The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Monday, the 100 days as seen by Michael Beschloss, William Bennett, Haynes Johnson, and Doris Kearns Goodwin, an Elizabeth Brackett report on school vouchers in Milwaukee, and a Newsmaker interview with Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Bob Dole officially declared himself a candidate for President today. He did so at a morning rally in Topeka, Kansas. The 71-year-old Senate Majority Leader is making his third try for the Republican presidential nomination. He was Gerald Ford's vice presidential running mate in 1976. Dole said, if elected, he would return power to the states, cut taxes, balance the budget, and protect American freedoms.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: For much of this century, power and wealth alike have flowed from grassroots Americans to a federal government which exploded to meet the twin crises of economic depression and global war. Yet, the life jacket of one generation can become the straitjacket of the next, and in giving Washington our responsibility to address problems close to their source, Americans have unwittingly encouraged the federal government to become too large, too remote, and too undemocratic to be representatives. My mandate as President would be to rein in the federal government in order to set free -- [applause] -- in order to set free the spirit of the American people, to reconnect our government in Washington with the common sense values of our citizens, and to reassert American interest wherever and whenever they're challenged around the world. [applause] My friends, I have the experience. I have been tested and tested and tested in many, many ways. I am not afraid to lead, and I know the way. [applause]

MR. LEHRER: Dole is the sixth Republican to officially enter the 1996 presidential race. Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal switched parties today. He became a Republican. He said he made the decision last week after Democrats refused to consider changing the Clean Water Act to ease restrictions on business. He's the third congressional Democrat to change parties since the November election. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Palestinian police arrested more than a hundred Islamic militants today in the Gaza Strip. That followed two suicide bombings over the weekend in which seven Israeli soldiers and one American college student were killed. At least 40 others were wounded. Afuneral for one of the soldiers was held today. The radical Muslim group, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attacks.

MR. LEHRER: Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said today she wants the United States to allow delivery of 28 fighter jets to her country. The sale has been blocked since 1990 because of Pakistan's suspected nuclear weapons program. Bhutto is in Washington on an official visit. She said she will raise the fighter issue when she meets with President Clinton tomorrow. She said she'd rather have the planes than a refund of the $1.4 billion payment that has already been made. We'll have an interview with Prime Minister Bhutto later in the program. The U.N. commander in Bosnia threatened NATO airstrikes against the Serbs today. It followed heavy bombing of civilian areas in Sarajevo. At least four people were killed, ten wounded in the capital in the last two days.

MR. MAC NEIL: Japan's Central Bank intervened in the currency markets again today to stop a sharp slide in the value of the U.S. dollar. In earlier Tokyo trading, it briefly lost more than 4 percent of its value, falling to just above 80 yen. It recovered from that new low, ending slightly higher. The dollar was worth more than 101 yen at the beginning of this year. Philadelphia transit workers went back to work today after their union's executive board approved a tentative contract. Their 14-day walkout had shut down the nation's fourth largest public transit system.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today received suggestions on how to make the workplace better for women. The ideas stem from a Labor Department survey of 250,000 women taken last year. The recommendations include improvements in pay and benefits, balancing family and work, and job fairness. The recommendations were presented by Labor Sec. Robert Reich. He spoke at the White House.

ROBERT REICH, Secretary of Labor: America's working women said that their pay and benefits are often substandard, not enough to provide economic security. Second, working women told us that they are just plain tired from trying to juggle work and home and that most workplaces do not do enough to support and respect families and their family needs and obligations. And third, working women said that they often do not get the recognition or the job training that they need and deserve, that too few workplaces in America value women and particularly too few invest in their skills.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a longer view of the 100 days, school vouchers in Milwaukee, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan. FOCUS - HISTORICAL VIEW

MR. LEHRER: The first 100 days of the new Congress is now history, but did it make history? We ask that of four people who answer that kind of question for a living and as a group often for us: Presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, journalist and author Haynes Johnson, and former Reagan/Bush cabinet official and author William Bennett. Doris, does the 100 days qualify for the label "historic" in your opinion?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: I don't think we know yet. There's no question that process has been changed; there's no question that Newt Gingrich sat at the center stage of Capitol Hill politics. We haven't seen the House of Representatives every day in the newspapers on a House watch for a long period of time. But what really qualifies for history is whether or not a trend or an action or a set of decisions changes the lives of the ordinary American citizens, makes them better, expands opportunity. That's what historians look for, and there's no way of seeing if this process change at this moment is going to do that yet.

MR. LEHRER: Only process has changed, you think?

MS. GOODWIN: That's all I think has happened so far. I mean, it's not small. It could be big, and it could even go in the opposite direction for making life better for ordinary Americans, but there's no way it can qualify with the New Deal, for what happened in those hundred days, the Securities & Exchange Act, you had Federal Home Loan Boards that were -- I mean, there's a whole series of fundamental changes in the everyday life of people. This hasn't done that. Are people marching around feeling that they've got that change in their lives?

MR. LEHRER: Michael.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: I guess I disagree with Doris. I'd agree that in terms of magnitude, certainly, it's not what the New Deal was in 1933 or 1935, and hard to know whether this is a change in our system that will be long lasting. That will depend a lot on not only the next hundred says when they have to make a lot tougher decisions but also on the elections 1996 and beyond. I guess the difference I would suggest is that November 1994 and what has followed were not just a blip. They were in certain ways the culmination of two trends that have come about over the last number of years. One was the rise of the Republican Party as a majority party in America. You saw that very much on the presidential level throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. Now we're in a situation where the Republicans will probably be in control of Congress for sometime to come. That, I think, is the kind of historic change that --

MR. LEHRER: This hundred days -- you mean, rather the hundred days doesn't have to be successful for that to happen, is that right?

