The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The lead stories today are these. A federal court ruled a key provision of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget bill unconstitutional. Bothsides claimed victory in the Philippine presidential election. And President Duvalier of Haiti fled to France. We will have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, we focus first on the Philippines election with a report from correspondent Charles Krause. Then the constitutionality of Gramm-Rudman. We debate the meaning of today's decision with Senator Phil Gramm and an opponent, Congressman James Moody. Then Tom Bearden reports on the effect of the Challenger tragedy on morale at Cape Canaveral, and correspondent Elizabeth Brackett reports on its effects on the commercialization of space. Finally, a senior U.S. official and a Haitian opposition leader discuss the collapse of Duvalier. News Summary

LEHRER: A federal court took some of the starch out of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings today. A special three-judge court ruled unanimously that the so-called automatic pilot provision of the budget-cutting bill was unconstitutional, because it delegated power to the comptroller general. The decision was appealed immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court and everything was put on hold pending its resolution. Here is a sampling of interested party reaction, beginning with that of Congressman Mike Synar of Oklahoma, one of 12 congressmen who with a federal employees' union brought the court challenge.

Rep. MIKE SYNAR, (D) Oklahoma: Today's decision shows that the Constitution works, and I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the three-judge decision. In the meantime, the Congress will begin the hard work of reducing the deficit in an honest and open manner.

Sen. PHIL GRAMM, (R) Texas: It is an additional hurdle; it is not an insurmountable hurdle. I'd rather be jumping the hurdles that are already out there rather than a new one, but I feel plenty of spring in my legs and I think we can make it work.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, Senate Majority Leader: They've won the preliminary bout, but I don't know if they've won the main event.

LEHRER: The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings decision set the stock market off on one of its difficult-to-understand courses. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged dramatically after the ruling was announced, but by market closing time it was way back up, closing above the 1613 mark, an all-time high. Analysts said traders must have been disappointed and upset at first, but then decided Congress would cut the budget on its own anyhow. Robin?

MacNEIL: In other economic news, unemployment fell in January to the lowest point in almost six years, as more Americans found jobs in retail trade, construction and service industries. The unemployment rate fell 0.2 last month, from 6.9 to 6.7 percent, as the number of people with jobs grew by 565,000. The White House said the figures showed that the economy continues its rebound without letup, and several private economists said the surprisingly strong figures bolstered the administration forecast for improved growth in the economy this year.

LEHRER: Challenger Corazon Aquino claimed victory today in the election for president of the Philippines. So did supporters of her opponent, incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos. The end result many hours after the polls closed in the explosive contest was confusion, violence and charges of both fraud and abuse. We have a report from special correspondent Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: Voting began early, President Ferdinand Marcos in his home province of Ilocos Norte, about 250 miles from Manila, his wife Imelda in the capital near Malacanang Palace, opposition candidate Corazon Aquino in Tarlac, the home province of her late husband, Benigno Aquino, murdered two years ago. After voting, Mrs. Aquino reportedly went into hiding because of fears for her safety. Throughout the Philippines, an estimated 25 million voters went to the polls in what was described as a heavy turnout. Last night, the government's vote count was partial and slow. At Comelec, the official Commission on Elections, President Marcos was leading as expected. But at NAMFREL, a volunteer citizens' group with its own vote-counting machinery, the leader was opposition candidate Corazon Aquino. Senator Richard Lugar, head of the official U.S. observer team, appeared at NAMFREL shortly before midnight to complain about delays in the official count.

Sen. RICHARD LUGAR, election observer: I'm deeply disturbed by the delays in the count. It appears that the government may not be in a mind to proceed with this count.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: There were reports of widespread irregularities and violence.

FILIPINO: Somebody shot at us, at our group. I just stood there; I looked at my companions fleeing everywhere, and everybody were being clubbed. Those who were voter were being clubbed.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Throughout the night, voters were guarding ballot boxes as both President Marcos and Mrs. Aquino claimed victory.

