that chance with my children.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The school board here also opposes Ryan's admission, but says it has no legal grounds to bar him. Late this afternoon, parents of Ryan's classmates were seeking a court injunction to remove Ryan from school once again.

MacNEIL: The State Department said today that Mexico was the principal disappointment in a year of improved drug control by other nations. The department's annual drug control report said 14 producing countries are now actively destroying drug crops, compared to only two nations four years ago. The report said Mexico was the top source of marijuana and heroin brought to the U.S. last year, despite that country's efforts to attack the trade.

In Italy, four terrorists shot and wounded a senior aide to Premier Bettino Craxi. We have a report from John Marks of Visnews.

JOHN MARKS, Visnews [voice-over]: One attacker is dead, at least two others ran away. The police see this as a successful response to urban guerrilla activity. The shooting occurred as an official from the prime minister's department left his home to go to the office. The attackers were waiting. At least one was a woman, another may have been disguised as a woman. When the official stepped from his car to buy a newspaper, they came out from behind the newsstand and started shooting. Somehow the target was not killed, and his driver, also his police bodyguard, was too fast. He jumped from the car firing with his revolver and killed one of the women. Two others jumped on a motorscooter and fled from the scene. That left the government official suffering minor wounds to a hand and leg, and the bodyguard was also reported to have been wounded. Nearby, police found a leaflet but they'll not say who it represented. The Italian urban guerrilla group, the Red Brigade, claimed responsibility for a killing in Florence 11 days ago, and although the organization appears to be a spent force, authorities fear a re-emergence.

LEHRER: That ends our news summary. We go now to an Elizabeth Brackett progress report on the shuttle investigation; a Judy Woodruff profile of the Gramm of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings; and a four-way debate over the new effort to aid the contra guerrillas of Nicaragua. NASA Under Attack

LEHRER: The shuttle investigation. Elizabeth Brackett, our woman on the story, takes a week's-end look at where the quest for answers now stands.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: Three and a half weeks after the shuttle tragedy, NASA is under attack -- by Congress, the press and the presidential commission called to investigate the accident. At the heart of the controversy, the decision whether to launch the Challenger that cold morning on January 28th.

VOICE [January 28]: This is shuttle launch control. During the past hour, a team of engineers representing both the contractors and NASA have been taking a look at the ice buildup that occurred on the structures at the launchpad during the night to determine that there was no problem in getting this launch off this morning.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Since then, the agency's public statements have raised more questions than they have answered. At the first presidential commission hearing on February 6th, top NASA officials were asked if they had considered the impact of cold weather on the launch.

JESSE MOORE, NASA [February 6]: It was not discussed at my meeting. It was discussed at the meeting we had on the mission management team meeting at two o'clock on the 27th of January. Is that right, Arnie?

ARNOLD ALDRICH, NASA: It was not explicitly discussed as a concern.

WILLIAM ROGERS, commission chairman: Do you remember any warning from the -- I guess it was Morton Thiokol to that effect, that there might be a problem with the temperature in the booster?

Mr. ALDRICH: I do not recall such a warning at that time.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: A news conference the following week featured Lawrence Mulloy, head of NASA's solid rocket booster program, the man in closest touch with the rocket's manufacturer, Morton Thiokol. Pressed by reporters, Mulloy admitted the contractor had been concerned about the effect of cold temperatures on the solid booster rocket.

LAWRENCE MULLOY, NASA [February 12]: The initial recommendation of the Thiokol engineering was that we should launch within our experience base, which was that the O-ring temperature should be 53 degrees. We had further discussions about that and the test data, and that then resulted in a recommendation by Thiokol, the program manager who makes flight readiness recommendations, with his rationale that he recommended proceeding with the launch under those temperature conditions based on the engineering analysis that had been done.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Two days later, in a closed commission hearing at Cape Canaveral, a Thiokol engineer, Allen McDonald, revealed for the first time that he and his colleagues had strongly opposed the decision to launch. He said, "I argued before and I argued after." That surprising information from McDonald angered commission members. The relationship between the commission and NASA became significantly more adversarial. In his next public statement before a Senate panel called to review the commission's work, chairman Rogers came down hard on NASA.

Sec. ROGERS [February 18]: Our intensive review to date has indicated that the decision-making process may have been flawed.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: At the same Senate hearing, the man who made the final decision to launch admitted he lacked critical information when that decision was made.

COMMISSION MEMBER [February 18]: If you'd gotten that information ahead of time that the lower part of the booster rockets were showing temperatures below 10 degrees, would that have caused you to have a material concern?

Mr. MOORE: I would have asked more questions about what the readings indicated, what were the differentials between the left booster reading and the right booster reading and so forth, were the kind of things that I would have put back down in the system to get some answers to.

BRACKETT: Following that revelation, the old Watergate question began to emerge here in Washington: what did they know and when did they know it? Should top NASA officials have known about those suspiciously low temperature readings? Should they have known about the objections to the launch raised by the contractors' own engineers?

