The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. President Reagan says Marine commanders can call in air strikes to defend themselves in Lebanon as debate over the U.S. presence heats up in Washington.

Sen. PAUL SARBANES, (D) Maryland: The question is, is the administration going to come to the Congress pursuant to the law, and present this judgment to be involved in by the Congress?

MacNEIL: We're going to hear more of that argument and examine why the issue is so sensitive for the Reagan administration. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, we're also going to Ask George McGovern why, after a 12-year break, he's running for president again, and hear a governor ask an administration official about alleged broken promises to the unemployment capital of the nation, a brief reform. And there's also news to report on highway safety and the Korean airliner tragedy, among other things. War Powers Debate

MacNEIL: President Reagan today gave U.S. Marine commanders in Lebanon authority to call in air strikes if needed to protect the multinational peacekeeping force in Beirut.Presidential spokesman Larry Speakes said the Marine commanders could request air strikes from the U.S. armada in the waters off Lebanon without referring to Washington. Four Marines have been killed in the recent warfare between Lebanese factions. A memorial service was held today for a Marine killed last week to the sound of artillery exploding in the mountains around the city.

[voice-over] While fighting continued for the fourth day at the mountain town of Suq al Gharb, overlooking Beirut and its airport, British fighter planes made sweeps to show support for a nearby base of the British peacekeeping force. The planes were two Buccaneer fighter bombers from the British airfield of Akrotiri on the island of Cyprus. They passed over the British headquarters between Suq al Gharb and Beirut, signifying that Britain, like the United States, has air power to support its troops if they're threatened.

[on camera] The privately owned Central News Agency in Beirut quoted Lebanese officials today as saying the Reagan administration had pledged air and naval support if the Lebanese army's front lines in the mountains are broken. In Damascus, the Syrian state minister for foreign affairs, Faruq As-shar, called a news conference to alert public opinion in America, as he put it, to the dangers of direct U.S. military involvement in Lebanon. Jim?

LEHRER: The argument here in Washington goes like this: The U.S. Marines are in Lebanon as peacekeepers. They are not in combat, thus there is no reason to invoke the War Powers Act. Nonsense. Five Marines have died and 30 have been wounded. If that's not combat, what is? The Act applies. Congress approves in 60 to 90 days or out the Marines come. That argument began in earnest today on Capitol Hill as the administration sent officials before the Senate foreign relations committee to explain its position as well as take questions, and, as it turned out, also some heat. Here's a piece of how it went.

DAVIS ROBINSON, State Department legal adviser: This administration positively welcomes and supports the involvement of the Congress of the United States in our policy with regard to Lebanon. At this very sensitive moment we will welcome a statement of support and of united policy with regard to Lebanon.

Sen. SARBANES: Well, now, if the administration welcomes the involvement of the Congress, do I take that to mean that the administration is prepared for the War Powers Act to come into play, and for the 60-day calendar period to run, and for the Congress therefore to be called upon to take one of these three acts; otherwise, the continued involvement -- otherwise the involvement cannot continue?

Mr. ROBINSON: Senator, I would again, with all respect, say that the administration does not see any useful purpose to be served in a confrontational --

Sen. SARBANES: No one's trying to get a confrontation, Counselor.

Mr. ROBINSON: -- or in a constitutional debate.

Sen. SARBANES: We're trying to get an involvement of the two branches of the government in making a very important decision --

Mr. ROBINSON: I understand that --

Sen. SARBANES: -- as concerns the policy of our country. Has the Congress declared war in this instance?

Mr. ROBINSON: No, sir, the Congress has not declared war in this instance.

Sen. SARBANES: Has the Congress extended by law the 60-day period?

Mr. ROBINSON: The Congress has not extended the 60 --

Sen. SARBANES: All right, has it --

Mr. ROBINSON: -- day period to the extent it is constitutional, Senator.

Sen. SARBANES: Is the Congress physically --

Mr. ROBINSON: The Congress has not extended the 60-day period.

Sen. SARBANES: Is the Congress physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States?

Mr. ROBINSON: I'm sorry, sir, that one I did not hear.

Sen. SARBANES: Is the Congress physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States?

Mr. ROBINSON: No, sir, it is not. With regard to the 60 days, having frankly personally, three weeks ago, been in Beirut, we are all very sensitive, I'm sure, not to want to do anything to increase the risks to the safety of our American personnel in Beirut.

Sen. SARBANES: Now, Counselor, I'm not going to concede to you or anyone else a greater sensitivity on that issue than is held by the members of the Congress with respect to our men that are involved in that situation. The question is, is the administration going to come to the Congress pursuant to the law and present this judgment to be involved in by the Congress? Now, we recognize the sensitivity of this issue, and I dare say we're as sensitive, if not more sensitive to it than you are. But the question is, are judgments of this sort, of involvement of American men simply going to be made by the President, disregarding the Congress, or is the Congress going to be drawn in to making a judgment with that regard? We're elected by the people as well --

Mr. ROBINSON: I understand, sir.

Sen. SARBANES: We have a role to play under the constitutional system, and it doesn't help to work through this very difficult issue to take that position.

Mr. ROBINSON: Well, pardon me, Senator, I said "equally sensitive." I was simply trying to say this administration wants the involvement of the Congress. We affirmatively want your involvement. We do not intend to disregard the Congress. I am here to tell you that this administration wants the Congress involved. We want your support. We want to have a united front with regard to our policy in Lebanon. We are obviously sensitive to your views and to your constitutional positions, just as we hope you are sensitive to ours.

