The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would drop its Supreme Court appeal to delay the Oliver North trial, the last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan, ending a nine year intervention, Washington reacted coolly to the five nation agreement to disband the Nicaraguan contras. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we look at the new version of the Central American Peace Plan with Guatemala President Vinicio Cerezo and U.S. Congressmen David Bonior and Mickey Edwards. Then comes Part 3 of our examination of the Bush budget. Education is the subject. Former White House Aide Gary Bauer and California School Superintendent Bill Honig are the guests. We close with anAnne Taylor Fleming essay about Mississippi Burning. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The way was cleared late this afternoon for the trial of Oliver North to go forward. The Justice Department withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court to delay the trial. The appeal was based on objections to the way classified information would be handled. Today's turnaround was based on new procedures announced by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh. The Department's statement said the government was now satisfied proper precautions would be taken to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. A jury of nine women and three men has already been selected. Barring other complications, the trial should begin Monday. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: The last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan today, ending nine years of war that cost 15,000 Soviet dead. On the date agreed with the United Nations, the Soviet Commander, Lt. Gen. Varis Gromov crossed the steel bridge over the Amadayah River behind the last column of tanks. The Moscow Radio correspondent on the scene said, "That is it. This war has come to an end.". For a view from the abandoned capital of Kabul here is Paul Davies of Independent Television News.

PAUL DAVIES: Kabul awoke this morning to the knowledge that President Najibullah and his army now stand alone against the Mujahadeen forces said to be massing in the mountains around the capital. Afghan soldiers now stand guard on the entrance to the military air field, the last post to be vacated by the Russians. United Nations observers searched the base, satisfying themselves that the last Soviet soldier was gone. The city has been going about its business as usual, but posters showing blood thirsty Mujahadeen carrying gruesome trophies reflect the nervousness caused by rumors that 30,000 rebels are about to launch an offensive on the city. In Chitting Street, Kabul's famous shopping center, the traders were still manning their stores, refusing to allow talk of war to interfere with business. Emerging from the dust of the Salang Highway, bringing relief to the city, a convoy of trucks carrying desperately needed fuel, munitions and food. Petrol supplies are now so low, it's impossible to buy fuel even at inflated black market prices. Kabul's hospitals are already full of victims of the war. Over worked medical teams fear a new rush of casualties should the expected Mujahadeen offensive take place. In the children's hospital, the crisis now means two little patients to a bed. Each week, victims of rocket attacks that fall on civilian areas and children whose parents simply can't afford to feed the protein they need to survive are dying here.

MR. MacNeil: Since the Soviet invasion in 1979, it's estimated that as many as 1 million Afghan civilians and combatants have been killed in the war. Official Soviets losses total 15,000 soldiers killed and 35,000 injured, and the war created 5 million Afghan refugees who fled to neighboring Pakistan and Iran.

MR. LEHRER: There was no firm U.S. reaction today to the new version of the Central American peace plan. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said, "We're still analyzing the details of it.". State Department Spokesman Charles Redman said all he could say was that the United States will be interested in consulting with Latin American allies about it. The new plan was announced last night at the end of a two day summit meeting of five Central American Presidents. It calls for free elections in Nicaragua in exchange for expanding the anti-government contra forces. We will have more on thatstory right after this News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: An Iranian religious leader today offered a million dollars to any foreigner who killed the novelist Salman Rushdie and nearly 3 times that to an Iranian who did it. Rushdie, whose novel, The Satanic Verses, has been attacked as blasphemous to Moslems, was reported under heavy guard in Britain. Yesterday the Ayatollah Khomeini ordered Rushdie's death. In Tehran, several thousand Iranians chanting, "Death to England. Death to America." demonstrated outside the British embassy. The embassy said some stones were thrown and caused minor damage. Iranian police kept the demonstrators away from the embassy building. A student speaker at the demonstration told the crowd the authors and publishers of this book will not stay alive as long as the Hezbollah is alive. Hezbollah, the Party of God, is the extremist group believed to be the kidnappers of American hostages in Lebanon. In New York, there was a bomb threat at Salman Rushdie's American publishers. The headquarters of Viking Penguin was evacuated after an anonymous caller said he had planted a bomb, but no explosives were found. A short time later Viking announced that Rushdie had cancelled a planned promotional tour in the United States.

MR. LEHRER: There was an outbreak of heavy fighting in Lebanon's East Beirut today. At least 38 people died in the combat between Lebanon army troops and Christian militia. Ninety others were wounded. The fighting was part of a continuing struggle for control of the Central Christian section of Lebanon. The U.S. State Department said U.S. embassy buildings were hit by shells but they were not the target. A spokesman said no Americans were injured.

MR. MacNeil: West Germany today acknowledged that it knew as early as 2 years ago that Libya planned to build a chemical weapons plant. West German companies are currently under investigation for allegedly helping to build the plant. Bonne said today it had evidence as early as 1980 that Libya might manufacture chemical weapons and it confirmed that in 1987. U.S. officials told Chancellor Kohl in November that they had evidence West German companies were helping Libya build the weapons plant, but the Kohl government at the time maintained that the Libyan plant was for pharmaceuticals.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush went after more public support for his budget plan today. He spoke to a joint session of the South Carolina legislature in Columbia. He told them hard choices must be made to reduce the budget deficit.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm prepared to work with the Congress to make those hard choices. We weren't sent to Washington, any of us up there, to sit on our hands, either to pass the cost of indecision on to working Americans by raising their taxes or to fail to reduce the deficit, which will cause the cuts to be done automatically under the law, and that's why we must make choices that keep the economy going, preserve our national defense, and allow government adequately and compassionately to perform the services which it should do, and if we do, we can get the job done, but not with business as usual.