[voice-over] A former top official at NASA who ran the agency's shuttle technology program says yes.

DEL TISCHLER, former NASA official: I believe in this case they should have, because at least some of these decisions could have been considered critical.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: By the end of the week, three weeks after the shuttle accident, the beleaguered NASA acting administrator was defending the agency's decision-making process at a news conference. He was also fending off rumors of his own departure.

WILLIAM GRAHAM, acting administrator, NASA [February 20]: I'm the acting administrator at the direction of the President. I serve him and the country in that role, and I'm perfectly willing and would gladly do anything he wishes me to do.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: To deflect growing criticism, the agency felt it necessary to release a document backing up itsearlier statement that in the end the manufacturer of the solid rocket had agreed to the launch decision. But the document has done little to calm the mounting storm. Lawrence Mulloy, the top solid rocket booster man at NASA, was quoted as having told reluctant company engineers, "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" The President's commission plans to hold a new round of public hearings next week. Breathing down their necks, U.S. senators anxious to launch their own investigation. Senator Ernest Hollings is already calling on NASA's chief, William Graham, to resign.

Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS, (D) South Carolina [today]: What we really need is like they've appointed already now head of the shuttle flight -- someone of known credibility and experience. Dr. Graham does not have the experience, and he certainly doesn't have the loyalty and feel for this particular program.

BRACKETT: So what began as a civil and cooperative investigation has quickly become an increasingly hostile and personal one, as lawmakers, investigators and the press are now focusing on not only what to blame but who to blame as well.

LEHRER: Still to come tonight, Judy Woodruff profiles Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, and two former military men and two congressmen argue over aid to the contras of Nicaragua. Phil Gramm: Budget Balancer

MacNEIL: Next tonight, the NewsHour profiles a man who has rapidly become one of the most influential people in Washington and the nation. The profile is by Judy Woodruff. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The fate of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget law will be largely decided by the Supreme Court in the next few months. Whatever the court decides, the law has already left an indelible mark on the federal government, not to mention the political process. For that reason, we thought it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the man who dreamed the whole thing up in the first place, Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

KENT HANCE, former congressman: Phil Gramm is a risk taker. He's not afraid to take risks.

Rep. CHARLES STENHOLM, (D) Texas: His grasp of the issue, whatever it was, and ability to pick an issue and to gather the attention that comes with it is rather phenomenal.

BOB SLAGLE, Texas Democratic chairman: He's very rigid in his thought process, and he's absolutely sure that he's correct, and anybody that has a different idea probably doesn't have a very good one.

Rep. TONY COELHO, (D) California: You know, there are a lot of small people out there in the country today who are getting hurt because of Phil Gramm.

JIM FRANCIS, Texas GOP strategist: I just think that Phil Gramm will be one of the persons that we'll look to, to be a candidate for president someday, sometime.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The man they're talking about was just a little over seven years ago still teaching economics at Texas A&M. At the time, few people in Washington had ever heard of Phil Gramm, much less expected his name to be attached to some of the most far-reaching legislation ever to emerge from the Congress.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: From now on, when the public hears the names Gramm, Rudman or Hollings, they'll think deficit reduction.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In his seven years in Washington, Gramm has managed both to dazzle and to infuriate many of the most powerful people around.

Sen. PHIL GRAMM, (R) Texas [on "Meet the Press]: To show you what miracles there are in Gramm-Rudman, we have on one side here one of the strongest supporters of national defense in the country, and one of the weakest. And yet -- and yet --

Sen. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, (D) New York: Hey, Phil, I'm not going to allow my voting record to be misrepresented. You're one year in the Senate, fella; you don't do that to another senator.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: If he stole the spotlight away from more senior colleagues in the Senate last year as a Republican, Gramm earned the lasting ire of some of his House colleagues when he was a Democrat and collaborated with the Reagan White House on budget-cutting strategies.

Pres. REAGAN [1981]: If I do advise him, having been a Democrat once myself I'll tell him to come on over, the water's fine.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: How is it that a relative newcomer to the Washington scene made a name for himself in such a short time?

JAMES MILLER, budget director: He's a scrapper, and he has a lot of perseverance. You know, I mean, he's seen some hard times, he's dealt with those hard times and he's overcome them. He's got supreme confidence.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: White House budget director Jim Miller got to know Gramm when they were both undergraduates at the University of Georgia.

Mr. MILLER: He seemed to know -- have a plan for everything. He would think through issues. And he doesn't take things just day by day; he plans the work out.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: What Gramm was thinking through as far back as his first college course in economics was an abiding faith in the free enterprise system.

Sen. GRAMM: My grandfather was an itinerant Baptist preacher-sharecropper. And my mama went through the seventh grade, and my dad didn't graduate from high school. But they both were successful, and my mother was a nurse, my father became a master sergeant in the Army. The system worked for us, and it worked by in a sense providing the ultimate justice. Those who work hard succeed in the American free enterprise system.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: What Gramm heard in class only reinforced what he already believed. He went on to a Ph.D. in economics at Georgia, and in 1967 headed west to Texas A&M. It wasn't long, however, before Gramm's teaching job there was in jeopardy. The assessment of a senior professor brought in to upgrade A&M's economics department was that Gramm and everyone else would have to be fired.

