The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines this Friday, a new artificial heart recipient has been chosen for surgery Sunday in Louisville; Beirut kidnap victim Jeremy Levin was reunited with his wife in Frankfurt, Germany; Solidarity leader Lech Walesa was issued a summons for inciting public unrest in Poland; and new government figures showed inflation still very much under control. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Here's what you will find on the NewsHour tonight. After the news summary, three focus sections. We examine the new PLO-Jordanian agreement on Middle East peace talks; Education Secretary William Bennett debates proposed student aid cuts with Columbia University President Michael Sovern. Cuban President Fidel Castro reflects on the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and says it helped bring about detente. And we close with our weekly collection of political cartoons.News Summary

LEHRER: There will be a third artificial heart recipient. He is 58-year-old Murray Haydon of Louisville, a retired Ford assembly line worker. The operation will be performed Sunday at the Humana Hospital in Louisville. Like the two previous recipients, Barney Clark and William Schroeder, he has incurable heart disease. Clark died 112 days after receiving his mechanical heart; Schroeder, who was 53 years old yesterday, passed his 83rd day today. He is still at the Humana Hospital, recovering from a series of strokes suffered after his operation. The announcement from Humana officials today said Haydon will receive the same kind of Jarvik 7 mechanical heart implanted in Schroeder. Robin?

MacNEIL: Jeremy Levin, the American reporter who escaped from his kidnappers in Lebanon, flew homeward today and on the way was reunited with his wife. The Syrian foreign ministry turned Levin over to the American ambassador in Damascus. He then went on to Frankfurt, Germany, in a chartered plane. Levin was the Cable News Network correspondent in Beirut when he was kidnapped 11 months ago. He said he escaped from a house on a Lebanese mountainside by tying three blankets together and sliding down from a second-story window, then walking to a Syrian army outpost. When he met reporters in Damascus this morning, Levin's first thought was seeing his wife again.

JEREMY LEVIN, escaped hostage: And I love her so deeply and I cannot wait to see her again.

REPORTER: You're going to see her today.

Mr. LEVIN: Today! That's just fantastic. Just fantastic.

REPORTER: We have a plane for you that'll take you.

Mr. LEVIN: Really. That's just great.

REPORTER: You going to be handed over to the American ambassador here by the Syrian by -- the Syrian Foreign Ministry in Damascus.

Mr. LEVIN: That's great. Those statistics -- who is the American ambassador these days? Eagleton? Okay. Fine.

REPORTER: How do you feel?

Mr. LEVIN: I feel wonderful! I've never been more thankful, I've never been more happy in my whole life. The Orwellian year 1984 was not a very good one for me, but 1985 is starting out a hell of a lot better.

MacNEIL: Levin's wife Lucille and his stepson and stepdaughter were waiting to greet him when his plane arrived at the American Air Force base near Wiesbaden, West Germany, and there Jeremy Levin got what he wished for so fervently this morning. It was an emotional moment. He was still dressed in a blue sweatshirt and grey trousers and white sneakers -- clothes that were brought for him in a small market town in Lebanon because he arrived at the Syrian army outpost wearing only pajamas and no shoes. His hair had turned a bit gray during his captivity, and Mrs. Levin had never seen him before wearing the black beard he had grown. According to a nurse who examined him in Damascus, he is in good physical condition. After their reunion Levin and his family went on to a hospital at the air base for another medical checkup. At some time later, State Department officials will interview him, presumably looking for information about the other four Americans who were kidnapped in Lebanon last year.

LEHRER: The six-year-old Cambodia war reached an important military climax today as Vietnamese troops scored their greatest victory against Cambodian guerrillas. Western diplomats in Thailand said the Vietnamese overran the last major stronghold of the Khmer Rouge guerrillas along the Thai border. It included their showcase headquarters, where just last week Cambodian opposition leader Prince Sihanouk sipped champagne with foreign diplomats. Observers said today's action was definitely a turning point in the war because the Khmer Rouge were the strongest members of a coalition that has been battling Vietnamese troops since the Vietnam invasion in 1978.

MacNEIL: U.S. Customs agents in Miami seized a cargo jet belonging to Avianca Airlines of Colombia after finding cocaine worth $600 million in its cargo. The 747 was seized three hours after landing on a flight from Colombia. The crew was not taken into custody, but Customs officials said arrests were pending. They said the cocaine was found Wednesday night hidden in boxes of flowers being shipped to Montreal, Canada, for Valentine's Day. The plane was allowed to make a round trip to give agents more time to investigate. It was the 34th time cocaine had been found aboard an Avianca flight.

LEHRER: Lech Walesa's in trouble again with the authorities in Poland. A uniformed policeman delivered a summons to the Solidarity leader this morning. He was ordered to appear at the prosecutor's office in Gdansk tomorrow. The potential charge, according to officials in Warsaw, is inciting public unrest. The action grows out of a meeting Walesa held Wednesday with three other Solidarity leaders to plan a 15-minute protest strike against high food prices February 28th. The other three at the meeting were arrested this morning rather than just issued a summons.

MacNEIL: In the day's economic news Treasury Secretary James Baker said today the United States had entered currency markets recently to try to slow the rise in the value of the dollar. He added the administration still doubts the value of intervention. But the dollar fell sharply today in a bout of profit-taking that followed nine straight days of record-setting rises against other currencies.