MacNEIL: Haitian President Jean-Claude Duvalier fled his country today in a U.S. Air Force plane, provoking wild celebrations that turned to rioting and killing. As word spread that the 28-year-old Duvalier family dictatorship had ended, a mob attacked the tomb of Duvalier's father, Papa Doc, dug out his coffin and trampled on his remains. There was heavy gunfire in the capital, Port-au-Prince, as army troops tried to disperse rioters who attacked members of Duvalier's secret police, called the Tonton Macoute. In a parting message, President-for-life Duvalier said he decided to leave "so that a bloodbath could be avoided for my people." At least 50 Haitians have been killed in recent riots against the government. Duvalier and his family flew to France, which granted him a temporary residence until another country agreed to take him permanently. Several have already refused. President Reagan, whose administration supplied the transport plane at Duvalier's request, expressed optimism.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: We're watching and hoping, waiting for them to develop something now that will restore order.

REPORTER: What can the U.S. do to help move democracy along there, do you feel?

Pres. REAGAN: I don't know, but -- I couldn't answer that specifically, but we're going to do everything we can to be of help.

MacNEIL: There was more detailed reaction from State Department spokesman Bernard Kalb.

BERNARD KALB, State Department spokesman: The Haitian people have made it clear that they want a change of government. It was obvious that the only way the Duvalier government could remain in power was through repression and force. Duvalier's decision to leave now allows for a transition to a new government with a minimum of violence and disruption. The normal diplomatic relations continue, that we are awaiting clarification of the new government's intentions regarding human rights and free elections. The new government's position on matters such as these will determine the nature of our relations with the new regime.

MacNEIL: Republican Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole commented, "I'm glad he's gone. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned. He's probably been tolerated long enough, so I'm glad they had an airplane for him." In Miami, many of the 100,000 Haitians living there took to the streets to celebrate. It was an all-day party in Little Haiti, an area 200 square blocks in the northeastern part of the city.

LEHRER: On the space shuttle Challenger story today, the Coast Guard stopped its search for floating debris and concentrated on trying to recover objects from the bottom of the sea. Twelve tons of debris have been collected. The underwater operation includes the effort to locate the two booster rockets. Sonar soundings indicate they may be on the bottom, 35 miles off the Florida coast. Also today, General Dynamics regained the right to bid on defense contracts. The company was suspended by the Pentagon last December after it was indicted on fraud charges.

MacNEIL: Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi said today he'd ordered his air force to intercept any Israeli airliner flying across the Mediterranean and make it land in Libya. He told a news conference the planes would be searched for what he called Israeli terrorists wanted by Libyan courts, specifically mentioning former prime minister Menachem Begin and former defense minister Ariel Sharon. On Tuesday, Israeli jets forced a small Libyan executive jet to land at an air base while they searched it for Palestinian terrorists. It was released when none were found.

LEHRER: And that completes our summary of the news of this Friday. We move now to more on the Philippine elections, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings court decision, the aftermath of the space shuttle Challenger tragedy, and more on Baby Doc's departure from Haiti. Philippines: New Mandate

MacNEIL: First tonight, our focus is on the Philippines election, and we begin with an expanded report from Manila by special correspondent Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: It was the first presidential election here in 17 years. The heavy voting was a defeat for the extreme left, which had urged a boycott.

1st FILIPINO: For president I voted for Corazon Aquino and for vice president I voted for Salvador Laurel.

KRAUSE: And why was that?

1st FILIPINO: I want to have a change in government.

2nd FILIPINO: I voted straight KBL, Marcos-Torrentino.

KRAUSE: And why?

2nd FILIPINO: Well, because Marcos is the leader that we need. He's been there for, well, 20 years, and I think that he'll be able to do it for another six years.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: President Marcos characterized the election as fair and relatively peaceful. But there were reports throughout the day of irregularities and violence. At one voting center, an angry crowd chased a man with a gun. Throughout the country, 26 persons were reported killed and many others beaten. At midday, NAMFREL, a citizens' group, recalled several hundred volunteer poll watchers in Makati, an independent municipality that's part of Metro Manila. The volunteers were recalled after a band of thugs attacked a voting center where a NAMFREL volunteer was injured.