Sen. CHARLES PERCY, (R) Illinois: General Kelly, would you render your judgment to this committee on whether you see now the situation where in Lebanon there is the possibility of imminent hostilities?

Gen. P.X. KELLY, Marine Commandant: Well, as you know, Senator, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm but a simple infantryman, so all I can talk about --

Sen. PERCY: But you recognize hostilities when you see them and whether they're imminent or not.

Gen. KELLY: That was going to be my next point.

Sen. PERCY: I think this is right in your field.

Gen. KELLY: We Marines, when you talk about hostilities or imminent hostilities, being offensively oriented think of offensive combat. In other words, moving the combat to the adversary. Imminent hostilities under the current situation as it exists in my view, my professional view, in Lebanon is not the case as far as the Marines are concerned.

LEHRER: While all of that was going on in public before the TV cameras, there were private efforts to make a deal, one that would accommodate both the White House concerns and the Congress's desires over the War Powers Act. Judy Woodruff has been looking into the concerns and the desires. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the President's senior political advisers, Jim, said today that this problem "has placed the President on the horns of the sharpest dilemma he has faced yet." At stake is the power of the presidency, his Middle East foreign policy and his political image. There are three specific reasons the administration has been dragging its feet about invoking the War Powers Act. Administration officials want to avoid arousing a national debate over Mr. Reagan's Mideast policy at a time when it might hurt diplomatic efforts there. Second, they don't want to acknowledge that Congress has the authority to set limits on the President's war-making powers, a concession that no other president has ever made. And, third, with the presidential election just 14 months away and the assumption that Mr. Reagan is running for re-election, they don't want to reinforce the image of him that many voters already have, namely, that he is more likely than most politicians to get the country involved in a war. Administration officials are actively exploring going around the War Powers Act by having Congress express its approval for the American troops' presence in Lebanon through some sort of simple resolution. But congressional Democrats appear to be overwhelmingly opposed to that, so the administration is faced with a dilemma of either invoking the War Powers Act itself or being forced to go along with the resolution offered by the members of Congress, a resolution based on the War Powers Act which would require the President's signature. Jim?

LEHRER: Now, there's no question, though, Judy, that whether it comes in the form of a simple resolution or it comes as a result of the War Powers Act being invoked, there is a clear majority in both houses of Congress to keep the Marines there, correct?

WOODRUFF: That's right. There is no great sentiment on the part of very many members that the troops should come home. They believe it's in our interest to keep them there.

LEHRER: So the issue is simply -- or not "simply" -- it is very complicated, as we've heard and as everybody knows. But the issue is the War Powers Act.

WOODRUFF: That's right. The members feel that the President should be reporting and he should be consulting with them at this very important moment in American Middle East policy, and, quite frankly, most of them feel, and certainly most the Democrats feel and many Republicans feel, as well, that the President should abide by the War Powers Act, which requires, once those troops are confronted with hostilities, for the clock to start ticking.And in fact that's what we understand they are trying to work out right now.

LEHRER: And of course the other side of the argument, as we just heard even from the Marine commandant, is that there is a big difference between offensive combat and defensive combat, and everybody has their own opinion about that. Now, the chances of there being an accommodation -- while all of this was going on today, they are talking, and there is probably not going to be a serious confrontation over this. Would you agree?

WOODRUFF: That's right. What I was told late this afternoon by someone in the Congress, a staff member in the Congress, is that there were meetings late into the afternoon between White House officials, congressional officials, and that they are trying to work something out whereby the President would have to request through the War Powers Act this power to have the troops in Lebanon, but in return he would win a bipartisan -- overwhelming bipartisan support for the troops being there. So there would be some quid -- some quo for the quid.

LEHRER: Gotcha.Thank you, Judy. Robin?

MacNEIL: For the first time in 12 days there was no major development today in the saga of the lost Korean airliner. But the Soviet state-controlled media kept up their barrage of reports justifying its destruction. Today the army daily newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda carried an interview with the pilot who shot down the 747. It quoted the unnamed flyer as saying that the pilot of the Korean jumbo tried to escape pursuit by lowering all his flaps and slowing down, causing the interceptor to fly past. "But I did not fall for that trick," the Soviet pilot was reported to have said, and the Korean pilot retracted his flaps to gain speed again. The newspaper also claimed that the RC-135, the reconnaissance plane the U.S. acknowledges was in the area, attempted to draw the attention of Soviet radar away from the jumbo by flying a diversionary course. The U.S. maintains that the reconnaissance plane had no connection with the civilian airliner. Jim?

LEHRER: The foreign affairs beat had two Washington happenings on two other parts of the world today. Robert Mugabe, the prime minister of the African nation of Zimbabwe, had a two-hour chat with President Reagan at the White House, and afterward both came out and said what most world leaders say after two-hour chats -- that they had a meaningful exchange of views, agreeing to disagree on a few things; agreeing on most others. The disagreement in this case is mostly over independence for Namibia and other issues involving South Africa.