In Washington the government announced that wholesale prices showed no increase in January, leading some economists to predict even lower inflation this year than last. The government also said that production at factories, mines and utilities last month rose a healthy 0.4 .

Wall Street ended the week down slightly. The Dow Jones industrial average fell nearly six points to close at 1282.02. New Peace Initiative

LEHRER: Our lead focus segment tonight is on the Middle East and this week's covey of peace talk developments here and elsewhere. Judy Woodruff has more. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, things are never completely quiet in the Middle East, but this past week has brought a renewed level of activity on several Middle Eastern fronts, the potentially most important being a meeting between Jordan's King Hussein and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat, in which they reportedly agreed on the framework of a joint bid for a settlement of the Palestinian issue. Both President Reagan and Saudi Arabia's King Faud, who also met this week, in Washington, said they were at least preliminarily encouraged by the Hussein-Arafat accord, but the details were scarce on what it actually means. For its part, the Faud-Reagan meeting produced the rather predictable pleas from the Saudis that the United States get more involved in the Middle East peace process, and the equally predictable American response that it prefers that issues be settled by direct negotiations between the parties involved. Meanwhile, in one last development from that part of the world, Israeli troops continued the first phase of their pullout from Lebanon.

Here tonight to try to put all of these developments in perspective, especially the Arafat-Hussein meeting, is someone who regularly follows events in the Arab world. He is Robert Neumann, formerly U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Morocco, now director of the Middle East Studies program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University. Mr. Neumann has just this week returned from extensive travels in the Middle East where he met with leaders in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Mr. Neumann, today we had some Israelis saying that this Arafat-Hussein accord was a propaganda ploy. We had some Palestinians saying that it was a sham, that it ought to be scuttled. Just how realistic is it for the Americans or anyone to be encouraged by this?

ROBERT NEUMANN: I think we should be encouraged but not euphoric. This is a very good first step or series of steps. First of all, the people who say it's propaganda is the Likud side. Mr. Peres has said it's a step in advance and, after all, he's prime minister. So the reaction from Israel is not that negative. Secondly, the fact is that a week ago, eight days ago precisely, I was with King Hussein and at that time this accord was not in effect. In fact, it looked for a moment like it was going backward. So there has been a step forward.

WOODRUFF: But what about the opposition, the criticism from the other Palestinians? Does Arafat represent now most significant elements of the Palestinian movement?

Amb. NEUMANN: He represents enough for an accord. The main issue here is that King Hussein -- and this is something that we have all known for a long time -- in past discussions with him this has come out very clearly -- cannot make compromises or assurances about Palestinian soil. Only the Palestinians can do that. Jordan is not Palestine; Hussein is not a Palestinian. He has to have the Palestinians with him at the beginning, the middle and at the end. Now, this seems to be, at least for the moment -- one never knows; this is a country of slippery people -- seems to be achieved. Now, there are some things which are good items. There are some things in this agreement, as far as we know, which are not yet there.

WOODRUFF: What is there? I mean, what is there for us to grab?

Amb. NEUMANN: Well, the first thing is that they have agreed to a deal in which, in effect, there will be an association between Jordan and whatever part of the West Bank, if so, becomes Palestinian, again, while accepting the theoretical principal of self-determination. In plain English, it means association, confederation, federation or something like that. But the principal of self-determination is there. Secondly, while the word 242, United Nations Resolution, has not been put in, the wording is clearer than anything else was that it is applicable, and that means recognition of Israel.

WOODRUFF: What's the significance of that?

Amb. NEUMANN: The principle that Israel is to be recognized in secure borders as the United Nations Resolution 242 and 338 provided.

WOODRUFF: Well, how is this any different from what's been agreed to before?

Amb. NEUMANN: Well, the PLO has never agreed to 242 before.

WOODRUFF: But they're not agreeing to it now.

Amb. NEUMANN: Well, they haven't mentioned it, but the text is very clear. And then there is an agreement to, in effect, the Reagan plan. In fact, the word taken out of the President's speeches, namely, the "principal territory for peace." Now that, together with the preceeding thing, is a very considerable step forward. King Hussein had accepted the Reagan plan; Arafat in the past had not. This is a further step forward, and then the word of "solution of the Palestinian problem in all of its parts," which is a very vague expression. What is not in it is the commitment to direct negotiations. And this, in the opinion of our government -- and I fully agree with that -- is absolutely necessary. Indirect talks don't work because people then slide out from under. You have to be face to face to hammer out the decisions, and that is not yet in it. And the other thing which is in it but which we cannot accept and which the Israelis in my opinion do not and will not accept is a general conference framework in which we and the Soviets are co-chairmen. This, I think, means an opportunity for everybody to gang up on Israel and ourselves, and we won't enter into that, and Israel won't enter into that.

WOODRUFF: So you're saying there are some things in it to be encouraged about it -- to make us encouraged about it; other things, not. What does all that add up to?

Amb. NEUMANN: Well, Judy, when you think that eight days ago this was going the opposite direction and King Hussein -- and I cannot go into exactly what he told me -- but King Hussein was pretty fed up with the situation. He had to have an agreement or I think things would have gone very bad. Well, now he has that agreement. It is to the beginning. The other points have yet to be hammered out. But the essential thing is the whole thing is now much more in the Arab court. I think we can encourage this, but we are not going to be very active in this, and I think we ought not.

WOODRUFF: So the United States, you think, should and will continue to maintain some distance?