MR. LEHRER: Back in Washington, consumer advocate Ralph Nader attacked the President's savings & loan bailout plan. Nader told a news conference the plan unfairly burdens the average taxpayer. He said wealthy individuals and corporations should foot the bill through higher taxes.

RALPH NADER, Consumer Advocate: And we've been told by President Bush that unfortunately because the savings & loans must be saved or merged with one another, the taxpayer and the consumer must foot the bill. Let the rich and powerful who caused the savings & loan debacle or who are benefiting from it, who are most able to bear the burden of bailing these banks out pay the bill.

MR. MacNeil: Flooding today continued in Tennessee and Kentucky. The heavy rainfall has left three people dead. It caused rivers to overflow, flooding many homes. Also, roads and schools have been closed and many power failures reported. The unusual winter flooding struck areas which suffered from drought conditions last summer. The rising waters threatened to spread into an area from Indiana to Texas later in the week.

MR. LEHRER: And finally in the news today, a government report said an estimated 243,000 elderly Americans were hospitalized in 1985 for adverse reactions to prescribed drugs. The Department of Health & Human Services study said the widespread problem has worsened since and is the result of mis-diagnoses and improper prescriptions among other things. That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the new version of Central American peace, the Bush plan for education, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - CONTRA BAN

MR. MacNeil: We begin tonight with Central America and the latest peace plan drafted by the leaders of five nations there. The plan has two elements to disarm the contras, the American- backed forces opposing the Marxist government in Nicaragua, and dismantle their bases in Honduras, and for Nicaragua's Sandinista government to hold free and open elections early next year. The plan was unveiled last night by the leaders of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Guatemala, who were meeting at a resort town in El Salvador. The first reaction from the contras was negative. One of their leaders, Adolfo Calero, said that an accord based on the promises of Sandinista Leader Daniel Ortega was like trying to leash a dog with sausage links. But later he called the accord a triumph for the resistance. At the U.S. State Department where the top job for Latin American affairs is still vacant, officials withheld comment until they receive the communique. We'll get two Congressional perspectives in a moment, but first, a News Maker Interview with one of the Central American Presidents who drafted the agreement. He is Vinicio Cerezo of Guatemala. I talked to him earlier this evening and asked him why he's confident the Sandinistas will actually keep their promise to hold free elections given that they've made similar and broken similar promises in the past.

PRESIDENT VINICIO CEREZO, Guatemala: Well, in the beginning I have to tell you that the discussion between the Presidents in San Salvador let us know that most of them, all of the Presidents are showing us the good will to do the things they are offering at this moment, but they have two or three arguments maybe more important than that, first, that we are not only accepting an offer from Daniel Ortega to open a political space, we have made an agreement about specific questions in Nicaragua, by example about amnesty, about verification of the process, about political opening for the press, free press, free participation of the political parties, and certainly the most important argument is the reality Nicaragua needs in this moment the support of the international community to grow up but resolve the big economic problems they have. They won't have, they won't be able to resolve the problems if they don't receive the international support and the cooperation of the people in democratic countries in the world and this cooperation and this support only they could get it if the Presidents of Central America are in agreement with them and they are doing the things they are offering.

MR. MacNeil: So the sanction is that if they don't do one of these things you've listed, they won't get the international support they need to restore their economy, is that the sort of implied penalty?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: Well, it is true. It is not only because we are not ready to give anything in Nicaragua needed to recover the economy of the country, but our feeling, my feeling especially this moment, is that most of the democratic countries around the world are waiting for democracy, a kind of democracy in Nicaragua, and everybody knows pretty well that the peace only is going to get it if in each country the polarization diminishes and our experience in Central America is that polarization is diminished when you have political opening and real democracy in the country. If they continue maintaining a hard position against the opposition, well, nobody is going to diminish polarization, and that means continuing of the fighting and the struggling, and the peace is not going to be, not going to arrive for Central America. Then there's a question of reality. We are not trying to establish conditions for the peace, we are not threatening Nicaragua to say please do not give help to Nicaragua. In the reality they need to belong to the international community because they are going to find support if the international community realizes they are doing well in the sense of political opening.

MR. MacNeil: So you believe that the state of their economy gives them a stronger incentive to move towards democracy and agree to keep their promises than they've had in the past, is that correct?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: It's correct, but also because they have the willing of. If they couldn't have the willing to open the political space, certainly they couldn't resist in the war economy even if the people are suffering or the maintain in the war, but I think Daniel Ortega and most of them realize that they have to resolve the political problem to be able to resolve the economic problems. We realize in Central America that to improve the economic development, we need stability and you only can have stability if you have peace and political stability also.