The Other happening occurred on Capitol Hill. It concerned Brazil. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker told the Senate banking committee a deal has almost been struck to ease Brazil's serious international debt problem. The deal would be with the International Monetary Fund for a $5-billion loan in exchange for Brazil's embarking on a severe economic austerity program. Robin? Laredo Unemployment

MacNEIL: And the Federal Reserve also had some news on the U.S. economy. It reported that consumers added nearly $5 billion to their installment debt in July. It was the biggest increase in credit buying in the 40 years the government has been keeping records. The surge was taken as evidence of rising consumer confidence as the recession eased, at least up to July.

Throughout the months of recession and recovery, the national unemployment figures put out by the government each month always have made big news. But in between those announcements, the labor department releases more detailed unemployment figures broken down by states and cities. Those figures, for July, came out today. Compared to last year at this time, two thirds of the states had lower unemployment while seven had higher rates. The state with the lowest unemployment was North Dakota, at 4.3%, and the state with the highest rate was West Virginia, with 17.4%. The city with the highest unemployment was Laredo, Texas, with 26.2% unemployment. It is one of the border cities suffering fromMexico's economic troubles. For our next major topic tonight, we look at the plight of Laredo and other border towns. First, from Laredo itself, a report by Kwame Holman.

AUCTIONEER: The property for sale relates to and is located on certain real estate in Laredo, Web County, Texas, commonly known as the Sheraton Motor Inn. Going once, going twice, sold for $150,000 to the representative of --

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: It is a sign of the times in Laredo. The six-year-old Sheraton hotel being sold at auction, its local owners unable to pay their banknote from earnings that have fallen 50% since last year.

Laredo is a border city of 95,000. Once prosperous, it is now in the midst of a virtual depression. Retail stores are closed, and record unemployment grips the city. Vidal Trevino is president of Laredo's Chamber of Commerce.

VIDAL TREVINO, president, Chamber of Commerce: Depending on whose figures you look at, somewheres between 500 and 600 businesses that have closed in Laredo. The unemployment rate is somewheres around 30 to 33 percent.

EMPLOYMENT COUNSELOR: This is where you're going to go look for a job, one place per week.If you work, then it's "Yes, I did work," and you fill it in here. If not, then it's just no, and fill it in, okay?

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Laredo's prosperity came to a sudden end last year. Historically the city's livelihood depended on Mexican customers who flooded across the nearby border to trade their pesos for American goods, goods that are scarce in Mexico. That ended, and Laredo's crisis began, when successive devaluations of the Mexican peso all but destroyed the buying power of those customers.

ALDO TATANGELO, Mayor of Laredo: We were enjoying a $1.6-billion retail business with Mexico. So all at once there was a 40% loss.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Aldo Tatangelo is the 70-year-old first-term mayor of Laredo.

Mayor TATANGELO: And I have preached more than once in the last 20 years, don't depend on Mexico alone.

HOLMAN: The latests problems for Laredo began in February of last year when the Mexican government, fighting a rising trade deficit, devalued the peso by nearly 50%.

[voice-over] But still the peso was overvalued, and six months later the Mexican government again devalued its currency, this time by a whopping two thirds. The peso devaluations have only worsened the problems that Laredo shares with other border cities. For example, some of Laredo's unemployed say that the few jobs that are available in town are taken by visiting workers from Mexico who are willing to work for less.

JUAN MORALES, unemployed resident: They'll serve for 40" an hour and a person from here would not.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: thirty-one-year-old Juan Morales is an American citizen who grew up in Laredo. He says the federal government has a role in helping his hometown, especially in regulating visiting Mexican workers.

Mr. MORALES: I think the government should come in and do something constructive. Give us jobs. But then do something also as far as regulating the green-carders -- people that come from across -- from Mexico. Now, going to the employers and find out why they are working and why the people from Laredo -- there are legal residents are unemployed.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The peso devaluations have been no kinder to the Mayor's city budget.Almost a quarter of it had to be cut due to the loss of $3 1/2 million in retail sales taxes. Receipts from the city-owned toll bridge that used to bring in close to $5 million a year also have beencut in half. And freight tax receipts from trucks and trains carrying goods across the border have decreased sharply. Still, every morning, thousands of Mexicans cross the bridges from Laredo's sister city, Nuevo Laredo.Some come to work; fewer come to buy, and others come to visit their children who attend Laredo's public schools. The Supreme Court has ruled that American schools must educate any child who registers with a U.S. address, whether the child's parents are legal citizens or not.

Mr. TREVINO: This school district has taken in in one year as many as 1,000 students who the previous year attended schools in Mexico.It is the federal government that said, "You will educate the illegal alien," is it not? They are the ones that dictate so many things to us. And therefore I think they ought to be the ones who provide the money for what they're dictating.

HOLMAN: Is that making Laredo's budget problems even worse?

Mayor TATANGELO: Oh, naturally, certainly. Because here you are, you're educating people from a foreign country, and they're not contributing. And it certainly does. But, again, those are state laws, federal laws. They have to change them. We can't change them.

MacNEIL: Laredo's problems -- record unemployment, rising school enrollments and falling city revenues -- have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Last month, in a bid to woo Hispanic voters, President Reagan visited Texas and a month ago today, in El Paso, he promised government aid to the border area.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [August 13, 1983]: I have just asked the Vice President to oversee the establishment of an interagency action group. We are determined to coordinate every government program we can tap to mitigate economic hardship in your border regions.We will work with your state and local leaders to help stimulate jobs and diversify your economies, and we'll start doing it not next year or next week. Today.