NAMFREL VOLUNTEER: I was inside the HQ, in our headquarters in Guadalupe and Nuevo. Some people ran in and they say they're shooting people, they're shooting people. I ran out to check; I hear a gun -- armlike fire. I see a soldier. Well, he was dressed, but I could tell he was a soldier by his haircut. He puts his rifle on the top of the jeep, aims it at a crowd in there, the school, and boom, it goes off. So I kind of freaked out a bit, so I walked inside, I looked; there was a commotion, so I couldn't see anything, and then I go back inside; they're bringing in one of our people, a young guy, he's about 18 years old, completely beaten up, you know.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Joe Concepcion, NAMFREL's national chairman, arrived to reassure the worried volunteers.

JOE CONCEPCION, NAMFREL: We are not afraid. In Guadalupe, one of the bullets that was shot in the air is here before us. But it caused no bloodshed of any of our volunteers. What is important, those who were in Guadalupe and Nuevo decided to stick their grounds because there are many voters who still want to vote. It becomes therefore our obligation now to march to Guadalupe and Nuevo in order to provide the protection and courage to our people, and to be able to show them that we are willing to defend democracy in this country.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: At the precinct level, the vote counting began after the polls closed at 3:00 p.m. Then ballot boxes were transported from local voting centers to town halls for safe keeping. The emotion and fears of this election were evident as voters grouped together to guard ballot boxes en route. At the Makati Municipal Building, NAMFREL poll watchers and others told of election day irregularities, even of being thrown out of polling places before the vote counting began.

3rd FILIPINO: Well, this is like happened in many other precincts that were counting voters involved in -- you could tell because when you approached them and asked them for their voters' affidavit, either they didn't have it on them and they began to panic and back off.

4th FILIPINO: Some people came and they told us, "For your own safety, you'd better leave the premises." And so we had no other choice, we had to leave.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Here to watch the election for the Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Brian Atwood said he was worried by what he'd seen.

BRIAN ATWOOD, election observers: Well, as is obvious as we stand here amongst the pandemonium, there's been a lot of confusion, a lot of fears. NAMFREL people apparently not able to do their job in many places. It's difficult to know whether this particular section of the country, Makati, which has been controversial in the past, is symptomatic of what's occurring in the rest of the country, but it doesn't give us a very good feeling right now. But we will try to talk to the rest of our teams around the country before we make any final assessments in the situation.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Last night, two national vote counts were under way, one at the Commission on Elections, where the official government count was very partial and very slow. There was a second count at NAMFREL headquarters in Manila, where Senator Lugar praised the volunteer organization and criticized the government.

Sen. RICHARD LUGAR, election observer: I've commented back to our friends in the United States that I'm deeply disturbed by the delays in the count. It appears that the government may not be in a mind to proceed with this count as rapidly as we would want. I think we're now down to the point, however, at which we want to know what is the result. Was the will of the people heard? Does it come through? And at this moment, I don't know.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The delay caused confusion. Shortly after midnight, both President Marcos and Mrs. Aquino declared victory. But there was no way to know which candidate had [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] Rudman: Constitutional Question

LEHRER: The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law caught one across the chops, a federal court ruling today a key provision of the budget deficit law was unconstitutional. The main pieces of the law set deficit reduction targets over the next five years andthen trigger across-the-board cuts if Congress fails to meet them, leaving the automatic part to be worked out by, among others, the Comptroller General. It was the comptroller-general provision that caused the court to throw it out today. What does it all mean? Well, earlier today I asked Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, the Gramm of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and one of the 12 congressmen who brought the suit, Congressman Jim Moody, Democrat of Wisconsin.