MR. BESCHLOSS: Yes. I think it was the pivot point that in a way sort of cinched the deal. This was the moment at which the Republicans took control of Congress in a way that I think may last for sometime to come. The other thing that I think was important is that the last hundred days showed how weak the presidency has become in the wake of a Cold War, at a time when people looking away from an activist government, a President in normal circumstances in the future -- Bill Clinton has shown this now -- is going to be more weak unless he exercises extraordinary skills or is in a situation perhaps in crisis.

MR. LEHRER: Is that not a fundamental change?

MS. GOODWIN: If it were so, it is, but I'm still not sure we're seeing the impact of two personalities. There's no question that Newt Gingrich has seized bold experimental action. He's put himself at the center of our political system, and Bill Clinton has not been able to do that, so I'm not sure it's a fundamental sea change in institutional power as much as these two personalities at this moment in time. You get a powerful character running into that presidency, even with the Cold War ended, even with the changes, I think he could wrest power back to the presidency.

MR. LEHRER: How do you see it, fundamental change, or just a clash of personalities, and one of 'em won?

WILLIAM BENNETT, Former Reagan/Bush Cabinet Official: Well, for ninety-five or ninety-six days I'll take it. We didn't promise -- and so would they.

HAYNES JOHNSON: You won't give it away.

MR. BENNETT: You'd better believe that the Democrats would say this was real change. They didn't -- we didn't say the world was going to change in 95 days in terms of living conditions of average Americans. We did say we were going to have votes on 10 major issues, and lo and behold, it happened.

MR. LEHRER: But why is that such a big deal?

MR. BENNETT: Well, David Broder pointed out -- he's not exactly an apologist for Newt Gingrich -- that a party promised something and then immediately upon getting power delivered on that promise. That contrasts very favorably with this administration, but it also I think cuts into cynicism.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think it contrasts not only with this administration but all recent administrations and congresses? Is that what the big deal here is?

MR. BENNETT: No. I think the big deal is the shift in direction. I think that is really the big deal. And to use the metaphor "sea change," I mean, you could say to Columbus after 50 days, hey, there's nothing here but just a lot of water, and he might say, yeah, but it's where we're heading that matters. I mean, the direction, the shift is dramatic and clear.

MR. LEHRER: From what to what?

MR. BENNETT: Well, from a view of -- two views of government in Washington, one that government is sufficient and that the federal government is the answer; two, we're going to take apart the welfare state, we're going to send powers back to the states. These are diametrically opposed views. Just a couple of things in the immediate that I think are very important: One, I think this is a response in part to cynicism. People who say people never do what they say they're going to do when they get to Washington, they said they were going to do it, and they did it. Second, here's leadership. People may not like it, but this is real leadership. I went up and saw Gingrich in a few meetings with the Republicans, and he was strong, and he was tough, and he has a point of view, and that's the third point. You now have a Republican Party and a Democrat Party. There isn't any doubt about it. If you watched -- and I think courtesy of your show a lot of people did -- the welfare debate, I mean, these are two diametrically opposed views of the world. There are still some Perot people out there saying it doesn't matter who you send to Washington. I don't know why they're saying that, because this makes clear it matters who you send to Washington.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Haynes, that that is one thing this last hundred days has shown, it does matter who you send to Washington?

HAYNES JOHNSON, Journalist: Yes, it does, and I think more important what we've kind of all been saying I think is that the impression that the public has of leadership out of Washington, that there is strength and force and conviction, now it may be wrong. You know, I don't know that this navigator, Columbus and so forth, I'm not sure what direction we're sailing in. We might be going down the -- that's all right -- but in terms of the impact what Doris said of personality, that's very powerful. Newt Gingrich is the Icarus of our politics. He is soaring up there on these waxen wings. Whether he burns or not, we'll see. But I think in terms of what the country was looking for, stagnation in Washington, gridlock, no philosophy, no action, inability to move, that's positive now. But if you look at what really happened, I agree with Doris very much, you don't know yet. The public is very concerned about how does this impact my life, what's it going to do for me? Is the country going to be better? Are we going to feel better about ourselves? I agree with you that for now the cynicism may be a little less than it was, but it's not been the mood yet because compared to what -- let's see what happens. And it's way too early to tell that.

MR. LEHRER: What about the point of a few moments ago that whether or not you agree with the direction that Gingrich is doing it, at least he's demonstrated you can change direction, you can lead people somewhere?

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. And I think what we've set up in here - - and it's very important -- Doris -- this is the 50th anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's death, and we are talking about government, what is the role of the federal government, what is the role of the state in the society, what role did government play in our past? We saw Bob Dole just a minute ago. He's talking about experience. That's World War II, the wounds he has and so forth, shaped by the federal government and the federal hospitals by the way that he went through to recuperate from that. And this is really what we're at here. What kind of role does the federal government play from here on in this new era? That's what I think is happening.

MR. LEHRER: And talking about leadership at the federal level and the Dole point was just made in all the 100 days the whole thing was I am going to lead the federal government away from your life. Isn't that essentially what everybody is saying?