MR. MacNeil: Yesterday you and your fellow Presidents were reported unable to agree so far on who would monitor compliance with your agreement, whether it would be an international body or a Central American body. Have you broken that deadlock?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: Well, we couldn't have a specific agreement about the steps and process because it is not our work. We have teams, we have foreign ministries, we have people working and looking for the exactly process to verify all the things in Central America, but we also do not have enough experience to do that, but the United Nations and in the other international organizations, they have more experience to give us advice and support. That's why in the agreement we accept that we are going to work together with the United Nations organization, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and other organizations that could give us technical support and advice. Then the political field is going to be controlled by the Central American governments because we still want to be the most important actors in our problems that we need the assistance and advice of the international field and we recognize that we need it and we are going to accept it. That's why we made an agreement in the sense of in 90 days we are going to present to the governments a general plan to find the way to improve the decisions and to verify that the decisions are working.

MR. MacNeil: I see, who will disarm the contras?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: Pardon me.

MR. MacNeil: Who will disarm and disband the contras, what group? Will it be the United Nations or some other organization?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: This is one of the most important points we have to resolve, because we know, Nicaragua knows and everybody knows in Central America, that the government of Honduras is not able to disarm the contras by they alone, that if we made an agreement, if we receive the support of the United Nations, we can deal with United States to find a way and convince the contras that is not the way to resolve the problem for the Nicaraguans, that they can return to Nicaragua, that the fighting is not more the way to change government in Central America, and with the cooperation of the United States, the United Nations, the International Organization of America, and the Central American countries, Honduras is going to accept the plan and be able to disarm them. But the most important thing is to realize that the beginning is our agreement. The second step is the plan we are going to develop with the United Nations, and certainly we need the cooperation of United States to give us support, to disarm the contras, and to give them opportunities and chances to return to Nicaragua. That is why it is very important to say that it is not only the disarmament of the contras or not only the opening, the political opening in Nicaragua. All the things have to work together to make the things able to work.

MR. MacNeil: What do you hope the Bush administration will do about this agreement?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: I hope that the U.S. administration studies pretty well our willingness -- these are the most important things -- our willingness, try to choose the peace way to resolve our differences, second, that we are taking in account the interest of everybody in Central America, and second, that we are taking in account also the strategical interest of everybody. Then we hope that they listen to our voice, that they listen to our opinion and that they could be able to sit down with us to discuss how we are going to resolve the problems that we are sharing in this moment.

MR. MacNeil: In other words -- well, I won't put words into your mouth -- is American support for the agreement necessary to make it work?

PRESIDENT CEREZO: Certainly it is necessary, the support of the government of America and from America in general, because America is a very important actor in the Central American -- in many things. They are supporting democracies. Our democracy by example, Guatemala, received the support of America in many ways and that's why we succeed in economics, we succeed in a political opening. Then this agreement of the Central American countries with the willing of the President need the support of United States in many ways and we certainly, I am sure that we are going to find a way and the cooperation of the politicians in the United States and in the government to realize that we are trying to work with a lot of responsibility to assure the interest of everybody in each country.

MR. MacNeil: Well, President Cerezo, thank you very much for joining us.

PRESIDENT CEREZO: Thank you a lot.

MR. LEHRER: Two U.S. Congressional views of the new agreement now. They are those of Congressman David Bonior, Democrat of Michigan, the chief deputy majority whip, and a key Democratic spokesman in recent contra aid debates, and Congressman Mickey Edwards, Republican of Oklahoma, a member of the Appropriations Committee, and a Republican floor leader in contra aid debates. Congressman Edwards, what do you think of the new plan as just outlined by President Cerezo?

REP. MICKEY EDWARDS, [R] Oklahoma: Well, I think it's obvious that we need to move toward not only peace but democracy as well in Nicaragua. That's what the heart of the Arias peace plan was. The problem is if we wait and hope that the contras are going to finally get democracy in Nicaragua, because the Sandinistas are going to keep promises they have not kept before and in the meantime they are disarmed and they're disbanded, I don't think we're ever going to see democracy there. What we need is some kind of simultaneity. We need a situation whereby the contras can be disarmed and go back home after or at the same time as there are peaceful elections in Nicaragua, and free and democratic, certifiably free and democratic elections. So far that hasn't happened.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Bonior, what is your general view of the plan?

REP. DAVID BONIOR, [D] Michigan: Well, I'm pleased that the major players in the region came together and have been invigorated by the new President of Venezuela who has put a little more emphasis and hope into the Arias plan. I think this indeed is the view of most of the Latin leaders in that part of the world today that we can achieve, as Mickey has indicated, both security concerns and freedom of elections and democracy in Nicaragua. I'm very hopeful that the administration will see that this is an alternative avenue to war and they will embrace it.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think the administration should do, Congressman Edwards?

REP. EDWARDS: I think the administration should first of all say that we agree with the prospect of having democracy in Nicaragua, we want peace, we're not trying to have war. I think the administration ought to say that first, but that the price for peace is a free press, free elections, and we want some guarantees. There were supposed to be elections in mid 1988 in Nicaragua. They were then postponed until the fall and then they were cancelled altogether. One of the things that's in this agreement that they've just signed is a release of the political prisoners. Well, under Escopoulis, the political prisoners were supposed to be released a year ago and they still have not been and so the problem is the administration I think has to insist that we see something more than the same promises that we've seen for the last couple of years.