Rep. JIM MOODY: I think it means that Congress has to get back to work in earnest and accept the responsibility mandated under the Constitution to decide what cuts are going to be made, how they're going to be made, when they're going to be made, and it will not allow Congress to delegate that to a computer-driven formula that'll come out of the office of an unelected bureaucracy. And I think that's a big step forward.

LEHRER: And Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is no more then?

Rep. MOODY: No, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amounts of cuts remain in effect pending the outcome of the Supreme Court final decision. And the February 1st order by the President remains in effect pending that outcome. In other words, the court today simply stayed its decision; it did not actually knock it all the way out.

LEHRER: Senator Gramm, what does this decision mean to you?

Sen. PHIL GRAMM: Well, first of all, Jim, there were several issues. The first issue was delegation: could the Congress delegate the authority to make across-the-board cuts if Congress didn't act? The court said clearly it can, clearly that's constitutional. Secondly it was the question of the sequester order itself: could there be a sequester order? The three-court [sic] panel said yes. The issue that they brought up where they ruled the provision of Gramm-Rudman unconstitutional had to do with the 1921 Budget Act and the comptroller general. When we wrote the bill we knew there might be a problem here. We still believe the Supreme Court will rule the comptroller general is an office of the federal government. But we wrote a backup provision. We believe we can still make Gramm-Rudman work, and we believe that it's going to force Congress to make the hard decisions, to meet the targets to balance the budget by 1990. So the court ruled that the bill was clearly constitutional, that the delegation of authority was constitutional, that sequestering was constitutional. They struck down the involvement of the General Accounting Office, knocking us over to the fall-back position, which is CBO and OMB reporting to the Congress, we vote on the deficit, and the procedure works exactly as it did before.

LEHRER: Congressman Moody, do you disagree with the way the senator is interpreting this?

Rep. MOODY: Well, no, the Congress is going to make the choices itself now if this holds up in the Supreme Court. We're going to have to pick and choose where the cuts are going to make. The sequestration involves a formula, it involves across-the-board cuts that are by formula. That is no longer mandated, and I don't think it ever should have been, and that was my major reason for joining the suit. I do not object to picking targets and sticking with them. I do object to not allowing yourself the discretion to pick and choose within those macrotargets where exactly the cuts should fall. And let me point out that we are all already going to be in violation of Gramm-Rudman because the President's budget according to CBO today is already $15 billion over the Gramm-Rudman limit. It did not come in at 143.8 as the President claimed; it came in at $15 billion more than that because of the DOD expenditures that are now revealed by CBO. So this process is complex, and you're always going to be in -- problems re-estimating and re-estimating again spending and deficits. But the formulas and across-the-board cuts, that is gone.

LEHRER: All right. Now, Senator, this decision is going to go right to the Supreme Court, is that correct?

Sen. GRAMM: That's correct. And also I think it's important to note that the three-judge panel stayed its own decision so that the sequester order goes forward until the Supreme Court rules. Also it ruled the sequestering process constitutional. It ruled the across-the-board cuts constitutional, if we don't choose, if we don't meet the targets. The question is, will Congress certify the level of the deficit or will the General Accounting Office? That is the only question that it opened. And the essence of Gramm-Rudman was always choosing. The difference was, we wanted to force Congress to choose, and I believe that while the primary mechanism's stronger and better, that the secondary mechanism can be made to work. And I'm also hopeful the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of the General Accounting Office.

LEHRER: Is it likely that there could be a Supreme Court decision by March 1st, when this first round of cuts are due to go into effect?

Sen. GRAMM: I think that's unlikely, and one of the options we're looking at is the possibility of going ahead and having Congress certify, so that the across-the-board cut on March the 15th will go into effect as scheduled. It will if nothing happens, but I think to go ahead and give some guarantees that it might not be a bad idea to go ahead and have Congress certify what GAO has certified.

LEHRER: I see. Congressman, what's your view of that? What would happen to these March 1st cuts under this decision?