MS. GOODWIN: Well, that's what Newt Gingrich is saying. Hopefully, there are still people out there that are going to argue that there still is a role for government in a more affirmative way. And I think that's where Clinton is trying to get his voice right now. I think the problem for the Democrats is that they don't believe passionately in what they're supposed to stand for, that government has a positive role, as the Republicans believe passionately the government has a negative role. So they don't come out with the same convictions. I mean, they once had them, but I think they're pretty muddled right now. And unless they can offer an alternative view that's as positive and as convicted as the Republicans, then the Republicans are going to win this battle.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Michael, that for the Democrats to get back in, into the game, they're going to have to come up with a positive way of saying, wait a minute, there is something positive about the federal government, look at -- you mentioned FDR -- that was a very -- that was a different form of leadership that he provided, and it was a leadership of the government, not against the government.

MR. BESCHLOSS: And that's what you really need to have, a system that works well. The Republicans have done a marvelous job of making the case for reducing the size of government, taking power away from Washington, as we heard Bob Dole say in Kansas this morning. What we haven't seen of the Democratic Party is a clear response to that, and there's a reason for it. You have the unusual situation of a party that is now, I think, fairly certainly in the minority, the Democrats who are on this issue more divided than the majority party, which is the Republicans. You have Bill Clinton running for reelection who has to deal with that old cleavage which has been there for twenty or thirty years, between old Democrats, groups that benefit from big government, who are just as committed to it as they were thirty years ago, and the new Democrats that Bill Clinton ran for the nomination as the leader of in 1992. They did a very good job of papering over that cleavage in 1992. He is having to hop back and forth between those two camps. That's going to continue, and in a way, it may hamstring him in providing the kind of response that Doris mentioned earlier.

MR. LEHRER: Is he going to have to make a choice, do you think? Is it possible to lead these diverse beings together?

MR. BESCHLOSS: In the end, I think he will. And probably the best recent precedent was Ted Kennedy running against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Ted Kennedy made the critique of Jimmy Carter from the left saying this is not a genuine old Democrat. He has forsaken many of the groups that have been at the core of the Democratic Party. He reminded a lot of liberal Democrats why they should be unhappy with Jimmy Carter. Many of those people didn't vote in the fall of 1980 and harmed Carter's ability to get reelection. You might see the same thing.

MS. GOODWIN: You know what I think? I think that this may be strategic suicide to suggest this to President Clinton, but I think he's going to have to paper over those cleavages within his own heart, and he's going to have to go with this instincts, which I still think somewhere are for affirmative government. If he tries to be a new Democrat, he's going to look like a pale copy of a Republican. And if he has convictions, and if he can convince people that there really is a positive role to play, people are willing to go with you, if you have something to say, even more importantly, if they agree with you on everything.

MR. LEHRER: Is there an argument to be made today, Bill Bennett, for good, solid liberal Democratic government?

MR. BENNETT: Yeah. I'm not the one to make that argument.

MR. LEHRER: No.

MR. BENNETT: No. It's remarkable. Doris is giving the same advice to Bill Clinton she gave the last time we were on this show and the time before she was on this show: Bill Clinton find your convictions and have them come forward. Well, we will see. Look, there's an argument to be made for government. And we believe in the federal government. We think of the federal government rather like lawyers. We believe that there should be some, but there's just too much of it. There are just too many of them, too many programs, too many things going on, and it is still extremely popular, and I think also correct, to argue against a lot of these federal government programs. It is a matter of the dispersion of responsibility from local areas, from individual lives, from communities under the federal government. Look at the debate on welfare which was dominated on both sides by the expression "personal responsibility." And that's a very interesting phrase, an essential phrase to our democracy. Right now, it seems to me, Republicans are doing a much better job presenting that argument and claiming those words as their own. The Democrats seem to be lost, and what Bill Clinton has to do is perhaps paper over these differences but also he's got to do something with Daschle and Bonior and Gephardt so that they have some response other than this sourpuss, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah rich people -- they really have the big shot on this.

MS. GOODWIN: There's a real enemy out there.

MR. BENNETT: There is a real enemy out there.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it isn't liberal government. You asked us is there a case to be made. There's a case to be made for sensible, responsible government that helps people, that makes the society better, whole, viable, that helps you in education, that helps restrain the crimes in our society, all the things that -- we all agree on that, but that's government. Now, how you do it, that's what we're talking about. And I think Clinton has a real chance if -- I agree he hasn't done it yet -- if he can talk about -- remind people what the government has done in your life and how -- not the badthings but what the good things and how we can make it -- that seems to me the charter.

MR. LEHRER: Pick up on Bill's point though, Haynes, that -- because Bill was talking about the welfare discussions that we had on this program. It always revolved, all of them revolved around not that the government shouldn't be in welfare, but that the government programs have not worked, and the question is always, well, what if the programs had worked, would there still be an argument against the government, the federal government, running the welfare program?

MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. Well, that's a valid point. I mean, there is no real debate that a lot of the programs have not worked, need to be changed. That consensus has been there for a long time. And I think this is a healthy thing, by the way, that's happened. I think you're going to force people into the '96 election to make choices, because there are big stakes, and the danger, and it seems to me we haven't even touched on it about Gingrich -- it's Gingrich, not Dole, by the way -- it's the Gingrich -- isn't that interesting? The danger is that it's seen as too extreme.

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

MS. GOODWIN: That's what the Democrats have to try and shape it as that way. I mean, take the welfare thing, for example. I think that the national consensus that work is better for people than being on relief, everybody seems to agree with that, and I think it's human nature, but it's going to be expensive if we're going to be able to get work programs that really work for these people. Are the Republicans going to be willing to pay that money to help provide the work experience? That's what the Democrats have to challenge them to do.