MacNEIL: The man who has been handing the border aid question for Vice President George Bush is his domestic policy adviser, Steve Rhodes. Also with us tonight is the Democratic governor of Texas, Mark White, who has been highly critical of the administration's efforts. Governor White is with us at public station KLRU in Austin. Governor, what is your view of the President's relief effort so far? [transmission trouble] Excuse me, Governor, we're not hearing you just at present. I think what we'll do in the meantime is talk to Mr. Rhodes in Washington, and then when we get your sould back we'll come back to you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, Mr. Rhodes, the President said the work was going to begin today. That was a month ago today. What has happened in this last 30 days?

STEVE RHODES: Since that time -- excuse me, Jim. Since that time we've had two meetings at the White House where the Vice President, as you may recall, was brought back to Washington to set up the task force as outlined by the President. In addition to that, we have made announcements of grants into the border region -- that includes some 36 states [sic] -- that account for roughly $101 million in grants, loan guarantees --

LEHRER: Grants for what?

Mr. RHODES: For a variety of things. From construction of buildings for schools, guarantees to do work in the Brownsville area, as well as CDBG grants that the local community will --

LEHRER: CDBG?

Mr. RHODES: Excuse me. That's community development block grants where the local government will have a lot of control as to how those dollars are actually spent in their community to do the best good.

LEHRER: But there's nothing -- no crash program, nothing special?

Mr. RHODES: No, there are no new monies for this program. What the President asked that the Vice President do is take a look at the existing programs and figure out how, through this task force, we could expedite existing federal regulations into the area.If we had to wait for new monies, that would have a much longer -- we'd have to go back to Congress for additional appropriations, and that's not what the President wanted to do.He wanted to get the money out there as quickly as possible.

LEHRER: Do you agree with the school superintendant in Laredo, as we just heard, who says, "Hey wait a minute, it was the federal government who requires us to educate these kids when they come over from Nuevo Laredo, it's the federal government who ought to pick up the tab"?

Mr. RHODES: That's a difficult problem, I think. One of the problems that we have with that whole argument, unfortunately, is that the courts decided that, and unfortunately it wasn't the Congress or the executive branch. As you are well aware, we have tremendous problems with budget constraints, and for us to indiscriminately begin to increase appropriations to fund some of the impact problems -- as they're called right now -- would cause tremendous problems to the existing deficit problems that we're already facing. Those kinds of things are presently being reviewed by the department of education, OMB and a number of members on the Hill.

LEHRER: Well, in other words, here again, very little has happened in 30 days, right? That's been targeted, say, to Laredo, Texas, where the worst unemployment in the nation is.

Mr. RHODES: Well, let's talk about that just for a second. Laredo has an unemployment problem, but the issue is not unemployment per se. What we're trying to do is provide assistance to those 36 border regions that were affected as a function of the peso devaluation. That's what the President talked about. Now, and in all sincerity, when you look at Laredo's economy, the local economy in Laredo, 90% of it accounted for retail sales. We do realize that there's been a fall-off as a function of the peso devaluation, and for us to begin to try to develop all sorts of government programs in the area -- we've gone through decades where that hasn't worked, and what we're trying to do is put existing funds into the area to give the local elected officials, local business community, labor and the rest the opportunity to do what's best for them. Ultimately what we're going to have to do is try to figure out some way to diversify the economies, and that's working with the state government, the federal government and local governments as well as the private sector. It's not a job for any one entity in this whole problem. And we understand that and, as you heard from the Mayor, he understands that as well.

LEHRER: Well, now we're going to hear -- see how the Governor of Texas understands it. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, Governor, we can hear you again now. Do you understand it?

MARK WHITE: Well, that isn't exactly what I understand is happening. I heard about $100 million, but I don't believe you'll find that maybe more than $10 or $12 million has come into that impacted area along our border with Mexico. Another comment that was made by Steve that I think is erroneous is the fact that he said the courts made a decision that children of undocumented workers had to be educated, and that that was the judicial section's problem. The fact of the matter is it's the executive section's --executive problem to enforce the immigration laws in our country. If they would enforce those laws, then we wouldn't have the children there to educate. I think that's their responsibility, and if they fail in it, I think it's important that they provide funds -- such as the Jim Wright amendment, which passed the House today -- to see that those children are educated at federal expense. They failed in their responsibilities to protect our border; I think they should share the expense.

MacNEIL: Excuse me, Governor, what does the Jim Wright amendment provide?Special federal money to provide education of these children of illegal immigrants who must under law now be educated in those schools?

Gov. WHITE: It provides impact funds in those districts such as Laredo and Brownsville and El Paso where there are inordinate numbers of children going to school in those areas that were undocumented workers' children and, as a result, those districts are highly impacted. The federal government should provide support for them.

MacNEIL: What besides that do you think the federal government should be doing for areas like Laredo?

Gov. WHITE: Well, I think that -- several things. If they would just -- you saw the lines of people that were trying to come into the United States there, going through the immigration service turnstiles. The Congress has provided almost 100 new positions in order to relieve those long lines. That is an impediment to commerce between our two countries. If this administration would just put those people to work that have already been authorized -- no additional expenditure is necessary, or no appropriation is required -- then you could find an easing of that flow of commerce back and forth between our two cities in that community -- Nuevo Laredo and Laredo, Texas. And I think you'll find that that's something they've failed to do.Thank goodness, they rescinded one of their programs which created a further impediment between commerce in our country with Mexico this past month. I was very pleased with that. Other programs that they should employ, I think, or something more than what they've done in the past -- there's a congressional proposal by Congressman Kent Hance which will provide additional impact funds for those areas that have extremely high unemployment. I hope this administration will support that program so that we can see that the immediate suffering that's taking place in those communities can be relieved.