Rep. MOODY: I agree, that would go ahead because the Supreme Court [sic] consciously stayed the decision so that it will go into effect pending the Supreme Court outcome. And the Supreme Court outcome is probably not going to be with us until around early July. So we are going to have to go ahead as though Gramm-Rudman were in effect.

LEHRER: Do you see this today, and if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, Congressman Moody, as a big victory for your side?

Rep. MOODY: Well, my side is that we should stick with the process we have had for 200 years and force ourselves to make decisions. If we can't make those decisions, we should feel the wrath of the country and of the voter. And those decisions require both houses of Congress working together cooperatively with the leadership of the President. And I don't think we have had the leadership of the President in a way the country's accepting, in the sense of the balance -- imbalance in favor of defense. Congress has balked at that. Congress has stuck to its guns; the President's stuck to his guns, and everything goes up, and we've simply added everything to the deficit. Both sides are refusing to give. I don't think either side looks too good in that process, but now we're going to be forced under the hot glare of additional publicity now to go back and do what we've done for 200 years, which is meet the requirements of getting together, working it out, and getting back to reasonable and sustainable deficits, not these unsustainable deficits we have now.

LEHRER: Now, Senator Gramm, you do not see, though -- on the other side, you don't see this as a big defeat for your Gramm-Rudman-Hollings concept, correct?

Sen. GRAMM: Well, first of all, you need to remember that the Nader suit, with the members of Congress joining in it from the House, asserted that the bill was unconstitutional because of the delegation of authority. The court clearly said that that was an invalid claim. They said that the across-the-board reduction process was unconstitutional. The three-judge panel clearly said that that was invalid. The only case where they were upheld was the involvement of the General Accounting Office. We had written the bill recognizing that that was in dispute, with a fall-back position that we think that we can make it work. But you need to remember, Jim, that two other district courts have ruled in favor of the comptroller general, so now really all three of these suits go to the Supreme Court. So the lower courts have ruled both ways. How it's going to come out, I don't know. I think we can make it work in either case. I think the pressure's still on Congress. I prefer it the primary way; that's why we wrote it that way.

LEHRER: Well, you understand my confusion. Here's one of you saying -- a court just struck down a provision of this law, it's unconstitutional. One of you is sitting there saying you won and the other one's saying no, we didn't, we didn't lose.

Rep. MOODY: Well, they closed down the provision that says that the comptroller general can exercise these kinds of powers. And that is at the heart of at least my objection. I don't know who financed the suit. I got on the suit because I feel strongly about it. The heart of the suit on our side is that the comptroller general is an unelected bureaucrat. The Government Accounting Office is not a body that accounts to the people. It's a hybrid kind of a body and it shouldn't be put in this kind of position. And that has been struck down by the court today, and I consider it a victory.

Sen. GRAMM: Well, but Jim, I think the dispute -- it's not a dispute between Jim and me. I think it's -- the misunderstanding is that the bill was written with two triggering mechanisms: a primary mechanism involving the comptroller general, who settles government accounts now, and a secondary mechanism that does not involve him. Now, the courts ruled the whole bill constitutional except that one provision, and there was a backup provision for it. So do I prefer the primary provision? Yes. But the backup provision will still work; the President's still mandated to meet the goals; the Congress is still mandated to meet them, and we now have to certify the deficit if we don't do our job -- I hope we'll do our job -- and then there won't be any deficit to certify.

Rep. MOODY: But the key difference is Congress is now back in the picture directly. It has to certify the deficit and it has the leverage and the ability to make those particular cuts because it can't pass a joint resolution when the situation falls apart. So there it puts us back where we should be, in the middle of the decision-making process.

LEHRER: I understand now. Thank you both very much.

Sen. GRAMM: Thank you. NASA: Sinking Spirits

MacNEIL: Next tonight, we focus again on the aftermath of the space shuttle tragedy, in particular how the shock has affected the morale of the thousands of workers in the space program. Correspondent Tom Bearden reports from Cape Canaveral.