Prof. TOM SAVING, Texas A&M: We knew one thing, and that was that the people who were here were poorly trained, and that as a result their stock of economic knowledge was low, and that with that stock of knowledge they weren't going to succeed.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Thomas Saving said what he hadn't counted on, however, was one young professor's tenacity.

Prof. SAVING: You would come in to the economics department at night, Phil would be there working. You'd come in on Saturday or Sunday afternoon, that's where he'd be. He'd be working.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Saving went on to become one of Gramm's closest friends and eventually saw another competitive side to Gramm that showed up outside the classroom as well as in.

Prof. SAVING: He was very interested in motivating people. He's always been interested in motivating people. And he felt that a lot of winning is simply attitude. Now, the College Station Little-League football team the year before had lost every game. Phil went and took those same kids and they won every game the next year. He made them winners. He made them convinced that they could win.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Saving says there was only one down side to the winning.

Prof. SAVING: Phil was abrasive to his players, and they loved him. Some of the parents didn't like him because he screamed at the players to get their attention.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: It was the sort of complaint about Gramm that would surface again later. In the meantime, in the early 1970s Gramm was starting to get interested in politics. He was struck then by what he called a lack of ideas, which he translated to mean government didn't see that government itself was a problem.

Sen. GRAMM: It's as if a piece of paper is blown has and affixed itself to the top of the Capitol building and blotted out the sun. And the liberals have rushed forward with the most powerful words ever spoken in political debate, and those words are "I have an idea," and the idea might be to spend $60 billion to build an artificial sun. And the conservatives were rushing forward with the weakest words ever uttered in a political debate, and those words are "I do not have an idea. In fact, I haven't had an idea in 40 years, but I'm reasonable, I'll compromise. We'll spend $40 billion, we'll have free enterprise build the sun, and of course we'll regulate it." Nobody was saying, "Why don't we pull the paper off the Capitol building?"

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm decided to put his ideas to the test in 1976 in an uphill race against U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen. Bentsen beat him by better than two to one, but that didn't stop Gramm from trying again two years later for a congressional seat. This time he made it into a runoff by just 122 votes.

Mr. GRAMM [1978]: Phil Gramm's my name.

RUSSELL WHITE: Russell White.

Mr. GRAMM: Representing Midlothian in Congress, and I'd sure appreciate it if you'd vote for me on Saturday.

Mr. WHITE: I'll think about it.

Mr. GRAMM: I'll try to keep government's hand out of your pocket.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Some were surprised that the former college professor had jumped into politics with such determination. But Gramm's old friend Thomas Saving says Gramm simply had an idea he wanted to get across about economic freedom.

Prof. SAVING: This is the only place it's really ever been tried, and he felt strongly about that. You can have an impact in 10 or 20 years by staying in academics, and at some point he decided, "I'm going to have this impact and I'm going to do it more quickly than 20 or 30 years."

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In fact, Gramm only had to wait two years after winning his first political contest to play a major role in shaping the federal budget. It was his name that went on the historic package of budget cutbacks, Gramm-Latta, endorsed by President Reagan in 1981. In planning that package, Gramm worked with then-Reagan budget director David Stockman and dazzled Stockman's staff with his command of the numbers.

LAWRENCE KUDLOW, former budget officer: And one of the things that struck me during this meeting was the extraordinary grasp of the budget that Gramm had. And not to in any way suggest that Stockman wasn't up to speed on it, but the fact was, Gramm, with really very few notes and so forth, just sitting there looking at the broad functions, started saying, "Well, we can get this but we can't get that. We can get $200 million here or $300 million there." And that was the first moment that I began to develop quite a lot of respect for his knowledge in this area.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm's budget expertise gave him a great deal of influence among his conservative Democratic colleagues, known as boll weevils, as they made up their minds to side with the new Republican President and against their fellow Democrats. But Congressman Charles Stenholm, the group's coordinator who was a Gramm ally, says the then-38-year-old congressman had a knack for rubbing other members the wrong way.

Rep. STENHOLM: The overall manner in which Phil handles himself with his colleagues and what have you, and what some call a pushy nature and overexuberance and not being as patient with the political process, or as patient with those who disagreed -- sometimes and gradually grew to be a grating influence on many members of our group, as it later did on many other members of Congress.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Another boll weevil of that era, who later switched parties and remains on good terms with Gramm, is former Congressman Kent Hance. Hance offers an explanation for Gramm's behavior.

Rep. HANCE: I don't think Phil went to Congress to have the most conservative voting record or to have the most this or most that. I think he felt like that there were some things need to be done and that he was going to do them. And if he had to step on some people's toes, then he's going to step on their toes. He felt like he was right, and he wasn't going to back away from it.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: If Gramm did not endear himself to some of his conservative Democratic colleagues, he was downright despised by many mainstream Democrats, who accused him of turning over information he picked up in party caucus sessions to the White House. Congressman Tony Coelho.