Amb. NEUMANN: Well, the United States can encourage, and I think quietly will. But the action belongs now to the Arabs, because the essential point is to have a credible Arab negotiating partner. That fact, publicly announced, clearly enunciated, would have an enormous effect on Israeli public opinion and on American public opinion.

WOODRUFF: Just one last quick question. The significance of our meeting with the Soviets in Geneva next week to talk about the Middle East -- what might come out of that that would affect any of this?

Amb. NEUMANN: Well, former Assistant Secretary Saunders and I were in Moscow in November. We discussed this and other matters -- our government going into the very important arms reductions talks, we're interested in having other talks going on on critical areas where some danger exists. The purpose of this was to put what was unofficial talks onto the official level on the level of the assistant secretaries. This first meeting is not a ganging up. There is no even attempt at agreement. What there is is a first contact to find out how each side sees the situation and what perhaps a better understanding. Now, future meetings might take place, ought to take place. I think this is a good thing, but it should not be interpreted as negotiations in which America and Russia are going to impose anything. There is no such intention whatsoever.

WOODRUFF: Well, I'm sure we will be watching it. Robert Neumann, thank you for being with us.

Amb. NEUMANN: Thank you. It's a pleasure.

WOODRUFF: Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the fight over government aid to college students with Education Secretary William Bennett and Columbia University President Michael Sovern, and a look back at the Cuban missile crisis with Fidel Castro and Robert MacNeil. Cuts For the Classroom

MacNEIL: For our major focus tonight, we continue our closer examination of controversial parts of President Reagan's budget. Tonight we look at the proposed cuts in education, cuts that are among the most politically sensitive because they affect so many people, especially middle-class families. This year some six million students are paying for at least part of their higher education with government aid, and education lobbying groups say that some 40%, more than two million students, would be affected by the cuts. The most popular form of federal aid is the guaranted student loan program. Eligible students can borrow as much as $2500 a year. The current rule says that families earning more than $30,000 a year, sometimes substantially more, can qualify if they demonstrate need. The Reagan proposal would end subsidized loans to all families earning more than $32,500. Total federal aid from loans, grants and part-time jobs would be kept at $4,000 a year. If these cuts are made, the savings would add up to an estimated $2.3 billion a year, or one-third of the current federal budget for education. Despite the political popularity of these programs and their failure to get similar cuts in the past, the Reagan administration has not been shy about pushing for the savings now. The first to do so was Budget Director David Stockman, who singled out education when he testified on Capitol Hill last week.

DAVID STOCKMAN, Director, Office of Management and Budget: We're going to get all kinds of pressure from the colleges. They're not worried about the student. They're not worried about equity in America. They're worried about getting financing for their budgets, and so they want to keep it wide open so that higher-income students can get subsidies and so that you can package together four or five of these grants to pay their $10,000 or $12,000 tuition costs. But we can't afford that, and we've got to make a choice here whether we're going to help lower-income students or financially strapped colleges. We can't do both. And we in the administration opt for helping the students.

MacNEIL: Next up was the new education secretary, William Bennett, who, in his first press conference this week said that he too was pushing for cuts. Bennett explained how families could cope financially.

Sec. WILLIAM BENNETT, Secretary of Education: For those families which are doing everything they can to provide support for one child going to college with perhaps two or three others, they're going to have to tighten the belt even further. And there will be perhaps greater sacrifice required on the part of the student in question. In other places, in other circumstances, it may require less sacrifice. It may require for some students divestiture of certain sorts -- stereo divestiture, automobile divestiture, three weeks at the beach divestiture.I do not mean to suggest this will be the case in all circumstances, but it will, like the rain, fall on the just and unjust alike.

MacNEIL: We'll be hearing more from Secretary Bennett shortly. First, a report from Elizabeth Brackett on the reaction of these likely to be hurt by the proposed cuts.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: Scott Geary walks along the snowy paths at Lake Forest College and wonders if he will still be at this school when autumn leaves replace the snowdrifts next fall.

SCOTT GEARY, student: Because I was always told when I was in high school, by one of my teachers, that there were so many ways that you can go to college. All you have to do is want to. And so I applied for, you know, the aid and stuff. When I got it I thought, well, you know, that's true. That's great. I can go to college.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Scott chose this small liberal arts college just north of Chicago because it offered the business courses he wanted, it was close to home, and because Lake Forest put a financial aid package together that mean he and his family could handle the $11,500-a-year tab for room, board, books and tuition.

Mr. GEARY: My father took on an extra job and there's just -- and my mom's working extra, and my brother -- my brother helps me out a lot.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Scott's dad is in the dry-cleaning business; his mother, a secretary. The family income, $33,000 a year, just over the proposed income cap for a guaranteed student loan. Scott says without that loan he could not come back to Lake Forest. For both Scott and his parents, who never had a chance at college, it would mean the end of a hope for a different way of life.

Mr. GEARY

I want to be a systems analyst, and there's -- if I can't keep going with college then I'll have to probably work for a year or two and then go to a trade school. That and the service, that's -- those are like my only choices.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Wendy Battles, a sophomore at Lake Forest, says if the proposed budget cuts pass, she too would not be back at Lake Forest. She is angry about the cuts, and she is angry at new Education Secretary William J. Bennett's statement that students need to cut back on cars, vacations and stereos to finance their education. She says she would like to tell Bennett and the Congress a thing or two.