TOM BEARDEN [voice-over]: The men and women who work at the Kennedy Space Center are a proud lot, a launch team with a flawless performance record -- until last week. The explosion of the Challenger was an even more shocking experience for them than it was for the rest of the country, and NASA contractors are worried about how their employees will deal with the tragedy. Managers are doing everything they can think of to make sure the emotional trauma of failure doesn't have long-term effects on the people who make the shuttle program work. This morning, near the fog-shrouded vehicle assembly building, workers gathered to hear words of encouragement from space center director Dick Smith and Congressman Bill Nelson, a recent shuttle passenger.

RICHARD SMITH, director, Space Center: Clearly our most important job over the next few weeks and maybe even a few months, is to understand what happened. And I hope that none of you get -- I don't know what word to use, but I'm going to use probably a poor word -- get discouraged because of that. We need your dedication more today than we ever have in the past.

Rep. BILL NELSON, (D) Florida: The binding together as a nation in the aftermath of tragedy is necessary because, as Dick said, there's a large agenda for the future, and if we are a nation, as I think we are, we're going to continue to reach for the stars.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: This is a family counseling center in Cocoa, Florida, not far from the Space Center. It's run by a NASA contractor, and thousands of space workers have come here over the years for help with their personal problems. The counselors haven't seen an overwhelming new demand for their services since the shuttle disaster, but Bob Caldwell says some space workers are finding it hard to deal with complex feelings about the accident.

BOB CALDWELL, family counselor: Guilt is tied in with fear and tied in with confusion, and there is a lot of fear -- fear of, you know, could this happen again, and what is going to happen, and not knowing how to deal with this. These are men who typically are problem solvers, are goal oriented, and they know how to solve a problem, and here they have a problem -- there's nothing that they can do to bring these lives back.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Caldwell says most technical people are stoic and tend to submerge their emotions. But he says the people his counselors have talked to have generally been able to release their feelings because of the depth of emotion expressed by the whole nation.

Mr. CALDWELL: Perhaps to the credit of the [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] There is some concern that reaction to the disaster might affect the extraordinary teamwork so vital to successful space flight. The contractor that provides ground support at the Cape has established a telephone service called the Care Line. It's staffed by volunteers who provide a sympathetic ear for people who might be having problems coping with their grief. Bill McGuire runs it.

BILL McGUIRE, employee counselor: What we hope is that people can -- that we can provide as many outlets for people to work through those feelings in a healthy way, express them and be able to then get on with the work at hand and be less preoccupied with what happened that Tuesday and be able to start focusing on the future.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: McGuire says the telephone service has not been overwhelmed with calls. They plan to operate the Care Line for at least two months, hoping it will help them monitor the general mental health of the workforce. Fourteen thousand people work at the Cape at all kinds of jobs, from the exotic to the mundane. Each has his or her own way of dealing with the tragedy of Challenger. McGuire and others caution about making generalizations about them. They are as diverse a group as can be found in any large industrial activity. Their employers, both civilian and governmental, are going to considerable lengths to reassure them that the nation is committed to the space program, that Columbia, Discovery and Atlantis will fly again. Challenger: Impact on Industry

MacNEIL: The Challenger accident has forced NASA and the space industry to reassess the role the shuttle will play in the future, and Elizabeth Brackett has this report.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: When America's space shuttle roars off the launchpad at Cape Canaveral, it carries the hopes of a nation, who see space as America's last frontier. And it carries the hopes of the business community in this country, who see the commercialization of space as the best business opportunity of the next quarter century. Industry analysts say commercial space can become a trillion-dollar industry by the year 2010. But when the shuttle Challenger vanished into that terrible white cloud of death 10 days ago, the business community along with the rest of the country began an immediate and painful re-evaluation of the opportunities and the risks of space exploration. Houston lawyer Arthur Dula represents firms with space ventures.