Rep. COELHO: That's like somebody on your football team discussing what was discussed in the huddle before the play was called, so that the opposition knew exactly where you were going to throw the ball.

Sen. GRAMM: Judy, if they ever had a strategy other than not to cut anything, I never ascertained it. And the idea that anybody was going to come up to me with some deep dark secret about how to spend more money, given that I had already gone down to the White House with 46 Democrats and said to the President "You're not cutting enough," would be like the President getting confused and giving secrets to Gorbachev, not knowing what side he was on.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: By mid-1982 Gramm's relationship with many of his fellow Democrats was strained, and some Republicans were urging him to switch parties. As it turned out, Gramm waited until after he won reelection as a Democrat and his Democratic House colleagues took steps to remove him from the Budget Committee before he made the jump.

Rep. GRAMM: I had to make a choice between the people of my district and the leadership of our party. The leadership of our party doesn't vote in my district and didn't elect me, and when I had to make that choice it was a very easy choice. I dance with those what brung me.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm's Democratic friends were surprised by the move, and some saw it as part of a broader problem for him.

Rep. STENHOLM: He uses his friends. All of us in politics use our friends regularly. If you use your friends too much in not necessarily a positive way, it tends to get you in trouble, and at times Phil is tempted to -- or has tended to go a little bit too far in the utilization of his friends for his own personal agenda. I don't think it's a major problem as yet, but I think that that's something that he's going to have to take a look at.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm had only served in the House as a Republican for a matter of months when he announced he would run for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas being vacated by veteran lawmaker John Tower. He won in November 1984, and almost immediately faced a challenge other freshmen senators wouldn't have dreamed of wading into: the budget impasse between the White House and the Congress. Gramm originated the balanced budget proposal, got a Republican and a Democratic co-sponsor in Senators Warren Rudman and Ernest Hollings, and saw it passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Sen. GRAMM: We won today on the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget proposal because it was an idea that wouldn't die.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But even that wasn't enough for Gramm. Since his plan has become law, he continues to monitor the way it is being implemented, as in this phone conversation with the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Rudolph Penner.

Sen. GRAMM: Well, I know it's -- I know we've given you a lot of work, but, Rudy, we put lead in your pencil. You're shooting with real bullets over there, boy, remember it.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm seems unfazed by the law's many detractors.

Sen. GRAMM: The thing that is missed by those who criticize what we've tried to do here is the fact that what we're debating in the budget is not just numbers, not just deficits, but we're debating the future of America, and we're really choosing increasingly between two futures. One future is the future of government growing, providing more services. The other future, the future that I prefer, and I believe the American people prefer, is a future with America growing providing more opportunities. And the problem is that unlimited government and unlimited opportunity are sworn enemies.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even some of Gramm's friends, however, remain skeptical of his economic thinking.

Rep. STENHOLM: If there is a little problem or a concern with Phil is, when you talk about the budget, he doesn't always see the people involved in the budget.

Sen. GRAMM: I think that's wrong. I think one of the things that's been the hallmark of my work on the budget is that I try to think in concrete terms about real people. On every program I apply the Dickie Flatt test. Dickie Flatt is a printer in Mexia, in my old district. And he works 'til seven or eight every night. He works on Saturday. And whether you see him at the Boy Scouts or the Methodist church or the PTA, he never quite gets that blue ink off the end of his fingers. So I ask, will the benefits to be derived from spending this money be worth taking this money away from Dickie Flatt? And let me tell you, there are not a lot of programs that'll stand up to that test.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Jim Francis is a long-time Texas Republican strategist who chaired a group of top advisors to Gramm's campaign for the Senate. He says Gramm has the qualities to be a national leader.

JIM FRANCIS, Texas GOP strategist: Many politicians are fearful to take a strong position for fear of getting themself out on a limb that will damage them politically. They are not decisive. Phil, he studies a problem, he makes a decision and then he goes after a solution to it. And once he is on that course, you're not going to convince him to get off that course because it's politically not to his best interest.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even Gramm's friends say he will stop at almost nothing to achieve his goal, and that's just what bothers Gramm's critics.

Rep. COELHO: Well, I think that's the key, that he will do anything to reach that goal. Take advantage of anybody, do anything he can to reach that goal. I think that's what I think troubles me and troubles a lot of other people, is that -- I mean, all of us agree that we need to reduce deficits. All of us agree that we need to do something about making the system work. The question is, do you step on people to get there?

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm's defenders, however, suggest that's inevitable given Gramm's ambitious agenda.

LANCE TARRANCE, Republican pollster: I see Gramm being disliked because he doesn't play the game the way they're used to playing it. But how can you, if you're going to reform the system in the next five or six years? If you want to play along for the next 50, then you'll become a Herman Talmadge or Richard Russell and you'll somehow, when you're about 78 years old, make a contribution -- maybe. And a lot of people will like you and they'll name a building after you, but they might not have done much for the country in terms of changing the economy. And I do think that Gramm does have a sense as a unique player in the U.S. Senate, as a political economist.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm's critics, though, like Texas Democratic Chairman Bob Slagle, say Gramm may no longer be a player.