MR. LEHRER: Well, you heard what President Cerezo just said about that, that it's all supposed to be simultaneous and that you should not harp on one side, there are many pieces of this and they all must come together at the same time. Your concern is that it won't happen. You don't believe that's going to happen, is that right?

REP. EDWARDS: My concern is that history so far hasn't shown that it will happen. You know, they have not released the prisoner. In fact, Dave and I together introduced a resolution that was passed overwhelmingly by the House four months after the Escopoulis agreement was signed and that resolution condemned the Sandinista government for the repression that had taken place since that time and so I'm not optimistic. I think Dave and I would both like to see this happen, but I guess I'm not as optimistic based on the track record so far.

MR. LEHRER: What is it going to take, Congressman Bonior, to make this thing happen and to convince people like Congressman Edwards that it's worth backing?

REP. BONIOR: I'm a little more upbeat than Mickey is on this and he's correct, we did introduce a resolution condemning the Nandime incident a while back. I'm upbeat because there's a new infusion of activity here by all --

MR. LEHRER: Explain what the Nandime incident was.

REP. BONIOR: It was rallies that were held in the Town of Nandime and there were crackdowns by the existing Nicaraguan government.

MR. LEHRER: A lot of people were arrested.

REP. BONIOR: And people were arrested and were eventually released, but it was not a good thing and we both took the floor of the House and got a resolution passed condemning it. Having said that, I think Mickey goes a little bit too far by suggesting that we've not made any progress. We have made progress over the last two years since Arias has been in effect. We have seen some progress in the way of democratization. We have seen the church being able to speak out. We have a reconciliation commission in Nicaragua. There had been some back sliding. Nandime is one, the thing that Mickey mentioned about elections and municipal elections is another, but this is a new opportunity. The Sandinista government has said, in effect, that they will before there is a laying down of arms release approximately 1400 additional prisoners, so that will show good faith. They said they will open up their radio and television media for campaign, and they have gone ahead and moved forward their elections from November of 1990 into the beginning of next year, February or January. I think this is what, in essence, the contra forces have been asking and I think it presents a unique opportunity for them to take advantage of it.

MR. LEHRER: How do you take advantage of this opportunity? Congressman Edwards, here again, President Cerezo told Robin that they were going to, they said they did not know, themselves, they didn't have the experience, the Central American nations, themselves, did not have the experience with enforcing these kinds of things, they were willing and anxious to turn the thing over to the United Nations. Is that something the United States should get behind immediately and get something going on that? What should be our posture?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, to the extent that the Central American Presidents are willing to take advice from us, and I think they might be, I think we should be working with any organizations necessary, including the United Nations, to try to set up a verification process so that we do have the prisoners released. I happen to think 1400 is not enough because they were supposed to release a lot more than that. There are two or three times that many political prisoners and they were all supposed to be released by last November, but if we can split up a system to make sure that, in fact, the newspapers are operating, the political parties are operating and the radio stations, and the elections are held and they're free, certifiably free, and democratic elections, at that point disarm the contras and those who want to go back to Nicaragua, let them do it, and if the United States can play a role in making sure that that happens in that way, we ought to do it, because that's our goal. The only reason that we're supporting the contras is first of all to stop the Sandinistas from trying to undermine the governments in El Salvador and Guatemala and Honduras, and secondly, to bring democracy into Nicaragua, and I think we ought to play a role in making that happen.

MR. LEHRER: But not one arm belonging to the contras should be thrown down until these things happen, is that your position?

REP. EDWARDS: That's my position. I would also like to see the United States address the question and the fact that last year alone more than $1/2 billion in military aid went from the Soviet Union into Nicaragua, which continues to pose a threat to the region. Yes, I think that we ought to address the whole thing in context and that the contras ought to be willing to lay down their arms and either participate in Nicaraguan society or not as they choose after elections have taken place, and after the free press is operating, and when they have democracy, then they lay down the arms.

MR. LEHRER: They should not lay their arms, go back to Nicaragua, and participate in the elections.

REP. EDWARDS: If they lay down their arms, there won't be elections.

REP. BONIOR: For all practical purposes, I think what will probably happen and I think you have to look at what Calero, one of the contra leaders said today, he said this is a victory for the contras. In essence, I'm wondering if, in fact, he is not going to take his people and they aren't going to go back into Nicaragua and participate, at least some of them. Some of them will opt for a third country and perhaps Honduras, perhaps even the United States, but I think from a practical standpoint, you will probably have maybe up to a thousand, maybe a little bit more of the contras go to the hills anyway with arms and you will have other fighters probably leave -- well, they're not in Nicaragua now -- but they will move to Honduras and other places and if, in fact, there is a breakdown in these democratization steps that were outlined, they will be ready to resume the battle. I just wanted to correct one little thing that was mentioned here. There, in fact, is free expression of the press today in Nicaragua. I didn't want people to feel that there is no expression in the newspapers. The newspapers are publishing, opposition newspapers.

REP. EDWARDS: At the moment, at the moment they are, but the last time the Sandinista government got unhappy with them, they closed down La Prinsa. They just wouldn't let La Prinsa buy any newsprint, so that happens. You know, there's another point here in terms of what we can hope for. Once the contras do disband, once they lay down their arms, you say that if it doesn't work out and they go back and close the newspapers, they come back together again, once they're disarmed and disbanded they won't come back together, they can't do that. Once that egg is broken, you can't make it go back together.