ARTHUR DULA, space lawyer: It makes people ask is it worth the trouble? What is there up there we need? And when we look at that, and the tragedy did have the effect of focusing the attention of the American people on the human side of space, and all of them I believe see that it's something we do need, that it's a spiritual frontier and an economic frontier that can bring us billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs if it's correctly exploited and developed.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Private companies already exploiting space are immediately affected by the loss of Challenger and the delay in the shuttle schedule. Western Union was scheduled to launch its Westar 6S satellite on the space shuttle Columbia in June. Westar 6S would have doubled Western Union's transmission capability. Upcoming shuttle missions were also scheduled to carry up critical experiments for space science. The head of Rice University's space, physics and astronomy department, Dr. Robert Haymes, says those experiments will provide the base for the commercialization of space.

Dr. ROBERT HAYMES, Rice University: We try to provide the facts on which the entrepreneurs can base their company's products. We try to tell them what it's like in space and the conditions they're going to meet.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Though Haymes does admit that several upcoming space science projects scheduled for shuttle flights will contribute more to pure science than to commercial space development. One of the most eagerly awaited of those projects is the Galileo Project, designed to probe the planet Jupiter.

Dr. HAYMES: It was started in the late '70s as a project to get something into the atmosphere of the weirdest place you could imagine within the solar system. We know that there are substances within Jupiter with which we have no familiarity with here on earth, and this was going to be the major next step beyond Voyager, beyond the Uranus and Neptune encounters. Because this would be the first time now we'd be actually seeing what's inside. And we're all champing at the bit, but it's not to be, at least for a while.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: With the delay in the space shuttle program, those who rely on the shuttle -- space scientists, the military, commercial clients -- are now looking for new ways to launch their projects. Ironically, that search may revitalize the effort by private aeronautics firms to compete with the shuttle by launching unmanned expendable rockets. First developed by the Air Force as intercontinental ballistic missiles, most expendable rockets were government property until 1982. Then President Reagan allowed the private manufacturers to commercialize their rockets. General Dynamics immediately began looking for private customers for its Atlas Centaur rocket. McDonnell-Douglas formed a private company, Transpace, to market its Delta rocket. But after a three-year effort, Transpace has not found a single customer willing to put its payload on the Delta. Part of the problem, says space lawyer Dula, has been the heavy government subsidies for the shuttle.

Mr. DULA: As a matter of fact, to date it's been very difficult to compete with the government. Let's say that I make an apple and I sell it for 50 cents, and it's a wonderful apple, but the government builds the -- or grows the same apple and sells it for a dime, because they can afford to subsidize it. The shuttle is a very subsidized vehicle. It costs over $300 million to launch a shuttle the way businessmen would do accounting, but the government won't charge more than about $72 million for it.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Another problem has been the competition from the European Space Agency's expendable unmanned rocket, the Ariane.

Mr. DULA: It's made it very difficult. The competition between the shuttle and Ariane has meant that the pricing on both of these vehicles has stayed very low. Both the Ariane and the shuttle are heavily subsidized by the American and French governments, respectively.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But now, with only three shuttles available and the shuttle schedule backed up, there is an opportunity for the fledgling commercial launch industry to find customers. Transpace president David Grimes.

[interviewing] Have you had any concrete conversations since the shuttle tragedy with potential customers?

DAVID GRIMES, president, Transpace: Our marketing department has.

BRACKETT: What kind of customers would they be -- satellites, people who want to launch satellites?

Mr. GRIMES: The various communications satellites [unintelligible].

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Grimes says it will be at least one year before a Delta could make its first commercial launch. This rocket, the Conestoga, belongs to the only private launch company that does have a client. Former astronaut Deke Slayton developed the Conestoga and has the first three licenses issued for a private launch. His first customer: a group of funeral homes who promise to launch cremated remains into perpetual orbit. But Slayton says even that launch is two years away, though he does see a bright future for the commercialization of space.