Mr. SLAGLE: It will be interesting to see how much influence Senator Gramm has two years from now, three years from now, five years from now in the United States Senate, because you can't make one group of those people mad and then run over and find another group that really doesn't know you that well.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: When Gramm's Republican advisors look ahead, they see something different. They say Gramm sees a role for himself in history.

Mr. TARRANCE: We might look back and say the year 1984 to the year 2004 was a new era in American politics, and Gramm wants to be one of the five or six leaders in that. To be president takes a unique, almost a coalition of forces, politics, unscheduled events and personality, and nobody could possibly -- and I think he understands that. But if he is one of the six or eight that are leading us legislatively at the current time, leading us into this new era, who knows what can happen?

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gramm himself takes a slightly more modest view.

Sen. GRAMM: When you take the strong positions that I take, when you're dealing with controversial issues, you make friends, you make enemies. Quite frankly, I expect the next couple of years to be tough years for me. I expect a lot of criticism on Gramm-Rudman, I expect every time there's a pothole for Gramm-Rudman to be blamed, every time a bureaucrat has to make a hard decision they will try to blame it on the requirement of law. So I expect two years of very tough going, but then I expect the program to show big benefits. Aid for Contras

LEHRER: The contra aid issue has come front and center again, so ordered by President Reagan. He wants $100 million in military and other aid for the guerrillas fighting the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. He gave it priority status in his State of the Union message, raised it forcefully with the Republican congressional leadership Tuesday and again yesterday in his remarks in Grenada. We look at the issue now with two pairs of opposites, two military men and two congressmen. The militaries are first: retired Major General John Singlaub, former commander of the U.S. forces in South Korea, now chairman of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, which raises private money for the contras. He is with us tonight from our studios in Denver. And retired Lieutenant Colonel Edward King, who served as the Joint Chiefs of Staff liaison with the Inter-American Defense Force and to the U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States. He is now a Washington defense and foreign affairs analyst.

Beginning with you first, Colonel King. Right now, how much of a military threat are the contras to the Sandinista government?

Lt. Col. EDWARD KING (ret.): A very negligible threat, Jim. Practically none at all at this point. Their harassing force in the north has been completely driven out; in the south, they're back in Costa Rica. As a military decisive force, they don't really have a role at this point.

LEHRER: How would $100 million -- the President wants $100 million, $70 million of that to be military aid, $30 in other kinds of aid. What would that $70 million do to that position?

Col. KING: It'll make them a little more effective, but it won't change what I just said. They'll still be a negligible force; they'll still be operating from bases inside Honduras, being resupplied from inside Honduras. They can't hold terrain inside of Nicaragua.

LEHRER: Why can't they?

Col. KING: They haven't been able to in three and a half years. If they seize it, they'll be overrun.

LEHRER: What is their problem? Is it a manpower problem, is it a hardware problem, what?

Col. KING: It's a three-part problem. One, they are -- sure they're outnumbered. There are about 60,000 against about 5,000. You got to remember, they have 14,000 people, but they've never had more than 5,000 of them inside Nicaragua at any one time. The Sandinistas have about 60,000 troops and about 100,000 militia. The real problem is not the hind helicopters as much as it is the artillery that the Sandinistas have in the north. They are covering it very well. So these people can move in, strike, and then they have to get out or get wiped out, and that's basically all they can do, is harass at this point. And $100 million is not going to change that. It's not going to make them decisive, and it's not going to change the direction of the Sandinista government. It's going to take a lot more money than $100 million to do that.

LEHRER: All right. Let's go to General Singlaub in Denver. First, let's go through those same sets of questions, General. First of all, how would you rate them as a military threat now to the Sandinistas?

Gen. JOHN SINGLAUB (ret.): Well, they've lacked a lot of opportunities because there has been no support coming to them. You can't become a military threat if you're only provided with Band-Aids and blankets. They do have the support of the people. The great advantage they have is not only the full support of the people. In the same way that when I was in France during the occupation, all of the French were against the Germans, and this is developing inside Nicaragua today. The people are against the Sandinistas. Now, in addition to the fact that they are already about four times larger than the Sandinistas when they took power from Somoza, I would say that Colonel King is really not facing the facts. Once they are given the military wherewithal to carry out the strategy that they can develop when they know they're going to have some support, they will be a very, very powerful force and the people will rally to them as they have in those places where they have taken over a village for a short period of time.

LEHRER: Colonel King?

Col. KING: Well, I don't think they have that support in Nicaragua. I've been on both sides. I've spent about the last three years going back and forth, and I've been to the Sandinista army. If they have the support, why can't they hold the terrain in the country? There's 150,000 AK-47 rifles floating all over Nicaragua in everybody's hands, and nobody's been using those against anybody on the Sandinista side. Number two, they have had support. They've had over $100 million pumped into them already, and three and a half years of training, and they're no better today than they were three and a half years ago. In fact, they're really weaker. The second thing is that in terms of La Guardia, sure, 3,000 Sandinistas --

LEHRER: In terms of what?