MacNEIL: Mr. Rhodes, the Governor says that he doesn't understand your -- doesn't believe your $101 million figure. He says only about $10 million he can see is headed that way.

Mr. RHODES: Well, I strongly disagree with the Governor. As a matter of fact, a press release was issued both last week, and we did a summary review this week that is in the area now. It talks about guarantees that we have made for loans that will construct in the shipbuilding area in Brownsville, Texas, that accounts for 500 jobs directly. So in addition to that major loan guarantee that accounts for just about $95 million, we have several other smaller grants and loans as well as guarantees that are going into the area. And I think you'll be seeing more of those in the weeks to come.

MacNEIL: Let's get the Governor's comment on that. Isn't that true, there's been a big loan to the Brownsville shipyard, Governor, that amounts to $95 --

Gov. WHITE: That was a loan to a California company. It was guaranteed a loan up to $95 million. And all that did was maintain that 500 jobs that we were hearing about.It did not increase employment a bit. I think you'll find that the unemployment plan that President Reagan had, which was for people who wanted a job, go look in the newspaper and they could go find themselves a job, simply isn't working in this part of our state. In Laredo, Texas, with about 11,000 people unemployed, recently there were 14 -- 14 -- jobs listed in the newspaper. That's the type of response that we've been getting from this administration, and I beg to differ with Steve.

MacNEIL: Mr. Rhodes, what about the Governor's point that Congress has authorized 100 new INS positions which, if filled would greatly ease the flow of Mexicans who want to come and spend money in the border areas, but the administration hasn't employed them, hasn't put them in there.

Mr. RHODES: Well, that is being reviewed presently by the office of management and budget. But I'd just like to dovetail on what the Governor has said.

MacNEIL: But they have -- he's right, is he? They have not yet filled those positions?

Mr. RHODES: As I understand it, that's presently being reviewed. I'm not exactly sure where it stands at the present time. But let's get back to the issue at hand, though. We're talking about trying to restore and revive the economies along these 36 border counties that have been affected by the peso devaluation. You know, as we begin to talk about that we have to look at little bit more critically at what's going on in the region and what the President has tried to propose through the working group. And I think that in the working group's report it outlines specifically the kinds of things that the federal government could do immediately to provide some assistance into the area. I think the other thing that we have to do is you have to work together with the Governor and the local elected officials throughout not only Texas but Arizona, New Mexico and California. And I think that the more than we can find common ground to work on, based on the efforts that the federal government's already taken -- I mean, I think we can do far more to help those people who are in desperate need for help as opposed to debating who should do what first. I mean, the President has very definitely shown his commitment to the area by getting the Vice President, who is a former two-term congressman from Texas, who is presently still a resident of Texas, and is familiar with the problems.

MacNEIL: Governor, what do you think of the President's commitment, having heard that?

Gov. WHITE: Well, I think that what he did was create a phantom agency. There's no telephone number and there's nobody in charge. I think you'll find that all of these programs that they've talked about here today were programs that were in the pipeline for many, many months before the President even took cognizance of this problem. There's nothing new here. There's no new idea brought to bear upon the problem, and I think that this is just a charade that's being played at a very late hour, trying to doctor up a problem that is really much more substantial than they're willing to deal with.

MacNEIL: A quick comment, Mr. Rhodes. Is it a charade?

Mr. RHODES: Of course not. You know, the Governor has been saying this all along, and unfortunately I can remember when the Governor brought this to the attention of the Vice President In February. At that point, he asked the Vice President to bring it to the attention of the President. He did. The President announced that we would begin to research the problem and get some action into the area. He announcedthat on May 5th. He said that in 45 days he'd have a report back from the commission and we'd begin work. We have.

MacNEIL: Okay.

Mr. RHODES: The day that that happened the Governor flew back from New Mexico to criticize the President to do something that he asked for.

MacNEIL: Well, we must leave it there. Thank you very much, Governor White, joining us in Austin; Mr. Rhodes, in Washington, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: The administration, as well as the rest of the government, heard another cry for money help today, and it came from the government's own national science board commission. The commission said science education in the United States is drastically inadequate. So much so the U.S. risks losing its lead in science over the rest of the world. Its solution is 2,000 model schools around the country with special science and math programs, plus improving the training of science teachers and adding more technical courses and more class time on science-related subjects for students. The commission put a half-billion-dollar price tag on its solution for the first year alone. We'll be back in a moment.

[Video Postcard -- New York, New York]

MacNEIL: The Reagan administration came under attack today for its record on highway safety. Republican Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri charged that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration had lost sight of the objective of stopping slaughter on the highways. At hearings of the surface transportation subcommittee he chairs, the Senator said the office of management and budget's commitment to rolling back regulations had overruled actions by the safety administration. Senator Danforth has introduced legislation to revive regulations calling for airbags and other safety features. Here is an excerpt from today's hearings. It opens with testimony by Robert Tiernan, a Washington attorney whose son Timmy was killed in a car accident in West Virginia.