WENDY BATTLES, student: This is what I'd say, "How did you get through school?" Then I'd have to plead my case. And, you know, this came down to about telling them what's really going on. I mean, you know, they say, "Well, let's cut the budget," but they don't know the realities. You know, they, you know, they're not sitting here talking to the actual students who it's going to affect. They say, "Oh, we're going to cut the budget." Fine, but, you know, do they really care?

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The financial aid officer at Lake Forest, Gordon White, says the budget cuts would hurt the small private schools without heavy endowments the most. At Lake Forest, where over half the students receive some sort of financial aid, White says the cuts would greatly change the economic and racial makeup of the student body.

GORDON WHITE, financial aid director, Lake Forest College: We have 38% of students in the current student body would immediately have their guaranteed student loans disallowed because of the proposed $32,500 cap. It would mean that about another 22 to 28 percent who are receiving federal assistance in all of the programs which exceed the $4,000 cap would be faced with having to have their aid reduced to stay within that cap. It would mean that we have to think about gearing up loan programs institutionally that we simply have neither the funds currently to capitalize nor the procedures developed to handle, to address this kind of issue.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: And White says not every student could simply switch to a state-supported school. Lake Forest's financial package, composed of both college and government money, means many students can more easily afford Lake Forest than a state university. It is not just students already in college whose plans are up in the air for next year.

[on camera] The proposed budget cuts have also created confusion and uncertainty for high school seniors now applying to college for next fall.

JANE KOTEN, college counselor, Glenview South High School: Have a good evening. We'll be with you. Ask your questions.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The financial aid application process is already so complicated, high schools like ths suburban Chicago school hold seminars on financial aid for parents and students. College counselor Jane Koten says after President Reagan's budget message there is even more anxiety about how to pay for college.

Ms. KOTEN: I don't know that that's necessary to have that much anxiety either. It seems like a student ought to be ble to know what it's going to be for the next four years, provided he maintains his share.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The Chajet family attended the the financial aid meeting at the high school, hoping to find out if they would be eligible for some financial aid next year. The Chajets had always thought they would finance their son's education themselves. That was before college costs soared and family savings dwindled.

ROBERTA CHAJET, parent: Well, we had hoped to have savings to do it easily, and we did at some time have some put aside. But things happen. A lot of things happen. And it wasn't there at this time.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: For Lisa Kivirist, a guaranteed student loan could mean the difference between an Ivy League school or the University of Illinois. Lisa, a top student, says the Eastern schools are her first choice.

LISA KIVIRIST, student: It has a lot to do with the prestige of the school, naturally, and the atmosphere is a lot different, too, if you're in Champagne, Illinois, or you're on the East Coast. It would make a difference to me because I've never been there or lived out there, and the environment there itself could be something different to experience.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Her father, a state employee, hopes to see his daughter reach her goal.

VALDEK KIVIRIST, parent: Our feeling is this, that the students who are in the top 1%, they are really working hard. They really are an example for other students, and they should be rewarded for that work.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But when Mrs. Kivirist's income as a waitress is included, the family would not be eligible for a student loan under the proposed budget cuts. Without other significant financial aid, the Kivirists say they would have to say no to their daughter's hopes for the Ivy League.

ABLITA KIVIRIST, parent: I think that will be the hardest decision we ever will have to make if she is accepted without any help. And maybe she -- I mean, we have to do something about it, you know? But I don't think so right now that we will be able to afford the $15,000 or $16,000.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: And the Kivirists, too, do not feel their struggle is understood by Education Secretary William Bennett.

Mrs. KIVIRIST: First of all, our daughter doesn't own a car. We haven't been on a vacation and, well, she has a small stereo in her room, that's right. But --

Mr. KIVIRIST: It's 10 years old.

Mrs. KIVIRIST: Yeah, it's old already.

Mr. KIVIRIST: It's not the parents but the students themselves, too, when they hear this type of of announcement from a high government official, it's kind of gives a very negative feelings for most of the students.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: So college students, high school students and parents wait, hope and try to plan for next fall with one eye on the Congress, the other on the bottom line of the family checkbook.

LEHRER: That report by Elizabeth Brackett. Now to the administration's new point man on education and education cuts, the secretary of education, William Bennett. Mr. Secretary, those students and parents say you don't understand what's going on out there.

Sec. BENNETT: Well, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what's going on out there. I have to say I don't give you the highest grades for the impartiality of that introduction. You might have as well shown a couple of students at the $80,000 or $90,000 income level who are getting subsidized loans from the rest of the taxpayers right now. But there's no denying that these reductions that we're talking about will have a belt-tightening consequence for some families. That's obviously the case. I do have to say, thought, that your lead-in was factually inaccurate. There is not a $4,000 -- and it's very important to get this out because I think we're being criticized on grounds that simply aren't true. There is not a $4,000 limit on all student aid from the federal government. There is an $8,000 limit. Second, you talked about $2.3 billion being a third of the budget for education. It's not. It's a third of the budget for higher education. The thing that didn't come across at all that we would want to stress is --

LEHRER: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Then, if you say it's $8,000, why does David Stockman say it's $4,000?

Sec. BENNETT: Because it depends whether you're talking about below the $25,000 level or above the $25,000 level. The strategy of our proposal is to aim aid at the neediest students. The neediest students, those whose family income is below $25,000, can get $8,000 in federal aid. Those whose income is above $32,500 -- there were a couple of inaccurate statements by some of the counselors there -- can still receive $4,000 --

LEHRER: Has anything been said that you agree with thus far, Mr. Secretary?