REP. BONIOR: For all practical purposes though, the military option hasn't been the pressure that's brought the Nicaraguan government to these so-called reforms. Every time we have supplied through our support of the contras military pressure, there has been a constricting of freedoms in Nicaragua, because their basic goal in defense was their national integrity and their dignity. It's only been really through the economic and political pressure of the Western European countries and the United States that I think we have brought them to this point, and I think those are much more viable options. They've worked in the past and we ought to be using them now.

REP. EDWARDS: If I can add, you know, I think one of the reasons that the military pressure hasn't worked is that the Congress of the United States hasn't offered military assistance. We did once on the amendment that I offered, $100 million. They haven't received anything at all for a year. And, you know, the contras haven't gotten the help and that's why the military pressure hasn't worked.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Edwards, back just to the general -- do you think this is going to work? What does the experience and your own gut tell you on this one?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, my own gut and the experience for the last couple of years tell me that once more, the Sandinistas are just trying to buy time to solidify their base. It reminds me of the Peanuts comic strip, and Charlie Brown is still trying to kick that football, and he still believes that Lucy is not going to pull it away at the last second, despite all the times it has happened, and you know, I think Schultz is trying to tell us, you know, sometime you got to learn, and I think the lesson is that you keep the contras together and armed until there is democracy.

MR. LEHRER: You don't believe this is going to work at all, you don't believe this is a real --

REP. EDWARDS: I hope it's going to work, no, I don't believe it is.

MR. LEHRER: You don't believe it is?

REP. EDWARDS: No.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Bonior.

REP. BONIOR: I think sometimes you have to understand that the tactics of the past that have failed are not worth repeating again and that you ought to try another path, you ought to give the ball to somebody else, and this is an alternative, it's got the support of most of the Latin leaders and it has the support, I think will have the support of a great deal of the Western democracies, and I'm hopeful that this new administration will look upon it favorably.

MR. LEHRER: Why? What's different about this time than in the past?

REP. BONIOR: What's different is that you have a person of great political acumen in the new President of Venezuela, Carlos Andres Perez, a dynamic leader, who is, who worked during his inaugural to put this together to a large extent, he worked with Garcia of Peru. You have --

MR. LEHRER: Because all the parties were there for the inaugural.

REP. BONIOR: For the inaugural. You have the five Central American Presidents who are in agreement on this plan. We ought to join with them and make this work. It's only by working together with our Latin neighbors that we are going to be able to resolve this problem.

MR. LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you both very much.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the Newshour, grading the Bush education budget and Hollywood's view of history. SERIES - BUSH BUDGET - 1989

MR. LEHRER: Next, the third in our series of reports on the Bush budget. Tonight it's education. Judy Woodruff takes it from there. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: With all his talk about being the Education President, many expected that George Bush's calls for a kinder, gentler America would include spending more money on education so there was particular interest in what Mr. Bush had to say about education in his budget address to Congress last week. We will look at the President's plans with two experts who have very different views in a moment, but first some background from our Education Correspondent John Merrow.

GEORGE BUSH: I want to be the Education President because I want to see us do better -- .and that's why I want to be the Education President. It's about time we do better in education.

JOHN MERROW: The phrase "Education President" was part of George Bush's campaign stump speech, but exactly what does it mean to be Education President? Former Commissioner of Education Ernest Boyer.

ERNEST BOYER, Former Commissioner of Education: The President is first of all the spiritual, inspirational leader of the nation. He sets the agenda. He tells us what's important and unimportant by what he says and what he does and I believe in symbols. A nation is held together by symbols.

MR. MERROW: George Bush seems to understand the importance of symbols. He demonstrated that when he persuaded President Reagan to appoint as Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos, the first Hispanic cabinet member. Bush then kept him on to be his own Secretary of Education. Just before his inauguration, Bush sent educators another symbolic message. He turned his back on a controversial Reagan initiative, tax credits for parents who send their children to private schools, an initiative which many feared would cause children of moderate income families to flee public schools. Instead, George Bush endorsed a program to improve public schools by fostering competition. Known by the buzz word "choice", the program would allow parents to choose their children's public school.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Further expansion in the public school choice is a national imperative.

MR. MERROW: In another act of symbolic importance, Bush invited 250 teachers from all over the country to attend the three day inaugural celebration.

PRESIDENT BUSH: [January 18, 1989] This is the first event and that's the way I wanted it, meeting with educators, a group of outstanding elementary and secondary school teachers from all over the country.

MR. MERROW: But last Thursday night, when President Bush addressed the joint session of Congress on the budget, it was time to move beyond symbols to substance.

PRESIDENT BUSH: [February 9, 1989] So tonight I'm proposing the following initiatives, the beginning of a $500 million program to reward America's best schools, merit schools.

MR. MERROW: George Bush's budget provides $250 million and up to $500 million in future years.

PRESIDENT BUSH: The creation of special Presidential awards for the best teachers in every state, because excellence should be rewarded.

MR. MERROW: Outstanding teachers, $8 million.

PRESIDENT BUSH: The expanded use of magnet schools, which gives families and students greater choice.

MR. MERROW: $100 million for magnet schools of choice.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And a new program to encourage alternative certification which will let talented people from all fields teach in our classrooms.