Col. KING: La Guardia Nacional that the Sandinista beat.

LEHRER: All right.

Col. KING: Sure, that was never an army, that was a police force. Four hundred good Boy Scouts probably could have beaten them. These guys are up against now a much tougher army and a much better trained army. I'm talking about the contras. So it's not the same plate, and I think the general's wrong on that.

LEHRER: General?

Gen. SINGLAUB: Well, let me just clarify this point. There has been no effort made to hold terrain. A strategy of holding terrain depends upon good logistical support. They have not had that. When their support is at the whimsy of the Congress, you can understand that it would be foolhardy for them to say we're going to hold some terrain and then have the Congress cut off all aid. What is needed now is a clear-cut statement by the government of the United States that we are going to support you, we're going to give you the wherewithal to conduct the necessary military operations. And I would hope that sometime in the future the government of the United States will withdraw recognition of the Sandinistas.

LEHRER: General, what do you think the impact of this $100 million would be on the contra effort? You heard what the Colonel said.

Gen. SINGLAUB: Well, I think it's going to send a signal not only to the contras, and give them the wherewithal that they do not have now. I believe it'll also be a boost to the morale of the people inside Nicaragua, who are now suffering under the Sandinistas. I believe it will also send a signal to all of the Central American countries that the American people finally have made their minds up and they're going to help the people overthrow the Sandinistas that pose a very obvious, a very clear threat to the people, not only in Central America but directly to the United States.

LEHRER: Colonel King, in your judgment, what would it take for the contras to overthrow the Sandinista government? How long would it take?

Col. KING: Well, as they're presently constituted, they can't do it, in my estimation, Jim. You can give them money for the next 10 years, the aren't not going to overthrow the Sandinista government with what they have right now. Let's give them $100 million this year; what you're talking about is retraining, the three years of training they've already had. They're deficient in logistics, they're deficient in small-unit leadership, they're deficient in small-unit tactics and they have no strategy. They can't hold terrain because they haven't got the firepower, they're outgunned, they're just tremendously outgunned. If we put $100 million, the Soviets will put in $200 million. The curve is already high for the Sandinistas and low here. They're going to keep on going up. They can't do that. So I don't think the $100 million makes any difference. It's a combat-ineffective force. If you want to make it effective, take it out of there, retrain it and put about a half -- about $400 million into it, make a new army; then you might have something you can do something with. What they've got right now, no. No way. I don't think any expert in the country, except maybe General Singlaub, would think they have a prayer. Just watch them fight.

LEHRER: General?

Gen.SINGLAUB: Well, I'm certainly not the only person in this country who believes that they have the capabilities. I believe it's absolutely essential that we do this now. Any talk about delaying it to some time in the future is going to risk the establishment of the Soviet bases that are now being constructed there. That is the occupation by Soviet forces. That's a direct threat to the United States. I believe it's also essential that we do this now, provide them this help, because there is a terrorist base in operation today in Nicaragua, and from that base we are going to be subjected not only in the rest of Central America, but inside the United States to terrorists who are now being trained by the greatest collection of terrorists ever assembled any place in the world. They're being documented by the Nicaraguans. So we must do it now. And I believe that $100 million is going to make that difference. And I'm absolutely convinced that if we decide to provide support for the contras, that will be a boost to their morale, enable them to do what needs to be done to improve their logistics, to improve their small-unit leadership, to improve their strategic position, which they cannot do now under a condition when no one is providing them any help. I believe that the geography is ideally suited for this resistance to be successful. You have friendly nations on three of its borders, and you have two oceans that can be dominated by the United States Navy. So I'm absolutely convinced that we must do this now, and it's in our interest. This is an application of what -- it'll become known as the Reagan doctrine. You recall that the Nixon doctrine was to give the wherewithal to the Vietnamese after we had tried. Let's give the wherewithal now to the Nicaraguans to take Nicaragua back to the Nicaraguans and prevent that Soviet base from being established.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now to the debate in Congress, which must vote on the contra aid proposal by the end of March, when the current humanitarian aid program expires. With us are Congressman Dave McCurdy, a Democrat from Oklahoma. He is one of the 33 swing votes in the House -- the congressman who supported humanitarian aid for the contras last year but opposed military aid. And Congressman Bob Livingston, a Louisiana Republican. He's a member of the House Intelligence Committee and one of a small group briefed on the contra aid plan this week by the President and Secretary of State Shultz.

Congressman Livingston, from what you've heard from the President, does he make a convincing case for giving the contras now $70 million in military aid and $30 million in nonlethal aid?