Sec. BENNETT: Well, on the factual matters --

LEHRER: We do agree that you and the administration want to cut federal aid to education?

Sec. BENNETT: There's no doubt about it.

LEHRER: All right, now, you've caught a lot of heat about the statement about stereos and automobiles and beach vacations. Do you still -- do you wish you hadn't said that now, or do you still believe that?

Sec. BENNETT: Well, I wish that everybody had presented the whole statement that I made. You've at least presented two-thirds of it. But people think I made this up. I have to tell you that I got this information from students, and this can be verified by anyone going on campus during a basketball game or some other time and seeing if there's space in the parking lot. There are students who have cars and stereos and who take three-week vacations and who are being subsidized by the federal government. Not the three cases you picked. Obviously one's sympathies are with those students. But no one denied that these budget reductions would have consequences on some people --

LEHRER: My question was, do you regret having said what you said? I mean, has the thing gotten out of hand on you or anything like that?

Sec. BENNETT: Well, the things gotten out of hand, but that wasn't my fault. That's what some of the media decided to focus on rather than focusing on our strategy, which is to give help to the neediest. I'm sorry that federal aid will not provide a maximum choice to all students. But the thing we're after is to provide access to higher education for all students. And access to higher education is simply more important than maximizing choice.

LEHRER: Then so the impact that it would have on a student's choice whether to go to -- the girl in the piece, whether she goes to University of Illinois or Harvard is an irrelevancy from your point of view?

Sec. BENNETT: It's not an irrelevancy. We have a limited amount of money. We have a deficit problem. The question is, do we provide money so that it makes the difference for a student who cannot go to college at all but for our money, or do we say we give the money to the student at the University of Illinois so that student can go to Harvard? I think the priority has to be to provide educational access to some institution of higher education for everybody, the neediest first.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: America's private colleges are leading the fight against the proposed cuts. Among them is Columbia University in New York, one of the eight Ivy League colleges. Michael Sovern is president of Columbia. Mr. Sovern, to go back, first of all, to what Stockman said in that excerpt we ran, he said you colleges are not interested in the students; you're interested in protecting your budgets.

MICHAEL SOVERN: That's a cheap shot. Of course we're interested in our budgets, but the budgets are there for the purpose of serving students, research, teaching and learning. So it's not any more than I would accuse Mr. Stockman of caring only about money, should he accuse us only about caring about money.

MacNEIL: Now, on to the secretary's points. He says their strategy is misunderstood by focusing on certain things. Their strategy is to help the neediest go to college. Now, what's wrong with that as a strategy at a time of budget constraint?

Pres. SOVERN: All right, I think that deserves very serious clarification. The first point is that under the existing procedures no student can get more than $4,000 in federal aid without proving need. Those are the rules. The proposal to cap at $4,000 necessarily then hits the neediest students. Let me give you an actual example --

MacNEIL: But he just said it isn't capped at $4,000 for the neediest students, the neediest students can get up to $8,000.

Pres. SOVERN: I'm glad he regards the $4,000 cap as indefensible. The other $4,000, his second $4,000, is not a grant program, it's not a subsidized loan program; it is a loan program in which the student or his family may borrow at a rate of 3% above the Treasury bill rate and must begin repaying the interest and, depending on the circumstances, the principal of that loan within 60 days. If the student had the capacity to do that he wouldn't need the loan in the first place. It's a $4,000 cap.

MacNEIL: I see. What about his point that access is more important than choice, maximizing choice?

Pres. SOVERN: The plan destroys access. May I give you an actual case that's typical in many universities? The Columbia student, three-person family, widow; the other child does't even go to college. The widow is a teacher's aide in the New York City school system, earns $6,000 a year. Here is how this kid pays for his education. He contributes $1,500 from his summer earnings; he has a $2,500 guaranteed student loan. He earns, in after-school work, in a work-study job, $2,400. He has $2,900 in federal grants, more than twice that much from Columbia in the form of a scholarship. The $4,000 cap would cost him $3,800 out of the federal support piece, knock him right out of the system unless, of course, we try to put it back. Columbia alone has more than 400 students with family incomes less than $15,000. Every one of those students would lose several thousand dollars in their federal aid package. That number is replicated all over America. They would knock out, with that $4,000 cap, more than a million poor kids. They're targeting the poor, all right, and we're going to count on Congress to keep them from making a direct hit.

MacNEIL: In general terms, what would these cuts -- if they were approved by Congress, what would these cuts do to higher education in the country, in your view?

Pres. SOVERN: Well, they would decimate the private institutions. The -- it's a belt and suspenders job. The $4,000 cap would knock out the poor; the $32,500 change would made a serious hit on the middle class. And America's policy would be for the future we don't care how hard you work, we don't care how good you are, the selective colleges in America are not for you; they are for the rich. That's a message that no one involved in education really should be sending. The effect on the public colleges would, of course, be to overcrowd them desperately as a million kids shifted over from the private sector in the middle of a period in which state taxpayers are not in the mood to pay a whole lot more for education.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, is selective colleges for the rich your message?

Sec. BENNETT: No, that's not our message. One thing that we might see happen -- one would hope we would see happen -- would be that institutions like Columbia, which have done so well with the Reagan economic recovery, might indeed be in a position to give some more money. We have estimated that Columbia, under the administration plan, might lose $5 million; $4 million, I think, was their figure. The Columbia endowment went up in the years '81 to '83 $320 million. So I think Columbia might be able to provide a little help there.