MR. MERROW: Alternative certification programs $25 million. President Bush also asked for a $250 million increase for Head Start, the successful preschool program for children living in poverty. Critics say the increase is still not enough, that even with the increase, Head Start will be available to less than 25 percent of the eligible children. Bush's proposed education budget is nearly identical to Ronald Reagan's last budget. It increases Department of Education funding by only $441 million for a total of $22.3 billion. This is less than 7 percent of what the country as a whole spends on education, but even it is, figuratively speaking, a drop in the education bucket, educators are expected to be standing in line to get their share.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush budget request for education has been questioned by members of Congress who think it's not enough. It was that concern that was voiced yesterday at a hearing of a House subcommittee on elementary education, on rather elementary, secondary, and vocational education. When asked why the Department of Education wasn't asking for more money, Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos had this to say.

LAURO CAVAZOS, Secretary of Education: [February 14, 1989] It is not just a matter of dollars that we are talking about. Our role is one of leadership and of trying to get the states to understand the need to address many of these issues. We can't go in there and duplicate program or just put more dollar into the thing and think it's going to be solved. We have, we are already spending $330 billion and we are still dissatisfied with the educational programs that we have, so, therefore, my question is, can't we work together, Congress, the executive branch, to address those things that are wrong within the system, itself, rather than saying we're just going to put more dollars into it, and by adding more dollars, it follows that it's going to be a better system? We've already reached 330 billion and we still don't have a better system.

MS. WOODRUFF: Joining us now to discuss the Bush education budget are Gary Bauer, former Undersecretary of Education and White House Domestic Policy Adviser during the Reagan administration. He is currently President of the Family Research Council, a conservative public policy group based in Washington, and Bill Honig, California's State Superintendent of Public Instruction who oversees the nation's largest system of public schools. He joins us from Sacramento. Mr. Honig, let me begin with you. Can President Bush do significant things for education in this country without spending any more money than he has proposed for this coming year?

BILL HONIG, California Schools Superintendent: Well, I don't think if he's serious about educational improvement this budget is going to do the job. It's less than enough to keep even with inflation so there's going to have to be real cutbacks. The increases he's proposed, I like the programs, I think they're going to be effective, but he's only talking about a very small amount, $50 million extra, that's available this year, and we have such important work to do. Where I disagree with the Secretary, Sec. Cavazos, he says, money alone won't do it. That's true, but if you've got good programs, you understand what's wrong such as the failure in math and science instruction, the need to train teachers, and follow through in some of these areas, you do have to make the investment and this budget does not make that investment and, therefore, I think we're going to miss the chance for accelerating the pace of educational reform.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are we missing a chance, Gary Bauer?

GARY BAUER, Former Education Undersecretary: Well, if we are, it's not because of budget levels here in Washington, D.C. I think there's probably no amount of money that George Bush could have asked for that the Congress and people like Bill Honig wouldn't have seen his bid and raised him a billion dollars. We doubled education spending between 1960 and 1980 in this country, and yet, the measure of or students' performance plummeted by the largest amount in the history of the country. It's a mistake I think and it's disingenuous to suggest to the American people that a few billion more dollars and a couple more hundred bureaucrats here in Washington are going to make a difference. We need to look at how we're spending the 300 plus billion now and do a better job at it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Superintendent Honig, why does it take more money? Why does it have to take a significant amount more money?

MR. HONIG: Well, it's interesting that that question is asked when it comes to education. If we need, if we want to make some progress in space and build a space station, $2 1/2 billion extra, nobody questions it. If we want to beef up the military, they know they have to train people, they know they have to make equipment available. It's the same in education. I disagree with Gary Bauer. We do not want the moon, but we do want the funds that are invested in education which will pay off. I'll give you a perfect example. We are having a major problem in math and science instruction and performance in this country. We know it, we know it's wrong. We know where the deficiencies are. You have got to invest in training teachers with the new curriculum that has been developed and that takes some funds to do that. The federal government passed a bill. They provide $100 million. That's enough to train about 1 1/2 percent of the teachers in this country. That is not going to do the job, so we know here's a program with high payoff. It's not funded. We know in Head Start that for every dollar invested you get a five dollar return. It's stupid not to invest that money because we're going to pay the price down the road if we don't make the investment now. It's not just an issue of kinder and gentler. It's not just a social, nice thing to do. If we're going to be hard headed and we're going to make this country productive and invest in the future the way the President is doing, then we've got to make some hard decisions about what kind of investments leverage a whole system and by the proper focused investment we will turn this system around.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's go to your example of math and science, spending on math and science education, Gary Bauer. Why wouldn't it have been a good idea for the President to put funding for that in his budget?

MR. BAUER: Well, that's an important area, an area that we ought to do something about. The bill makes the mistake of ignoring the rest of the money that's being spent around the country and acting as if the answer to teaching math and science is only with the federal budget.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean, money that's spent at the state and local?

MR. BAUER: Absolutely, which is where the great bulk of where the money comes from. Now let me give you an example. He mentioned the Defense Department budget and I think I've got a comparable example. The country was outraged a year go to find out that we were spending $800 for a hammer and they should have been outraged. Let me give you an education example. In the District of Columbia this year, they will spend $5700 for the education of each child and yet we did not produce one merit scholarship finalist in the whole District of Columbia. We're not graduating children who know who was President during the Civil War or know what half century World War II took place in. These are not dollar issues.