ROBERT TIERNAN, father of accident victim: I was driving; Danny was in the middle -- he'd fallen asleep; and Timmy was on the far outside, what's known as the death seat. I'm sorry to say that we were not belted. About 10 miles west of Romney on U.S. 50, which is a very windy road, I was going through a sharp left turn, a curve. It was a really rainy foggy night, and the car went off the shoulder. And first I thought nothing about it. It's happened before. Those are narrow roads up there. But suddenly I realized, "Hey, I'm in trouble. I can't stop this car, I can't skid this car, I can't bring this car under control." Next thing I recall was seeing trees everywhere. Turns out there were trees 15 feet off the road, and dead ahead was a tree. I couldn't -- I couldn't avoid it. Just at the time I hit the tree I think Timmy yelled something about, "We're going to hit a tree!" because I remember looking at him, and we hit it. Car hit the tree, the seat went right down the track off the end underneath the dash. Timmy went with it, had the face right into the dashboard. I don't remember seeing this happen, but apparently the door flew open and he went out, and because the seat was up against the door post, his feet were caught in between, and he probably went out like that.I went around to look at him, and I knew then that -- I just could tell it was all over. I'm not a technical expert. I've heard about airbags, I've seen some movies about airbags, I've read about airbags probably as much as the average citizen. I know airbags would have helped. I think that Timmy would not have been scratched had there been an airbag. Mr. Chairman, I don't think Timmy's case is unique. It happens hundreds, probably thousands of times each year. And I don't understand why the automobile industry refuses to use the technology available to it, and I certainly don't understand why this government doesn't make the automobile industry do that.

Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: With this administration that's not relevant. The office of management and budget is the ideological watchdog of the administration, and it has taken an ideological position, and it doesn't matter to them about the human component. It doesn't even matter about the cost. Just find out some way to justify rescinding the rule on airbags.

Tell me, as long as President Reagan is President, do you see any possibility of a passive restraint rule ever being put into effect?

OMB SPOKESMAN: I would not want to comment on what the decision will be.

Sen DANFORTH: And yet OMB really makes the decisions on auto safety rules, isn't that correct?

OMB SPOKESMAN: No, sir, it's not.

Sen. DANFORTH: That is not correct.

OMB SPOKESMAN: It's not correct. The idea that we are willy-nilly overruling decisions is simply incorrect, and I don't know --

Sen. DANFORTH: Well, I'm not sure that you're willy-nilly overruling decisions.I think you're just stating a position, and if the agency doesn't go along with the position you'll overrule it, but hopefully they'll do it on their own.

OMB SPOKESMAN: There are cases where the position that we have thought was correct in regulatory policy has ended up prevailing, and there are other cases where it does not. It's very similar to the budget procedure.

DIANE STEED, Highway Safety Administration: We are handling this regulation and all regulations as we always do, and that is that we do a full professional technical analysis of the problem, but forth our best information, make the decision on the best way to solve the auto safety problem. If it's through a regulation, I or the Secretary make those decisions, and we do run major regulations by the office of management and budget, as is required. But, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no predetermined outcome of this particular rule or any particular auto safety rule. I'd have to say that I think if the agency can make a good enough case that people are open to see what regulation would look like. I certainly have had no direction one way or the other.

MacNEIL: In West Hartford, Connecticut today the Wells Fargo armored car office was robbed of $7 million by one of its own guards. The police said Victor Guerina, 25 years old, took a gun from the manager's holster, tied up the manager and another guard, and injected them with a drug to make them drowsy. He then spent an hour and a half loading cash into a car and drove away. Jim? McGovern Candidacy

LEHRER: George McGovern became number seven today, the seventh man in the 1984 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. The former South Dakota senator who was landslided by Richard Nixon as the 1972 Democratic nominee did the deed officially this morning in a speech here at George Washington University. And he conceded the point already made by most political pundits that his shot this time is indeed a long one.

GEORGE McGOVERN, Democratic presidential candidate: Now an exciting and what I believe can be a victorious campaign lies before us. No candidate, of course, can predict the public reaction to his appeal. Indeed, as Emerson wrote many years ago, none but he knows what he can do, nor does he know until he has tried. I do not know, of course, whether or not I can win this campaign, but I do know that with all my heart and strength I am going to try.

LEHRER: Judy Woodruff and I are going to talk to Senator McGovern in a moment. But first, Judy has a little political and personal background on him for those who may have forgotten or weren't paying attention in 1972. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Jim, George McGovern has at least one advantage over his competitors. That is, he's the only one with first-hand experience at running for the highest office in the land. But he has his disadvantages, too. He is entering the race late, and he's entering as a liberal when at least three of the six other candidates have a head start on carving up the liberal vote. It was his strong opposition to America's role in the war in Vietnam that spirited McGovern's first try for the Democratic nomination for president in 1968, and a much more serious effort in 1972. As leader of the party's left wing, McGovern emerged victorious at the Democratic convention, but the general election was a different story. That ultra-liberal reputation cost him the support of organized labor and other traditional Democratic constituencies. And the revelation that his running mate, Thomas Eagleton, had been under psychiatric treatment was no help either. After his landslide loss to Richard Nixon, McGovern won another term in the Senate from South Dakota, but he lost that too in the Reagan sweep in 1980. Since then he has lived in Washington heading up a group called Americans for Common Sense, founded in response to the growing influence of the new right. George McGovern is here with us now. Mr. McGovern, welcome.

Sen. McGOVERN: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: You have been quoted recently as saying that Soviet leader Yuri Andropov seems to be, in your words, a reasonable guy and somewhat restrained.How can you say that in light of what the Soviets have done in shooting down this Korean plane?