LEHRER: Let's ask Mr. Sovern about that.

Pres. SOVERN: We've done our calculations, as you may have noticed, we did a very good real estate deal a few weeks ago. If we took all of the disposable income from the corpus of that program, it turns out that we could exactly match what the President's program is proposing to take from our students. We would make it; I don't know what would happen at the other 2,999 colleges and universities in America.

Sec. BENNETT: Well, the disposable income, of course, that he wants to spend is not -- does not assume making any cuts or reductions in the Columbia budget. But that's a separate item. Look, the basic principle again is the same. Supposing you have a family and you have six children. You decide -- and you have a limited budget for food in that family. Do you say let's take the two or three healthiest children and give them their choice of whatever it is they want to eat, or do you say let's try to feed everybody something? Now, I understand why Mr. Sovern and some of the people at the most expensive institutions in America may be distressed about this. But, again, we are trying to maximize the possibility of access to higher education for everyone in the society who is qualified. We can't do that and provide choice of any institution, including the most expensive.

LEHRER: What about his point, though, my question a moment ago to you, which is that that's all said and done. The end result is going to be that the selective colleges like Columbia are going to be only for those from the very rich families of America. You don't think that will be the result?

Sec. BENNETT: No, I don't think that will be the case.

LEHRER: Well, Mr. Sovern, tell the secretary why you think it will be the result.

Pres. SOVERN: There are fewer than 10 colleges in America, of which we're proud to be one, that still say to every student who applies that we don't care about your family means. If you're good enough to get in, we'll get you through. You may have to work very hard and your family may have to sacrifice, but one way or another we'll get you through. Without these proposals, there are fewer than 10 of us left, where there were hundreds of us as recently as 10 years ago. The real dollar value of aid to students in America's colleges and universities has declined 19% in the last five years. Slowly but surely even the most selective colleges are no longer doing what they once did to help those who can't afford to pay the bill. These proposals just aggravate the problem beyond all possible remedy.

Sec. BENNETT: Posh! I mean, this is silly. This is the colleges telling us again that with the slightest reduction or with our budget proposal they're about on the brink, they're about to go out of business. Again, look at the figures of the endowments. You could take the entire Reagan budget proposal reduction and make it up with the increase in endowments of the top five institutions. Again, I understand why Mr. Sovern is upset, because the federal government no longer will give $4,000 or $6,000 or $8,000 to someone making $50,000 or $60,000 a year, their family, to go to Columbia. We have a limited amount of money; we have a budget problem. And we're saying we're going to provide access to the neediest so everybody can get to some college or other.

LEHRER: You heard what he said about David Stockman's complaint, that what Mr. Sovern and others, essentially Mr. Sovern and others are more concerned about is the survival of their own schools and their own budget. Do you support that as well?

Sec. BENNETT: Well, some institutional heads are concerned mainly about the bottom line. Obviously it's a legitimate concern, the bottom line. You've got to have the institution. But one thing that has been missing from this debate is other things in the newspapers this week -- the report of the American Association of Colleges that says the undergraduate, the baccalaureate degree is meaningless, the college curriculum is in disarray, it's incoherent. And you read on the other side of the page "College Costs Going Up 7%." So, while we are talking about financing and while we're talking about families making real sacrifices to send their students to college, I do think there is the question of quality -- are we getting our money's worth? And that's a question that we want to look at very closely. We want to be good consumer advocates for the American public.

LEHRER: President Sovern, do you want to respond to that?

Pres. SOVERN: I sure do. If the secretary wants to make a responsible proposal for a federal role in improving the quality of universities, I'll be happy to cheer him on. I welcome his efforts to assure quality in colleges. I think he would acknowledge that Columbia College probably comesabout as close to his model as it is possible to approach. But the idea of saying in one and the same breath that many colleges aren't good enough and that we're going to change the financial aid package so students have no choice about which ones to go to seems to me to be just indefensible.

Sec. BENNETT: Now, now, now, now. Look. Eight thousand dollars -- again, it's $8,000.

LEHRER: He says it's four.

Sec. BENNETT: It's $8,000. I guarantee you it's $8,000. Mr. Sovern admits it's $4,000 in a plus loan, which is 100% federally guaranteed. It's not subsidized but it's 100% federally guaranteed. You give a student $8,000 from the federal government without any other contribution, he's got a wide range of choice of institutions in this country. He can't go to Columbia on $8,000 alone, but he can go to a lot of very good institutions.

LEHRER: Well, now, he's right about that, isn't he, Mr. Sovern?

Pres. SOVERN: No, sir.

LEHRER: Eight thousand dollars won't do it?

Pres. SOVERN: Well, we'll get him the rest the way, we do now.

Sec. BENNETT: Good. That's good.

Pres. SOVERN: And I do think it's important to emphasize that Mr. Bennett has been very careful to talk about how the top five institutions are going to be able to continue to help the poor students come to them. I agree with that; in fact, I said that on this program just a few minutes ago. That's absolutely true. But what about the hundreds of others? There are many colleges in this country with no endowments, with no capacity to support poor students. What's going to happen to the students at those schools? What's going to happen to those schools? It's ironic that this administration, with its commitment to private initiative and private enterprise, is going to deal a serious blow to many colleges in this country. Now, Mr. Secretary, you can't deny that.