MR. LEHRER: But the question I would then ask Bill Bennett is that I heard you say a moment ago that there are some Republicans - - and maybe you are one of them -- that the issue isn't whether or not the government programs work, the issue is whether the government should even be involved in certain things.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I think it's both. The federal government might have programs that work, but they might work better at a state level and might work better at the community level. I mean, these are two questions here. I think the failure of government programs, such as the welfare, simply makes it easier for us to make the case but there are two separate questions that are both important. I think, again, as the debate goes on, we welcome Bill Clinton to the debate, as Newt Gingrich has said, rather high- handedly, I must say, he says if the President has something to say in all this, we welcome him to make it.

MS. GOODWIN: Well, he should say that. It's his President.

MR. BENNETT: Well, yeah, but it's sort of like an invitation to the President to get into the game. But so far, the President is responding to the initiatives of the Republican Congress. He did in his speech. He said, I don't want to pile up a bunch of vetoes, but I will say, no. I mean, they've go to go to the philosophy store to figure out who they are. It's identity crisis.

MR. LEHRER: Let's talk about Newt Gingrich. You said, hey, wait a minute, let's not get carried away here, we still don't know what -- what worries you about him, if anything?

MS. GOODWIN: Well, I'll tell you, here's the thing. It seems to me he's got a lot of traits of his hero, FDR, in a positive sense. He's bold. He likes to experiment. He's willing to admit when something doesn't go right and get rid of it. He doesn't stick himself ideologically in a failing position. On the other hand, I don't know that he has that compassion, that humanitarian energy that Roosevelt had which made him care about bettering the lives of the average citizen. Sometimes there's a mean-spiritedness that one detects in his attitude that the poor are the problem, that welfare people are the problem right now. And I think part of the problem is that he hasn't connected himself to the average citizen even now. Look at the first hundred days with Roosevelt. After that hundred days, the whole despairing mood of the country changed. People flocked to Washington. People felt their lives had been changed, even in a hundred days. I don't think the average citizen in this country feels that Newt Gingrich has altered their lives. He hasn't made -- people still feel that he's serving the wealthy. They don't feel he's serving them. I don't think they feel an emotional bond with him, and I think that's because he doesn't exhibit a real caring about that, even though he's got all the other qualities, extraordinary leadership qualities.

MR. LEHRER: Michael, is there any historical precedent for the Speaker of the House of Representatives doing what he did the other night, addressing the nation much like a President would?

MR. BESCHLOSS: It's never happened, and it was the fact that he has occupied such a central place in American politics over the last three months that that would have done and people would not have found that very unusual. In a way, we're sort of mapping this out, because we've never had a Speaker of the House in this role before, we're really beginning to decide how much do you need someone who is going to occupy the traditional role of a President, almost as a head of state, as well as a head of government, speaking to the American people and getting the kind of support for his programs that usually a President does during his early months, or should a Speaker of the House be content to be merely the side of the presidency that is a head of government, sort of a canny political leader in Congress, getting bills through, which Gingrich has done so well? I think we haven't yet seen the answer to that.

MR. LEHRER: You don't know whether he can sustain that, in other words, I mean, sustain this center of attention?

MR. BESCHLOSS: I think it's hard for him to do it, and I think it's also hard for him to do it with his bundle of characteristics, because in a way, the role he's fulfilled very well has been in the last number of years as an agitator, as a critic, as someone who is brave enough to get people to support the Contract With America which was thought at the time to be politically foolhardy. Usually, you don't find those same traits in the kind of Eisenhower-like figure that serves sometimes as President.

MR. LEHRER: Speaker as President?

MR. BENNETT: I don't know, but I think even in this culture, which is so much a culture of personality, his personality matters less. I mean, the President's personality matters more. It always has.

MR. LEHRER: Why? Why? Explain that.

MR. BENNETT: The American people can say they're down on Newt and be very much in favor of their program. I don't think it's that easy for the President as it is for the Speaker. But it is remarkable to have newspapers comparing opinion polls, here's Gingrich, here's the President. This wouldn't be the case if he had not ascended so dramatically. But, look, you know, Newt Gingrich, I know him, he spends a lot of time talking and thinking and writing. He's a college professor. I don't mean this pejoratively. I mean, he's a professor.

MR. LEHRER: Better not.

MR. BENNETT: He lives on this stuff, but, you know, Bill Clinton and the Democrats, the party of the rich, Gingrich spends his weekend with the Habitat for Humanity, Mr. Man of the People was out at the Spielberg Mansion, you know, running on the beaches in Santa Monica, you know, and this is not -- this was not smart politics, but --

MR. LEHRER: Not smart --

MR. BENNETT: -- I will put his character and idealism up with President Clinton, but if you want to have a character contest, that's fine.

MR. JOHNSON: Smart politics is raising money to run for President if you want to be President, that's No. 1, but I, I -- sure you said something, Bill, if he had not ascended -- Newt Gingrich -- that's an interesting term -- ascended -- he's risen up, and it's because of television. This is the first guy in the media age that is absolutely totally a creature of television. Yes, he comes out of the academic. His whole life has been using the camera -- from the beginning when he came here in those special orders in the House and attacking people, and he understands it, he's used it tremendously, with great effect.

MR. BENNETT: But he has something to say in the camera. I said ascendancy because you said Icarus.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes. And he has, but there's a danger in that, it seems to me.