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, first of all, I don't think there is such thing as an easy-to-get-along-with Soviet leader. I accept the view of our most respected Soviet experts that they're very difficult, they're very fearful, they're suspicious if not paranoid. But as one who has watched their behavior over the years, I think this present leader is probably as realistic and as reasonable as any we have seen. Obviously he's not a Jeffersonian democrat. He doesn't conduct himself the way we would like to see a great leader function. But I do think he wants to live at peace with the United States. This incident on the shooting down of the Korean airliner was an outrage; there's no way anybody can condone that or even attempt to explain it. But the thing we have to keep in mind is that, behind all of this is the blunt fact that the Soviet Union and the United States, if they go to war today, will destroy each other. There won't be any survivors, and that's why the late President Eisenhower put his finger on the key fact that we can't lose sight of, that the alternative to coexistence with these very difficult people is no existence at all.

WOODRUFF: Well, are you saying then that Mr. Andropov was not responsible for what happened, that it was just a mistake?

Sen. McGOVERN: I have no idea what his involvement is. I haven't seen any suggestion that he ordered the shooting down of that plane. But no matter who ordered it, it underscores the fact that we have a very dangerous hair-trigger situation with the Soviet Union that calls for an even greater effort, I think, on both sides to work out a better relationship, a more dependable way of doing business. I don't think the Soviets are going to be less paranoid and less fearful and less trigger-happy if we adopt a more confrontational mood.

WOODRUFF: You wouldn't -- just to let me get back to my earlier question. Then you wouldn't agree, for example, with what President Reagan has said, that the Soviets would reserve unto themselves the right to lie, to steal, to cheat, to do anything in the interests of communism?

Sen. McGOVERN: I wouldn't concentrate on that kind of rhetoric if I were trying to work out a reasonable arms control agreement with them. It may surprise you to hear me say this. I don't always agree with what President Eisenhower and President Nixon did. I didn't agree with everything they did at the time. But I think they had a more realistic approach to this other superpower than some of our other presidents have had, and it was based on a recognition that, while they do things we don't like, there are also areas where we have common interests, and the biggest of those areas is survival.

WOODRUFF: In your announcement today you also said that the United States should pull out completely from Central America -- pull out in terms of military involvement. What are you saying? Are you saying we should just let Nicaragua go along as it is and no longer support he government in El Salvador?

Sen. McGOVERN: What I'm saying is that there are better ways to make our influence known in Central America than military intervention. I think the days of big-power military interventionism in these revolutionary situations is probably over.I don't think the Russians are going to be any more successful at it than we have been. They haven't exactly had a string of victories recently, either. We have some influence over these new governments, and indeed even over the revolutionary movements through diplomacy, through trade, through limited assistance, but I don't think either American forces or American military equipment is the answer. I think it runs the risk of involving us in an open-ended commitment that in the long run weakens our stance in the world.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yeah, Senator, The Washington Post said Sunday in an editorial that your candidacy this time is doomed, that your fundamental policies and programs were unacceptable to the majority of the Americans in 1972, and they still are. I assume you disagree with that.

Sen. McGOVERN: I do disagree with that. I would also hasten to add the person who wrote that editorial only has one vote, the same as the rest of us, and I have the opportunity here in the next few months, I think, to demonstrate that I'm a person of common sense, that I'm a person of realism, that I can approach these problems in a way that I think will make sense to the American people.

LEHRER: Is there a McGovern constituency in the country, do you believe?

Sen. McGOVERN: I think there are a lot of people out there who remember with pride the effort we made in 1972. I don't run into very many people who tell me, "Gee, I'm sorry I voted for you in '72. I wish I had gone with Nixon." And I myself don't want to trade places with the winner. Now there are some things in politics that are even worse than losing an election. It's hard to think what they are on election night, but nonetheless I'm very proud of what we tried to do in '72, and I don't think we're going to have to apologize for that.

LEHRER: I have read that many of your old campaign advisers from then, even some members of your family said, "Oh, George, don't do it." Is that true?

Sen. McGOVERN: That is true.

LEHRER: Well, then, why?

Sen. McGOVERN: I must say that some of them told me that 11 years ago when I decided to get into the presidential race. It didn't look very hopeful at that time, either. If you think back on it, there were other people who were way out in front -- Ed Muskie and Hubert Humphrey and others. In the end, I had to make the decision, and that's the way it has to be.Anyone who is worthy of the reputation of a leader in the end doesn't give in to his advisers or those who love him or anybody else. He or she does what they think is in the best interest of the country.

LEHRER: Well, let me ask you the famous Roger Mudd-Ted Kennedy question: why is it that you want to be President now so badly to do this?

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, I know exactly why I want to be president -- because I'm not satisfied either with American foreign policy or with Reaganomics. I think they're both headed in the wrong direction, and the best place to weigh in on those problems with some degree of effectiveness is in that presidential forum. I hope it'll lead to the White House, Jim, but even if it doesn't, at least here's an apportunity to be heard on the great questions before the country.

LEHRER: Are you saying, then, that the other six candidates, the other six Democratic candidates are not saying what you would say and that you do not support what they are saying?