Sec. BENNETT: Five years ago I remember reading in a story about the demise of some 200 private colleges because of the economy. It never happened. Thanks to the largest picture, which is the economic recovery -- thanks to the policies of this administration that brought it about -- all of those institutions are healthy today. That's the large picture, and that's the one we're trying to get a hold of.

LEHRER: And so you don't think that this will have that kind of effect?

Sec. BENNETT: I predict that we will not see the demise of private schools because of this policy, and we will not see fewer students going to college because of this policy. I'll predict that right now. We might see fewer students going to college because of the reports about the quality of college education, but not because of this budget proposal.

LEHRER: What about the Lake Forest College situation that was in our report that Elizabeth Brackett did? You just think they just don't know what they're talking about?

Sec. BENNETT: No, I mean, some of the facts were accurate and some of them were not.

LEHRER: No, but what I mean is, when the man who runs the college says that "we're going to lose so-many percentage of our students, etc." he just doesn't -- he's wrong?

Sec. BENNETT: I don't know the facts of the Lake Forest situation, but I know, having worked in several universities, that one always looks at proposed reductions in aid from the federal government as the next step before termination. The empirical evidence is that that hasn't really occurred.

LEHRER: He's right about that, too, isn't he, Mr. President, that there are always these dire pronouncements and warnings and then something happens and they never come off?

Pres. SOVERN: You remember four years -- 2 years ago we made those dire warnings. The Congress listened, did not enact the Reagan cuts in student aid, and so the dire consequences did not occur. We're right back where we were then. It's a fresh try at the same effort that was defeated last time. I appreciate the secretary's reminding us that the parents listening and the students listening ought not to make their plans on the basis of scare messages. I think that is a very important message, and I join with him in urging parents not to be frightened by the current discussion. but my message is a little bit different. It is that I hope they won't be frightened out of the American dream. Congress stopped this from happening the last time, and I earnestly believe they'll stop it again.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, on that subject, there was a story in The Washington Post this morning quoting Senator Robert Dole, the Senate majority leader, as saying that all of this is -- that the administration already has a fallback position; they do not not expect to get what you are advocating through the Congress of the United States. Is that true?

Sec. BENNETT: I don't know that he quite said that. What he said is the proposals are on the Hill, we are now into the legislative process of discussion of all factors, all matters in the budget proposal -- compromise, all issues will be looked at. I think this proposal that we've suggested is a good one, and I'm certainly happy arguing in support of it.

LEHRER: Are you concerned at all about the scare factor?

Sec. BENNETT: Well, the scare factor is never good for the nerves of the American people, and I hate the scare factor affecting the parents like that, as shown in the small segment. But Mr. Sovern knows as well as I do that the federal role, even though increasing, in terms of the health of American colleges and universities, is nothing as compared to the health of an economy that we've seen in the last two or three years. That is the best news for colleges and college students and for job opportunities after college.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, Mr. Sovern in New York, thank you both very much. Missile Crisis Recalled

MacNEIL: Next tonight we have a final excerpt from our long interview last weekend in Havana with Cuban President Fidel Castro. Tonight's segment is not about current events but a look back at the moment a generation ago when he was the central player in one of the great dramas of the Cold War -- the placing of Soviet missiles on Cuban soil within easy reach of the United States. For many it was the most dangerous moment of the age of superpower confrontation and the balance of nuclear terror, and it was a story in which I had a particular personal interest.

The last time I was in Havana was in October, 1962, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis. The Cubans didn't want a lot of foreign journalists running around loose at that time and, with some other foreign reporters, I spent nine days locked up in a room in the Hotel Capri here. During those days, with the world on the brink of nuclear war, we watched out the windows Havana at war. These streets were full of troops at all hours of the day and night. There were Cuban anti-aircraft batteries in many of the vacant lots around here, and American planes were flying in low overhead. In fact, I went to bed the first night not knowing whether I'd wake up in the middle of an American air raid. But eventually Moscow backed down, Khrushchev removed the missiles that had alarmed President Kennedy, and Castro got a guarantee of no American invasion.

Now,23 years later, a mellowing Fidel Castro described for us how the missiles got here in the first place and provoked a crisis that nearly started World War III.

[voice-over] Castro said that after the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961, when Cuban exiles backed by the CIA tried to overthrow him, Cuba continued to fear an American invasion. The fears persisted even after President Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev discussed the situation in Vienna.

FIDEL CASTRO, Cuban Premier [through interpreter]: The Soviets had that concern and we naturally had the same concern.

MacNEIL: This is after the Bay of Pigs?

Pres. CASTRO [through interpreter]: Yes, after the Bay of Pigs. They asked us what measures we thought could offer Cuba some guarantees. So then we said that the only guarantee, the greatest guarantee that could be obtained, the most guaranteed or the most sure one was the fact that an aggression against Cuba mean an aggression against the Soviet Union. That was the thesis that we put forth. The concrete idea of the missiles was theirs. I explained it and we accepted it. But without any hesitation because we were being harrassed. An invasion had just taken place. The pirate attacks were continuing, constantly. Constant mention was being made of an invasion against Cuba. For us the missiles had their inconvenience, I confess that the inconveniences that we liked [least] was the political inconveniences of having the missiles here. But from the point of view of security for the country, it implied at least what is called a nuclear umbrella because we were facing the dual risk of a conventional war, a specific risk -- that is, an aggression against our country -- and a universal risk, that is, the case of a general nuclear war. That was our point of view. And in our opinion, after 26 years, is that that decision we made was correct. It was very well based, and it was totally legitimate. That cannot be questioned. Now, for example, you are deploying missiles in Holland and Belgium, in countries that are much smaller than Cuba. In the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, and even at that time there were missiles in Turkey. But in the light of international law, our decision and the Soviets' was totally unobjectionable. The United States assumed a position of force in the face of that situation. But the decision neither from the moral point of view nor from the legal point of view, of law, can it be questioned because I think that maybe the Soviets might not be very pleased about the U.S. adventures of installing missiles, intermediate missiles, near the borders of the Soviet Union. Examine -- study that. Think about that.