MR. BENNETT: Sure. He can --

MS. GOODWIN: The interesting thing, if he weren't on television as much as he has been, I think he would have been better off. I think he's been somewhat overexposed. His first speech and his last speech were brilliant. I thought they were thoughtful, philosophical. They show that he thought about government. If I just had listened to those two speeches, I could even be a little Gingrichite, perhaps, but in-between those two speeches he was on every single night, he was yelling about the press, he was saying things about Hillary Clinton. He was yelling at Connie Chung. He doesn't know when to stop. And that's when the other side of him came out.

MR. BENNETT: The power of the ideas, all these mistakes, eight out of ten, he still gets nine out of ten with all these mistakes.

MR. LEHRER: I am now going to exercise my power to pull the plug. Thank you all four very much, again, good to see you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, school vouchers and Pakistan's prime minister. FOCUS - LEARNING EXPERIENCE

MR. MAC NEIL: Now we turn to an issue that's high on the agenda for politicians and voters alike, how to improve the quality of public education. Some think school vouchers are the best way to achieve that goal. Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW explains what they are and how they're being used in a Milwaukee experiment.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, WTTW: Fifth grader Shadale Nicholson may make the honor roll at the private Urban Day School in Milwaukee this year. He says he learns more at Urban Day than at his old public school, and he thinks that's important.

SHADALE NICHOLSON: It's real important to get an education, have a good job when I grow up.

MS. BRACKETT: Shadale can go to Urban Day because the school gets a $3,209 voucher from the state of Wisconsin for him. Families with incomes slightly above the poverty level who have not been in private schools before qualify. The money goes directly to the private school which can't charge parents more than the voucher for tuition. Shadale's mother says the voucher program made it possible for her to choose a good school for her son.

JOHNNIE BYRD: I feel that the kids in the private schools are getting a better education. At Urban Day, if everybody looks out for my son, not just hisimmediate teacher, the principal, a parent that's around, if he's doing something that he's not supposed to do, that person that sees him is going to speak up about it.

MS. BRACKETT: The program is small. Ninety-three thousand students are in public school in Milwaukee. The legislature capped the voucher program at 1500 students. Last year, 830 signed up for one of the twelve private schools that take vouchers. But in some grades, there were more kids than spaces, and a lottery was held to determine who got the spots. Like most parents, Johnnie Byrd says she signed up because she was unhappy with her son's public school.

JOHNNIE BYRD: I thought the kids were out of control, and even his teacher, you know, I sat in on some of the classes, she was very frustrated. I mean, at the end of class, she said to me, I'll bet you think I'm a witch, you know, because she was just constantly yelling and hollering. She couldn't teach.

MS. BRACKETT: The author of the legislation that created the Milwaukee program five years ago says she did it because the public school system wasn't working for low-income families.

POLLY WILLIAMS, State Representative [D]: The system is failing our children, and so with the Milwaukee Parental Choice program that we passed in 1990 here in this state, it empowers those low- income families, and the way we wrote the legislation, that we target it for a certain low-income and low middle income families, that they would be able to have the same, some of the same options that families with money have always done, and that is to choose the kind of education they want for their children.

MS. BRACKETT: But now a major study evaluating the first four years of the program says students in the voucher program don't do any better on student achievement tests than a similar group of low-income students in the public schools, though the study did find that there were high levels of parental involvement and satisfaction with the program. Researcher and political science professor John Witte has been evaluating the voucher program since its inception.

JOHN WITTE, University of Wisconsin: There was a hope that there would be higher achievement levels, but it didn't occur. One of the reasons may be that there are very few students who stay very long in the private schools. They tend to -- there's a high mobility rate out of the schools, although we have now controlled for the number of years in the schools and they still, there is not a great achievement gain.

MS. BRACKETT: But Harvard University's Paul Peterson, a strong advocate of vouchers, says Witte's research on student achievement levels is flawed.

PAUL PETERSON, Harvard University: You could reach some conclusion, but you couldn't reach the conclusions that he did as to how much students learned in choice schools as compared to the public schools in Milwaukee. The kinds of controls that you need - - he didn't have mother's education, father's education, mother's occupation, father's occupation, mother's income in detail, so he didn't have enough information in order to draw the necessary conclusions.

MS. BRACKETT: Peterson and Witte have been battling over vouchers and the research methods used to analyze the Milwaukee program for four years. Witte agrees that he didn't control for all variables but says even if he had, the results would not show a difference in achievement scores between voucher kids and public school kids.

JOHN WITTE: The bottom line results are not going to change in this result and if someone finds these scores, that somehow figures out a way to inflate those scores, that's going to be an absolutely fallacious kind of analysis.

POLLY WILLIAMS: Well, let me just tell you, the public schools right now, taxpayers pay $7200 a year for failing children. If that child goes into our choice school and does no better, the taxpayer only pays $3,000. So, if nothing else, if a child is failing in those two systems, one costs seventy-two and one costs three. There's a savings to the taxpayer then.

MS. BRACKETT: It costs less to educate kids at private schools like Urban Day primarily because salaries and benefits are significantly lower. And private schools do not have to take on the higher cost of educating special education students. The governor of Wisconsin thinks the voucher plan is a great idea. Republican Tommy Thompson has proposed a major expansion of the plan. He wants vouchers to be available for all low-income students at Milwaukee.

GOV. TOMMY THOMPSON, [R] Wisconsin: I've decided to expand choice and to expand it so that we can include religious schools as well. The first state in the nation to try this, and we're limiting it to the Milwaukee public school system, because that's the public school system that's in Wisconsin that's having the most difficulty.

MS. BRACKETT: Since 80 percent of all the private schools in Milwaukee are religious schools, the governor admits that the only practical way to expand the plan is to include those schools, but opponents promise to immediately challenge the plan's constitutionality based on the separation between church and state.