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, I'm saying this, that I think these six men who are in the race are all making a worthwhile contribution. Every one of them has offered some perspective that I think is educating the public and providing some alternative to the administration's policies. I have a somewhat different perspective, which I'll outline here in the months ahead. It's not radically different from the course being recommended by the other Democrats, but I think every public figure approaches these issues from his own perspective, and this is what I want to outline to the American public. If I don't succeed, if I don't get the nomination, I will be quick to endorse any one of these six men who is now contesting for the nomination.

LEHRER: Are you going to be quick to drop out if something doesn't happen, say -- I mean, have you set a deadline, if something doesn't happen in the next several weeks or the next several months in terms of support, money -- all it takes to run for president, and gosh knows you know that better than anyone. What's your strategy? Timetable strategy.

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, I'm going to try to run a national campaign. I'm going into all the states. I'll have to rely on the mass media to reach people, coming in this late, although I'll be in as many states personally as I can. One thing that will be different this time is that I'm not going to neglect the South. I think that was a mistake in 1972. We just kind of wrote off the South. It's an important area of the country. Americans move around from one section to the other, and I don't think anyone running for the presidency should neglect any part of the country. So that'll be a key difference this time.

LEHRER: A personal question, finally, Senator. It's been suggested, since I think it was a week or 10 days ago, when it first came out that you were seriously considering this, that some of your friends said, "Senator, you might get embarrassed. You might embarrass yourself by doing this." Are you concerned about that at all? Is that a risk you're taking?

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, of course I think actually that factor more than anything else is what keeps people out of presidential races, the fear that somehow they're going to look ridiculous, that they're going to fall on their face. And of course that is a danger. It's really not a very good reason for staying out of something you think you ought to do. If you look back in history and were to eliminate everybody that might have looked ridiculous doing something in public life, not much would have been accomplished. It's only by taking the gamble and daring to do something that's hard that we make progress, and this is what I'm going to do.

LEHRER: Senator McGovern, thank you. Judy, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: As a footnote, we had a letter today from a gentleman in Minneapolis who says he's indignant because we're ignoring that he too is a Democratic candidate for president. His name is Marvin Eakman. He is 58 and an advertising salesman. He writes, "I am a serious candidate and have been running as hard as I can with very little funds." So, for the Democrats now, McGovern makes seven, and Eakman makes eight. Jim?

LEHRER: To go back through the major stories of the day: on Lebanon, local U.S. Marine commanders have the right to call in air strikes to protect themselves from the daily shelling they're receiving, and the White House is trying to get congressional approval for keeping the Marines there without invoking the War Powers Act. Also, a Republican senator charged the administration with being soft on highway safety and, as You just heard, George McGovern has again volunteered to be president of the United States. There were no new major developments on the Korean airliner tragedy. Robin?

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, an item to show you that the brash hand of progress does not always sweep all before it in American life, that institutions can survive simply because people like them. Deanna Kamiel, a producer from public television station KTCA, gives us a portrait of such an institution in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota. It's called Mickey's Diner.

TOM WAITS [singing "Nighthawks at the Diner"]: "Well, I think it's about time I took you on an improvisational adventure into the bowels of the metropolitan region. Nighthawks at the diner, famous '49ers, there's a rendezvous of strangers around the cafe in the night; all the gypsy hacks and the insomniacs" --

ROSE ERDES, waitress: You want an omlette, Paul? I'll make you one. You want light toast or whole wheat?

CUSTOMER: Whole wheat.

Ms. ERDES: All right.

ROBERTA DAVIS, customer [singing]: When I think of home, I think of a place where there's love and there's knowing. I wish I were home. I wish I were back there with the love I've been knowing. And this is it.

JERRY VACCA, customer; From the little singing that I heard right now, you've got a wonderful voice.

Ms. DAVIS: Thank you. Why don't you go to Minneapolis in one of these nightclubs?

DEANNA KAMIEL, producer [voice-over]: Jerry Vacca came here in his early '20s. Jazz singer Roberta Davis has been a customer here for 25 years. Owner Eric Madson remembers peeling potatoes here as a kid. Rose Erdes started here at the age of 15 and, 20 miles away, at his truck stop in Hudson, Wisconsin, Frank LaPlante, Mickey's first manager, remembers when the diner first opened in 1938.

FRANK LaPLANTE, Mickey's first manager: That was the days of the big bands. We used to have Little Jack Little and some of his band members, Paul Whiteman and some of his band members. So just about all the entertainers from the motels, after they closed up at the motel, they'd come over and have their sandwich or coffee, or probably their late breakfast over at the diner.

TOM WAITS [singing "Nighthawks at the Diner]: "Oh, nobody, nobody will ever love you the way I could love you. There's nobody, nobody that's strong" --

ERIC MADSON, owner: It kind of captures what people used to be like. It seems to me there are very few places that you can walk into that you in fact were able to walk into as a child.

Mr. VACCA: By God, I been coming here since 1938. I was selling papers. I was selling papers around these corners. Well, when I first come from Chicago, the first place I hit is this, is Mickey's.

Mr. MADSON: It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years. The city has a lot of plans for redevelopment. I suppose we'll be the only point where someone can walk to in the city and figure out where they were 10 years before.

Ms. KAMIEL: Is that an important thing?

Mr. MADSON: I don't know. Might be, if you're lost.

TOM WAITS [singing "Depot, Depot"]: "Depot, depot, what am I doing here? Depot, depot, what am I doing here? I ain't coming, I ain't going. My confusion is showing. Outside the midnight wind is blowing. Sixth Avenue --"

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.