MacNEIL: When the crisis was at its very height, did you personally think -- did you believe that nuclear war was a possibility on one of those days?

Pres. CASTRO [through interpreter]: Yes. Yes, I believed that as a possibility.

MacNEIL: What did you feel about your role in having brought it to that point?

Pres. CASTRO [through interpreter]: It was not me. It was the United States, the one that led us to that point. It was the United States that initiated the blockade, that organized the invasion, the sabotage, the pirate attacks, the mercenary regiment and those that spoke of an invasion against Cuba. It was the United States; it was not us. And I believe that we answered correctly. I have no doubt whatsoever. What were we to do? Yield? Or the United States could feel sure that we will never yield. Under conditions such as those we will fight.

MacNEIL: After Khrushchev decided to withdraw the missiles, which you protested, what did he say to you, did Nikita Khrushchev? Did he say to you, "We've made a big mistake, we shouldn't have done this?" What did he say?

Pres. CASTRO [through interpreter]: Look, we would not have opposed seeking a solution, no. To sit down and discuss it, we would have agreed. We would not have preferred war for the sake of war under any circumstances. We disagreed because the decision was made without consulting us. That is the crux of the problem. You ask if Nikita apologized. We of course made the protest. This is historical and not really anything new. Actually this affected the relations for a certain period of time. I also explained that afterwards we understood that we had no reason for having taken that problem for such a long period of time. Nikita said these two ideas, a war was avoided and Cuba was not invaded. Those are the points he put forth, the basic points. At that time there was -- time to had to advance, when 20 years elapsed or 15 years, after that then came international detente after that because we, to a certain degree, rendered a given service. When the war came very close then the leaders of the two big powers became more aware about the danger. They worked, they were able to achieve detente. But at that time we were not in conformity. We were not pleased. Now then, after 15 years elapsed it was proven that they were right, that a war, a nuclear war, was avoided and that Cuba was not invaded. At least during these years we had to accept that they were right. It's not the way we would have done it. But actually the objective thing, the argument was right, the fundamental argument.

LEHRER: Again the major news this Friday.

A 58-year-old retired assembly line worker has been chosen to be the world's third artificial heart recipient. A mechanical device will be implanted in the chest of Murray Haydon Sunday at Louisville's Humana Hospital. Television journalist Jeremy Levin, free from captivity in Lebanon after 11 months, was reunited with his wife in Frankfurt, Germany; and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa has been ordered to appear at a prosecutor's office tomorrow to answer charges of inciting public unrest, growing out of his efforts to plan a brief February 28th strike over high food prices in Poland. Robin?

MacNEIL: We leave you tonight with our Friday roundup of the week's political cartoons. There is no particular theme this week; everybody's ox is gored. Poking Fun

PRESIDENTIAL AIDE, to Reagan, looking at "Stars Wars" banner [Wassermann cartoon, Miami News, Tribune News Service]: I don't know, Ron, maybe we shouldn't have cut education funds.

STUDENT, outside "eminent professor's" closed door [S. Kelley cartoon, Copley News Service]: Rumor has it that when he retires he may come back to campus and teach a course.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN, at "Reagan Realty"[Wassermann cartoon, L.A. Times Syndicate]: Folks, let me show you the home of tomorrow, the "Revolution Two."

HOMEBUYER: But it's just a big hole in the ground!

Pres. REAGAN: Oh, no. That's a foundation. We're still ironing out some details of the financing. So you have to use a little imagination.

GENERAL, to other generals [Wright cartoon, Miami News, Tribune Media Services]: A lot of MX silos over there, and an air base there and a nerve gas plant right there! We got this land for a steal, General. Bought it from a bunch of down-and-out rural types.

2nd GENERAL: What do they call this area?

1st GENERAL: America's breadbasket.

SENATOR, talking to another pig in a hog feedlot called "U.S. Senate" about a pig named Meese [Ben Sargent cartoon, Austin-American Statesman, United Features Syndicate]: He looks clean to me.

King FAUD, to fellow Arabs [Wright cartoon]: We discussed Israel and the Palestinians, but I told Reagan there were other problems. I explained that we were an Islamic nation and that the monarchy was worried about religious fanatics. I asked him what he would do if crazy fundamentalists took over the oil fields. He said he was on very good terms with Jerry Falwell.

PRISONER, in Soviet labor camp [Margulies cartoon, Houston Post]: It's unbelievable! The officials who murdered the Polish priest were all sent to prison.

2nd PRISONER: How'd you hear that?

1st PRISONER: I am the judge who sentenced them.

Pres. REAGAN, on subway surrounded by targets of his budget cuts [Toles cartoon, The Buffalo News,Universal Press Syndicate]: Uh, ask me for $5. Just ask me!

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

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