MS. WOODRUFF: Does Gary Bauer have a point, Bill Honig?

MR. HONIG: He does not. They are dollar issues. We have gone, we have shrunk as a percentage of the federal budget, we will shrink this year. It's true that the bulk of this money is spent locally, but they're strapped for funds just to take care of new growth and existing programs and there are places in the system that if you're serious about this, if you're really serious about educational reform, you will figure out a comprehensive approach and figure out where to join forces with those of us who are trying to change the system, teacher training, technology introduction, leadership training, the idea of what we call restructuring schools with a little bit of money, you can get teachers to work together. There's a whole series of initiatives that don't take much money, but they will produce and leverage the whole system. And so I object. Money alone doesn't do it, but if you have willing teachers and a willing system that wants to change, then the proper application within the system will improve. We don't question that in business; we don't question that in the military; we don't question that in space, but all of a sudden when it comes to education, the rhetoric is there, the symbols are there, but the reality is that the budget in real terms is being reduced and we are spending less than 1 percent of our federal budget on our whole kindergarten through twelfth grade system. If it's that important, we should do a better job.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer, you want to respond to --

MR. BAUER: Yes. The United States spends more money per capita on education than Japan and foreign competitors. If we want to deal with education problems, we start needing to deal with the breakdown of the American family, the lack of parental involvement, the lack of choice, issues that folks like Bill Honig don't like to talk about.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's talk about --

MR. HONIG: Let me just comment to that, because I do agree with choice, I do like that idea. I think it will be helpful, it won't be a panacea. I do think the breakdown of the family has hurt us. I do think there's a whole agenda in children's, comprehensive children's services, in prenatal care, and family support and these other areas. I think there's a character issue out there, I agree with Gary Bauer on that, that we have to work with the communities and individual families and motivation, but that doesn't say you shouldn't spend money or invest in those programs which have high promise of improving the quality of American education. If you're serious about -- go ahead.

MS. WOODRUFF: I was just going to say let me move real quickly to some of the proposals the President has made, and take, let's go down a short list. Magnet schools, he's proposed $100 million to expand the magnet school concept, Bill Honig, good idea, bad idea, is this something he should have done?

MR. HONIG: Good idea and I support it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer.

MR. BAUER: Good idea. In California, he ought to put more of this money toward the same concept.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about --

MR. HONIG: Gary, you have to come out here and say that to our Governor. We have proposed that and we can't get it past a Republican Governor and a Republican block in the legislature.

MR. BAUER: Now, Bill, don't start campaigning for Governor.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about $250 million to start this program of rewarding merit schools, Bill Honig, is that the kind of money we ought to be putting into that?

MR. HONIG: That's the kind of program I'm talking about. I think that's a great idea. I think it will engender changes and improvements, and we had something like that in California, Florida had a program such as that, and it will get people striving hard for quality. At the same time, you need a comparable program for intervention with schools that aren't doing the job that are below level and some help with those schools building the capacity so they can do a better job. You need to fight on both fronts.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer, same thing, the merit schools.

MR. BAUER: Any time we can reward success, that's good. Too many education programs, quite frankly, have rewarded failure, and that's been one of the major problems with the federal education dollars, so I think again competition, choice, rewarding merit are good things not only for schools but for our students.

MS. WOODRUFF: The 8 million relatively small amount as these budgets go, but $8 million to reward outstanding teachers, Bill Honig, is that enough to make a difference?

MR. HONIG: Well, that's more symbolic. I think it's an important symbolic act to make, but it doesn't take the place of proper investment in teacher training, in preparation of teachers, in what we call differentiated staff where you pay some teachers to work full-time and take on additional responsibility. These are more powerful ideas and I think we should pursue them and you'll find that contrary to some of the statements the educational community is very ready. The union leadership, teachers, administrators, they are all ready to put some of these ideas into practice, have done so, and the federal government's role should be to help spread those ideas throughout the system.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer, what about that, outstanding teachers?

MR. BAUER: The great majority of teachers' salaries will always come from state and local taxpayers, but it is important for us in Washington to make symbolic efforts to reward good teachers and I think President Bush's budget does that.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Head Start, Bill Honig, you mentioned this a minute ago, $250 million but we're still talking about reaching, what, fewer than one in four of the children who would be eligible for this program.

MR. HONIG: This proposal is a good proposal. It goes from one out of five children to one out of four children. We should go the whole way over the next three years and every child that can benefit by Head Start or preschool experience we should do it. The research is very clear on this. For every program we invest $1 in, we save 5, 6 dollars down the road, it's probably one of the best investments we can make in the country.

MS. WOODRUFF: But, Gary Bauer, there is no money as President Bush perceives it now to increase this Head Start for the next four years, isn't that correct?

MR. BAUER: There is some extra money in there for Head Start, but again I think we need to be very careful on this issue. Head Start type programs will help some; the research does show that. It also shows that in a couple of years, the gains students make in those programs often fritter away. You can't measure them that much a few years later. What we're dealing with with those children again is the breakdown of the American family and there is no way that a bureaucrat here in Washington is going to substitute for a father or a mother. I think all of us, Bill Honig, those of us in Washington, need to start addressing the incredible breakdown of the family in our inner-cities, and until we do, we can't spend enough money to bring these kids up to competition with their peers.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Honig.