MORDECAI LEE, Coalition for Public Education: This is probably going to be decided on a four to three vote in the U.S. Supreme Court three or four years from now if it passes the Wisconsin legislature. We believe that it's unconstitutional.

MS. BRACKETT: Mordecai Lee says his organization, the Wisconsin Coalition for Public Education, will first try and defeat the bill in the legislature, but if they lose, they will turn to the courts.

MORDECAI LEE: Americans understand intuitively that to accomplish that free exercise of religion, the separation of church and state, the taxpayers should not be paying for religion, the taxpayers should not be bailing out religious schools that are failing financially. The taxpayers should not be paying for religious indoctrination. Taxpayers don't want their tax dollars to go for religions that they find offensive. Certainly, we shouldn't be paying for religious schools of extremist offensive sects. David Koresh would have qualified for funding under the government's plan here in Wisconsin.

GOV. TOMMY THOMPSON: We looked at all of the Supreme Court decisions, and we've looked at current federal decisions and federal court decisions, and we think that we're on strong constitutional ground. Our lawyers -- and I'm a lawyer as well -- have looked at this, and we think we're very safe because we're giving the choice to the parent. And we're not -- we're not subsidizing a religious school. We're not subsidizing one religion over another; we're giving parents a choice.

MS. BRACKETT: But a coalition of 24 education groups, including the Milwaukee School Board, say vouchers could eventually mean the dismantling of public education. The faculty here at this 31st Street Public School say public education works at their school and doesn't deserve such a fate. Principal James Sonnenberg.

JAMES SONNENBERG, Principal, Milwaukee Public Schools: I think we do a good job, and I look at our test scores, look at our building, look at our teaching staff, our students, and our parents. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing that, that a choice school I don't think has. We have an orderly environment. Kids are safe. Parents are welcome. That exists in a public school today, so why would we need from a taxpayer's standpoint, we'd need choice schools if it exists here already?

MS. BRACKETT: Even Williams worries that the governor's proposed expansion could lead to all students being eligible for vouchers, not just low-income students.

POLLY WILLIAMS: It concerns me then when you open it up to all the, everybody, and then we got the same situation we have right now. Those with position, power, and affluence are able still to access and get the creme de la creme, whatever, and take the three thousand that is like a million to low-income families but to families of influence that's blow money, but they can take that three thousand, add it to their fifteen thousand or their eighteen thousand and go and have these exclusive schools. That's the problem I have with it.

MS. BRACKETT: Despite that concern, support for an expanded voucher plan is building. The mayor of Milwaukee has said the voucher program should be available for every student in the state, regardless of income. Wisconsin is not alone. Education historian Robert Lowe says the push for vouchers is one of the fastest growing movements in education.

ROBERT LOWE, Education Historian: I think it's a significant one, especially in states that have Republican governors and Republican legislatures. I think we're going to see voucher initiatives widespread in the coming year or two.

MS. BRACKETT: And what will the impact of this be on education?

ROBERT LOWE: If they're successful, I think it's going to have a devastating impact on public education.

GOV. TOMMY THOMPSON: It's not going to undermine public education. I think it will make public education better, because there's going to be -- they're going to compete. If you really want to examine whether or not religious schools and non-religious schools in the private sector can do a better job, here is the example. The rest of the country can watch. Let's try it.

MS. BRACKETT: The answer to whether or not it works could change the face of public education across the country. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a look at Pakistan. We begin with a report on domestic unrest and violence, including the kind of terrorism in which two Americans were killed last month. Gaby Rado of Independent Television reports.

GABY RADO, ITN: The sound of a madrassa, a religious school in Pakistan, is the sound of boys reciting the Koran because that's all they do here, a hundred and sixty boys between the age of ten and fifteen learning by heart the words of the entire holy book in its original Arabic. Schools like this were originally set up to strengthen Islam in Pakistan. Now, the prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, has tried to cut off their funding, but the madrassas are growing in number and influence. Intentionally or otherwise, the school instills a militant fervor into their pupils through the teaching of its founder.

FIRST STUDENT: We came here to make the whole world Muslim and to make Islam stronger so the whole country should be more strong and should make other country Muslims.

SECOND STUDENT: [speaking through interpreter] We will spread all around the world. We want to bring a revolution, the kind of revolution which there was in the Holy Prophet's time. We want to bring a change, to end these killings and end the violence that's now going on.

GABY RADO: Violent sectarianism is getting out of control. Here a man has been found strangled alongside the road to Jhang in Central Punjab, one of the focal points of religious conflict. Here, unexplained killings like this are commonplace. The Shias were the original inhabitants of the area, while large numbers of Sunnis settled here in successive waves of migration from India, forming a displaced, often disaffected mass of people. Jhang is the base for a militant Sunni political party, the SSP, with supporters drawn from shopkeepers and small businessmen. The SSP headquarters is Jhang's central mosque. It's now under constant police guard because of political tension, but those inside continue to preach the virulent anti-Shia message central to the party's program. But it's not just religious doctrine which lies behind support for the military Sunni politics of the SSP. Poverty and a sense of social injustice have played a crucial part. Karachi, with 12 million inhabitants, most of them desperately poor, has proved receptive to the propaganda of the religious militants. Parties such as the SSP, with roots in mostly rural areas, are winning converts in the city. The police, already struggling with a thriving drug trade and inter-ethnic conflicts, are fast losing control of the streets. They're now regularly patrolled with machine guns, flak jackets, and armored personnel carriers. But in recent weeks, as the deaths piled up relentlessly, individual acts of terrorism have become more and more audacious -- the killing of U.S. diplomatic staff, the machine gunning and the bombing of worshippers at mosques. The police seem helpless not only in catching the gunmen but in quelling the climate of paranoia which has induced mosques to hire their own armed guards. The day after the most recent outrage in Karachi, the bombing of a Shiite mosque after Friday prayers in which a dozen people, including eight children, were killed, the Imam appeared together with local Sunni clergymen to demonstrate their unity. His point was that the latest killings were the work of outside influences with a political agenda.