Rep. BOB LIVINGSTON: I think he does. Frankly, what other choice do we have? The real question is whether or not we want another Cuba on the North American continent. That's basically the bottom line. The Sandinista government has gotten away with calling themselves Sandinistas when in fact we've overlooked the fact that they are a communist government. They are repressing their people in the same fashion that happened through out the Soviet Eastern bloc, that's happened in Cuba, that's happened in Asia, and they are exporting revolution in the same vein that the Soviets have done throughout the rest of the world. Now, are we going to contain that or are we going to try to get the Sandinista communist government to live up to the promises that they made to the Organization of American States back in 1979 when they seized power. They weren't elected; they seized power but they said they were going to bring a pluralistic government to Nicaragua, and in fact they reneged on all their promises.

MacNEIL: Congressman McCurdy, is the argument this time going to persuade you to vote for military aid?

Rep. DAVE McCURDY: If the package is presented that's advertised now and which Bob has been briefed on, I think it'll be defeated on the floor and in committee. And the principal reason is, when we crafted the $27 million compromise --

MacNEIL: And you'll help defeat it, you're saying.

Rep. McCURDY: That's right. And the reason is that the compromise we tried to craft was to address some of the deficiencies within the contras, and that is, specifically, they don't have a political message, they've yet to develop that. And it disturbs me when I hear General Singlaub talk about just the military end, but he fails to mention that in order to have a successful insurgency you need a political message. There isn't a clear democratic alternative to the Sandinistas. And I think those are two glaring errors. And I think they're organized improperly militarily. And again, the idea is to try to improve their human rights position, their political message -- to support the true democrats within that organization in order that they have the reins of power, which may be again the political alternative to the Sandinistas.

MacNEIL: Are you saying, Congressman, that if they had a better plan and the democratic elements were uppermost and they were effective and well organized, you would support them?

Rep. McCURDY: Yes, as long as there is a political and diplomatic track that goes along. I can support a military pressure on them, but I don't think that the United States has lived up to its commitments on Contadora and negotiations. And that's extremely important. You know, everyone talks about supporting democracy in the region. That is the underlying -- the issue.

MacNEIL: Congressman Livingston, you've heard Mr. McCurdy's objections, that they don't have a proper plan, that they're disorganized, so on.

Rep. LIVINGSTON: The fact is that Mr. McCurdy doesn't know exactly where to stand. He just heard Colonel King say that the contras aren't a viable military force. I concede that. They're not viable because the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has hamstrung President Reagan in his policies to support these people. We can't train them, we can't equip them, and then Mr. McCurdy himself co-sponsored a plan to give them humanitarian aid. The plan was so flawed, and it was the McCurdy plan -- it was so flawed, we couldn't even get that aid down there. We've only gotten about 18 to 20 percent of the humanitarian aid to the people even though most of the money has been spent, and that concerns me. Frankly, I'd like to find out what alternative Mr. McCurdy really has to a communist government that's had seven years to entrench themselves and only as recently as last October eliminated all civil liberties of their own people. Are they that worried about opposition that they have to squeeze out the church and the newspapers and the free people of Nicaragua from expressing their point of view?

MacNEIL: Let's let Congressman McCurdy answer your question.

Rep. McCURDY: Well, there is a solution, and there's an alternative. It's called the Jackson plan in the Kissinger report. How do we reward the democracies in the region? El Salvador has had recent elections; Guatemala just now has emerging democracy; Costa Rica. In all of those countries they've had cuts in their assistance this year, both economic and security assistance, nearly $89 million. We're offering to give Guatemala less assistance than what they're asking for the contras. So you can't have it both ways. They want a quick and easy military solution, and they're not going to get it. What about the support for the region? It's the region that's important in supporting those democracies.

MacNEIL: Congressman --

Rep. LIVINGSTON: Let's talk about that region if we could.

MacNEIL: Can I just ask you a question?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: El Salvador is part of that region. It's right next door to Nicaragua, and as a matter of fact, it was the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives that tried to cut all aid away from the El Salvadoran government and let them fall to the communists in 1980. That didn't happen because of Ronald Reagan's policies, which are working in El Salvador. They would work if they would get off our backs and let us fund the contras.

Rep. McCURDY: That's nonsense, because it was part of the conditionality of the aid to the government of El Salvador that allowed President Duarte to come into power. President Duarte has been the catalyst for change and progress in El Salvador, and if we'd left it to some, you know, D'Aubuisson would be president; it would be an even greater civil war.

MacNEIL: Congressman Livingston, is the aim now -- the military men a moment ago were speaking about overthrowing the Sandinistas. What is the President's aim now? Is it to overthrow the Sandinistas, to get rid of them?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: The aim is to make the Sandinista government, in one fashion or another, live up to the promises that they made to the OAS in 1979 -- to bring pluralistic democratic government to Nicaragua. They have systematically squeezed out any life or freedom or liberty in Nicaragua. They are oppressing their people, imprisoning them and executing them with regular frequency. And Mr. -- well, my friend to my right here, Mr. McCurdy from Oklahoma and the more strident liberals, of which Mr. McCurdy is not one, in the House of Representatives, have systematically said, "Well, let's look to a peaceful diplomatic alternative," and diplomacy simply hasn't worked. You can't talk to a closed door. You can't talk to a person that won't talk back. And Mr. Ortega and his little jaunts to Moscow frankly is entrenching the communist system on our continent. And one thing they always say is that we're risking the chance of sending our boys. What I'm particularly concerned about is that if we don't fund the Nicaraguan freedom fighters today, at some point in some place in Central America our boys may have to take a stand. And I have three sons of my own; I don't want to see that happen.