MR. HONIG: Well, I disagree. I agree with the part about we've got to work in the communities and the families and that's a major part of the program. But excellent schools and exemplary schools do make a difference. Research shows that actually you do save quite a bit down the road with Head Start because you keep them out of prison, the pregnancy rates are lower, the alcoholism rates are lower, the medical problems are lower, so these gains save you and they mean a more productive citizen, so the research shows if you invest the dollar, it makes a difference even with the social conditions these kids are facing.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just quickly here at the end, Bill Honig, where do you see this education budget ending up? You're saying you like many of the things George Bush has proposed, you just would have like to have seen him propose more.

MR. HONIG: Well, it's worse than that. I like them, but they don't take the place of adequate increases just to keep even with inflation and if we're serious about making our schools work in this country over the next 10 years, we have got to have a substantial investment from the federal government, it will make a difference, and we do that in other areas. If you're going to trade off, for example, a space station or space exploration for $2 1/2 billion, you could invest that $2 1/2 billion in our schools right now and we would leverage and improve the total system. I think that's a good investment. I think we should make it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer, you were involved in the Reagan administration. How much of the Bush education proposals do you think are going to come to fruition?

MR. BAUER: Well, I think the President will be under heavy pressure. There will be an effort to establish a bidding war to establish the idea that the problems in American education are essentially problems of more money even though we're spending 330 billion. I think the President should resist that temptation to get into a bidding war, spend his time on these issues like strengthening families, parental choice, rewarding excellence. And I think if he does that, we'll be a lot better off.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen, we thank you both for being with us. Superintendent Bill Honig in California, Gary Bauer here in Washington. Thank you both. ESSAY - HISTORY BY HOLLYWOOD

MR. MacNeil: The Oscar nominations were announced this morning. Mississippi Burning, the high grossing film about events in Mississippi during the summer of 1964 got seven nominations, including those for best film and best director. The film has been controversial and that's what tonight's essay by Anne Taylor Fleming is about.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Here are the dream factories hard at work on a sunny morning. In these buildings, there are thousands of people making movies. Like dressmakers, they're in there trimming history, altering biographies, embroidering the truth. That's what they do day in and day out. Hundreds of movies a year come out of this town. Only a few destined to be big hits, fewer than that to be big, full blown conscience pricklers, movies that somehow cross over out of the entertainment category and into the national debate. And the winner is Mississippi Burning. It's the current cross over. It's landed on magazine covers and newspaper spreads, earning raves and rants in equal measure. Of course, it has a content matter destined to provoke thought. That's for starters. It's about a subject we've left aside for a long time, as if we could not bare to see it or the picture it showed us of ourselves, racism, up close and personal, white men in sheets with nooses in their hands and rage in their hearts. We haven't seen all that much of us before. Vietnam came after Mississippi, and it's already had its Hollywood treatment in numbers of films. It's been fought and refought from Rambo to Platoon. We faced that shame. Now can we face this one, specifically the smouldering Southern summer of 1964, can we really look it in the face and what lies behind it, the moral disaster of slavery, payment due forever? [Scene from Mississippi Burning]

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: The answer, according to Mississippi Burning, is not really, not yet, because this film isn't about blacks and it isn't about racism. It's about two white men, two FBI fictional heroes who stalk the streets of a small town in Mississippi trying to solve the murders of three civil rights workers. If that rings a bell, that incident, it should. Those murders did happen for real, Goodman, Schwarner, Chaney, we remember the names of the slain, but the movie carefully avoids using them. This is not, repeat, not a true story. That's the disclaimer offered at the end of the film. It doesn't even purport to be a so called docudrama, that TV hybrid of fact and fiction. No, this is dream factory Mississippi, trimmed to fit, whitened up, and I think that's what's making people angry without them realizing it, not the content, but the method, the manipulation, the movie that purports to be serious, gritty, grappling, and is just another buddy buddy cop picture, the Untouchables go South. We've been tricked into taking something seriously that isn't serious, tricked into arguing over message not method, when it is the latter that is fatally and deliberately flawed. In short, we've been had. So what we're arguing about here is not the South circa 1964, but Hollywood circa whenever. We're not arguing about what went on in the minds of small town Southerners, but about what goes on in the minds of big time movie makers, heroes, light skinned ones, they just can't get away from those. Even Oliver Stone, who gave us a gritty, ugly picture of Vietnam in his Platoon, couldn't resist giving us a good guy sergeant to root for, a trumped up Hamlet of the battlefield. Funnily enough, the actor, William DeFoe, who played that sergeant, also plays one of the FBI agents in Mississippi Burning, the all purpose sensitive moral man in immoral world. That's central casting, that's Hollywood, it's not Mississippi 1964. For that, you will have to wait. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the Justice Department withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court in the Oliver North trial. The Department said it was now satisfied with plans to handle classified information at the former Reagan aide's trial. The very last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan, ending a nine year occupation. U.S. Government spokesmen reacted coolly to the new version of the Central American peace plan and at least 38 people were killed in fighting between army troops and Christian militia in Lebanon's East Beirut. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the Newshour tonight and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.