IMAM: This is not a sectarian incident. This is an incident which is evilly designed and created by the terrorists, professional terrorists here in Karachi.

GABY RADO: The government would also like to believe militancy is confined to the fringes of society, and is urging the West to back the mainstream forces of moderation. But the danger is that violence coming from the streets can produce its own momentum and has often proved a more effective political tool than gathering votes at a ballot box.

MR. LEHRER: Now, a Newsmaker interview with the prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto. She's in the United States on an official visit and meets tomorrow with President Clinton. Margaret Warner talked to her this morning.

MS. WARNER: Madam Prime Minister, thanks for joining us. To many Americans looking at what's going on in your country, it does seem that sort of a state of near chaos exists, with all of these shootings, with the international terrorists using it as a base. Why is this happening?

BENAZIR BHUTTO, Prime Minister, Pakistan: Actually, Pakistan is a very stable country, and the best proof of the stability within Pakistan is the fact that we are attracting massive foreign investment. And, as you know, investment only goes to a stable environment. There are certain pockets of areas which are troubled, and that is a legacy of the Afghan War and our own long years of tyranny. The death of the American diplomats is most unfortunate and tragic, and we have condemned it. We are cooperating with the FBI in tracking down the killers, but we think it was more of an isolated incident in reaction to the extradition of the alleged mastermind of the World Trading -- World Trade Center in New York.

MS. WARNER: Ramzi Yousef.

BENAZIR BHUTTO: That's right. First, we thought it might be an external hand or the drug smugglers, but now our investigations say that in most probability it is a reaction to the extradition of Ramzi Yousef. During the Afghan War, it's very strange but your government and my government helped the Afghans to set up these schools in which all sort of ideological training went on and all sorts of military training went on. And it was such a secret business that many in Pakistan, including myself, did not know about it. And it was only when we signed the extradition treaty with Egypt that we began to hear the first murmuring of what had been a subterranean culture, and then with the extradition of Ramzi Yousef, we suddenly found out that he wasn't a transit passenger but he had links there, and now we have begun a major crackdown on terrorism, which I think will have a salutary effect for stability in the entire western world.

MS. WARNER: In Karachi, in the commercial capital of your country, there have been I think something like a thousand ethnic and politically related killings and drug-related killings. What is the cause of that?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Actually, all of Pakistan, from the Northwestern frontier to Karachi, is peaceful. The only parts of Karachi which are not peaceful, even though the Afghan refugees are, they don't Pakistani or non-Pakistani.

MS. WARNER: But, Madam Prime Minister, with all due respect, a thousand killings in a year.

BENAZIR BHUTTO: I'm just coming to Karachi. When you say thousand killings, it's not in Pakistan. The thousand killings --

MS. WARNER: No. In Karachi.

BENAZIR BHUTTO: -- that you're talking about is in twenty police stations out of eighty in one city of Karachi. So I would like to dispel the impression that there's trouble all over Pakistan. There isn't. And I'd like to dispel the impression that there's trouble all over Karachi. There isn't. But Karachi is our port city, and because we're supporting freedom in Kashmir, we had some of our neighbors interfering in our domestic affairs. And secondly, Karachi is the exist for the massive drug trade that goes from Afghanistan in transit either out of Pakistan, Iran, or India. Now, what the drug mafia has done is take control of territory, so anybody who controls territory makes money, so we've had different ethnic parties really battle for territory to earn money from the illicit drug transit trade. We are taking certain measures within Karachi, the socioeconomic development, and for administrative investigation, and the trouble that we've had is that as we arrest narcotics smuggling, they react where they have their base, and their base is in precincts of Karachi. We have a choice of either giving into them and permitting this trade to continue, or we have a choice of saying crime doesn't pay, drug trade does not pay, and that's the option we have chosen. The law and order has improved since I became prime minister. I've withdrawn the army, and today it is the civil police who are looking after matters, and in these 20 areas, 20 police stations out of 80 where there's trouble, we are moving in a very firm way, and I expect the results to show, and I don't expect overnight results. The problem didn't grow overnight, but I expect in one or two years for the problem to settle down in all of Karachi.

MS. WARNER: Late last month, you asked for United States help in cleaning out terrorist camps in Northwest Pakistan. What kind of help did you mean?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: I really talked about support because we have come under criticism, that there are these camps in Pakistan, that instead of criticism, we need support, because what we are doing is in defense of global value in combatting terrorism, but in terms of concrete assistance, I think we do need intelligence sharing, and we need to set up a proper data bank at the national level in Pakistan which does not exist to date, because law and order have been looked after by the provinces or states. So in such tangible ways, high-tech training and infiltration and detection, anti-bomb measures, these are the sort of things that we would like to learn about. But most important of all, we want moral support. We are not asking for marines to come in and clear up the Afghan camps, but what we are saying is we need your moral support in what we are doing, that this is not just our battle, it is a battle for stability in the Muslim world, and it's a battle for stability in the world at large, and, yes, it's in technical ways like setting up a data system and intelligence sharing. If we can work together, I think that would be good.