MacNEIL: Speaker O'Neill says just the reverse, that if you do send them this money right now that the President's asking for, they'll be wiped out by the Sandinistas and then American troops will go in. Congressman McCurdy, what do you say? Do you agree with that?

Rep. McCURDY: I think you have to again have the two tracks. And I don't argue with the second track of some pressure on them. But let's not ignore what we're buying time for. I don't think that we can overthrow the Sandinistas, so what's the use of pressure? The use of pressure is to buy time to enable El Salvador and Guatemala and the others to stabilize. But if we don't give them assistance, and it's already 20 behind schedule in only the second year of the Jackson plan. If Ronald Reagan is as concerned about democracy in Central America as he says he is, then why doesn't he support the Jackson plan? If he put as much effort into that as he does into the support for contra, we wouldn't have any problem in Central America.

MacNEIL: Thank you, gentlemen, both. Jim?

LEHRER: Yeah, let's bring the colonel and the general back into this. Colonel King, first, this question of which one of these actions leads to the most likely introduction of U.S. troops, either give them the $100 million or don't give them the $100 million? What's your opinion on that?

Col. KING: Jim, my opinion is if we give them the $100 million, we're going to prolong a war of attrition. And I think at any point that the Sandinistas want to really make a major effort in the north, they can drive most of the contras back into Honduras. If they do that it'll probably the appearance of a defeat. Now, my problem, I guess my concern is not for Nicaragua, it's for the U.S. If the contras are defeated in a standup battle, if they risk it -- and I hope they don't -- then what does the administration do? Do they accept the defeat of their surrogates? If they do that, the whole thing goes down the tube. Or do they have to commit troops to hope to bail it out? They can't do it in Honduras, the troops aren't there. So what do you do? That's my worry about it. I think the possibility is very likely.

LEHRER: General, what's your view of that?

Gen. SINGLAUB: Well, my view is exactly the opposite of Colonel King. If we are able to give to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters now the wherewithal to conduct sufficient military operations, that the Sandinistas will be forced to make some significant decisions. And that is, are they going to continue to stay with the Soviets and the Cubans and to persecute their own people, or are they going to make some changes? I don't care whether they make the changes or whether they come to a point where they collapse militarily. But certainly, giving aid now is going to reduce the probability that we will have to use U.S. troops. If we don't use the Nicaraguan freedom fighters now, we're going to have to face up to the fact that a Soviet base there will prevent us from carrying out our mission in NATO, and we're going to have to commit U.S. troops there before we can meet our NATO commitment, or withdraw our troops from NATO.

LEHRER: Congressman McCurdy, how do you feel about that argument?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, first of all, I'm not sure they're going to get the $100 million. As a matter, I'm positive they're not going to get it.

LEHRER: You're positive this is not going to ever happen?

Rep. McCURDY: Well, not in this upcoming vote. You know, you normally count votes, but the votes aren't there today. Sure, we're all concerned about U.S. troops in the region, but the issue is, if it is that vital to our national security, then why not troops? If it really is the threat that General Singlaub indicates it is today, then perhaps we should make that decision. But that's not what the President has said. On the one hand he says, well, diplomatic solution; the other hand they say military overthrow. There's been inconsistent and conflicting signals being sent here.

LEHRER: Congressman Livingston, what about his point, that if it's as important to the American interests as you and the general say it is, why not send your sons and anybody else's American sons to fight?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: The fact is, we don't want to spill American boys' blood. The Nicaraguan citizens are perfectly willing to take on the battle, if only we'll give them the wherewithal to do it. We have systematically squeezed the life out of them because of the Boland amendment, which was proposed by the House Democrats; frankly we haven't been able to give them the aid. And that's why they're not doing as well, as Mr. King says.

LEHRER: Do you count the votes the same way Congressman McCurdy says?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: Well, what Mr. McCurdy is saying is that the majority, the Democrat majority in the House, isn't going to give President Reagan his program to stop the communist insurgency in Central America.

LEHRER: Is he right, is he right?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: I think he is right, and that bothers me, because frankly I think if the American people could sit down and understand what that means to us in the long haul, that they would totally reject anybody who espouses his view.

LEHRER: Okay. We are out of time. Congressmen, thank you; Colonel; General, thank you, in Denver. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. Leading senators disagreed over their role in the shuttle investigation. California police charged a Filipino editor's son with his murder and said it was not political. A spy for Communist China killed himself in a Virginia jail. And in a late development, an Indiana judge temporarily barred that boy with AIDS from attending his school in Kokomo.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.