MS. WARNER: Turning now to your visit here to the United States, what has been your main message to members of Congress last week and you're seeing the President tomorrow, what will you be telling him?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: That I'm here to thaw the relations that have remained frozen between our country since 1990, and I'm here to build a new relationship in the post Cold War era. We may have contained Communism, but Pakistan is still important because it is the access to Central Asia, the Gulf, and South Asia, to the markets of these regions, and that Pakistan and corporate America have an important relationship. The political relationship should reflect the importance of our corporate relationship. I'm also here to say that we share the United States' views of nonproliferation, but we believe that sanctions in Pakistan have not helped the process of nonproliferation, and that the United States with Pakistan should see what is a better way to work for nonproliferation of the weapons of mass destruction in South Asia. We have proposed a zero-missile regime by Pakistan, a nuclear-free South Asia by Pakistan, but these measures haven't been accepted by our neighbor, because there are sanctions on Pakistan, so no incentives for them. And I'm also here to say that we had an honorable relationship with the United States, and we expect honor to guide our relations in the future. There is $1.4 billion worth of equipment that we contracted for and paid for before sanctions, and we would rather have the equipment made by American workers. But if America cannot give us that equipment, then we would like our money back.

MS. WARNER: And would you use that money then to buy comparable planes from other countries, say France or Russia?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Well, we've already budgeted for buying planes for our defense from other nations and buying other equipment too, because until the Kashmir dispute is resolved, security will remain a main issue for us. So in a way, you could say that this money could offset what we have already budgeted and be a gain for our overall program of development.

MS. WARNER: If you got your planes back, the F-16's, from the United States, would you then also need to buy planes elsewhere?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: No. If we got the -- we contracted for 60 F-16's. If we get the 60 F-16's, obviously not. If we get less than 60, then our air force would have to make an assessment of whether we needed a few more or not. Getting the planes back would certainly lessen the burden on us for acquiring more weapons from elsewhere.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you this from the United States' perspective. Since the end of the Cold War, stopping nuclear proliferation has emerged as a central U.S. objective. Given Pakistan's unwillingness to cap its nuclear program in any way, why should the United States, why was it in the United States' interest to lift these sanctions?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Well, I think that I would first of all like to say that Pakistan also believes in nonproliferation, and Pakistan has done nothing to accelerate the proliferation race in the subcontinent. We have not detonated a nuclear device. We have not exported any nuclear technology. We have shown a tremendous amount of restraint despite sanctions. We have a knowledge, but between the knowledge and between actually putting together a device is a difference, and that we expect the United States to recognize that difference. We have told the United States that we're willing to take any steps which are equitable but unilateral steps -- unilateral steps have an effect on our national security. If we take any unilateral steps, our national security will be undermined. And that's why we are not in a position to take unilateral steps. We are prepared to take regional steps.

MS. WARNER: So when Nawar Sharif, the former prime minister who's now leader of the opposition, said last year I confirm Pakistan possesses an atomic bomb, that was not true?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Well, I think that was bombastic rhetoric aimed at undermining Pakistan's relations with the United States and weakening the government in power. That's not what Mr. Nawar Sharif said when he was in government, and I know that if he was in government again, that's not what he'd be saying because it's not true that Pakistan has a nuclear bomb.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying Pakistan has the knowledge to do this but has not yet built a nuclear bomb?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Despite sanctions. So with the sanctions, there's nothing to stop us. But because we are committed to nonproliferation, we haven't done so. Because we would like to accelerate the nonproliferation race on the subcontinent, we haven't done so. And we are asking the U.S. to acknowledge our responsible behavior.

MS. WARNER: U.S. officials are concerned about a large nuclear reactor that's being built I think near Krushob which has the potential then to, to produce large amounts of plutonium. Why, given your commitment to nonproliferation, is Pakistan going ahead with this reactor?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: We have an experimental reactor, not a large reactor. It's more an experimental reactor, and we have no repossessing facilities, so there's no question of plutonium being produced, but we have this experimental reactor for developing a technological base. We think the future belongs to technology. We should have scientists who have a proper technological base. I'd like to tell the United States that, look, if you have a concern, why don't you help India and Pakistan mediate on these issues? After all, the nonproliferation goals are tied in with resolving the disputes that lead to this race between India and Pakistan. And somebody's got to stop it, either the United Nations or the United States to try and find a solution. We're ready. I'm ready to sit with India tomorrow.

MS. WARNER: Now, what kind of reaction did you get on Capitol Hill on the F-16 issue?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: I thought that there was a broad sympathy for Pakistan's position but either the weapons or the money should be given to Pakistan. In fact, many Congressmen were shocked that Pakistan, which has been a friend and an ally, has gotten neither the equipment nor the money back. So I found a broad sympathy which encouraged me.

MS. WARNER: And if you go home empty-handed, if you go home without any kind of agreement on the F-16's, what would be the consequences?

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Well, I would tell my people that I went to the United States to start a new debate about a new relationship, and we don't expect overnight changes. Every journey begins with one small step, and we should be looking at the important step-by-step progress and employing the relations between unfreezing relations between our two countries.

MS. WARNER: Thank you, Madam Prime Minister, very much.

BENAZIR BHUTTO: Thank you very much. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole declared his candidacy for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination. He's the sixth person in the race. And an American college student was among eight people killed by suicide bombers in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian police rounded up more than a hundred Muslim activists following two separate attacks this weekend. Good night, Jim.

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