DEKE SLAYTON, president, Space Services: Well, we think so. We wouldn't be here working the problem when we think there's something on the launch side, because if there's any anywhere else, you obviously have to get launched before you're in business. So that's one reason we're attracted to the launch end of it.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: So most space planners agree that in the wake of the shuttle tragedy, the country must look to a broader range of launch vehicles. George Keyworth is the former science advisor to President Reagan.

GEORGE KEYWORTH, former presidential advisor: What I do think we should do is to continue the effort that has been -- was begun about two years ago to restore an expendable launch vehicle, an unmanned rocket, into our inventory, let's say, so that we have both redundancy, that is, we have more than one choice, and we also can tailor the launch, launching capability to fit the payload -- small rocket for small payload.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Still, there is an understandable emotional response in the country to rebuild the shuttle fleet, to replace one Challenger with another. Schoolchildren across the country have begun fund-raising drives to help build a new shuttle.

CHILD: When the Challenger blew up, everybody remembers that the Challenger and everybody was in it. And when they buy another Challenger they'll remember them a little bit better.

BRACKETT: But the fact is, shuttle technology is now at least 15 years old, and the question is, should the country direct its resources toward rebuilding the shuttle, or should those resources now be directed toward a new generation of space vehicles?

Mr. DULA: If we replace the shuttle today, it'll cost about $2.4 billion, and if we give the order today, it'll take until 1992 to deliver a new Challenger. That Challenger will be built on a design that was engineering in 1972. So we do need to replace the Challenger with a new Challenger, that's a trans-atmospheric vehicle that can fly routinely to earth orbit.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The trans-atmospheric vehicle, dubbed the Orient Express by President Reagan in his State of the Union address, exists only in sketches done by the Air Force and private aeronautics companies. But space expert Keyworth said the vehicle, which would land and take off like all airplanes, yet have the ability to launch into orbit, represents a remarkable advance for American technology.

Dr. KEYWORTH: This plane could become the major intercontinental transport vehicle. It could give us access to space at perhaps 100 times less costly than today, and it could become a major system for our national defense.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: So the shuttle tragedy will mean a setback for some projects, new opportunities for others. What is clear is that despite the grief, or perhaps because of it, the nation's quarter-century commitment to space has not wavered.

LEHRER: The president-for-life they called Baby Doc flew away from Haiti today to France. Judy Woodruff takes it from there Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: A few hours before dawn today, an American military transport plane took off from Haiti's capital of Port-au-Prince carrying President Jean-Claude Duvalier, members of his family and several staff people and security guards. It brought to an end one of the longest-running and most brutal dictatorships in the Caribbean, dating back to 1957, the beginning of the regime of Baby Doc's father, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. As soon as the Haitian people heard the news this morning, there was dancing in the streets, along with numerous reports of violence against members of the dreaded militia associated with Baby Doc. Earlier this afternoon, in an interview with Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, I asked just what the U.S. had done to help get Baby Doc out of the country, including provide a plane.

Mr. Abrams, what exactly did the administration do to help President Duvalier out of the country? Provide the plane -- was that it?

ELLIOTT ABRAMS: That was the final step. The next-to-the-last step was that Duvalier called in the French and American ambassadors. He asked the French to provide exile and he asked us to provide a plane to get him there, and we did that. During the course of the last week, we had been involved a lot of discussions with him, with cabinet members, with representatives of his in various places, who wanted to talk about the situation in Haiti. And we knew that some people were advising him to stay and fight, which we thought meant a lot of bloodshed, and others were advising him to leave. And we gave our analysis of the situation, which was that if he stayed there was going to be a tremendous amount of bloodshed.

WOODRUFF: How much pressure did the Reagan administration put on him to leave?

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, we didn't really in the end need to. I think that his regime believed that it had long had American support, and beginning with the failure to certify human rights improvements a couple of months ago -- we carried that on for a while. Every week there was another chance to certify; we didn't take it. And Secretary Shultz' appearance on network TV earlier in the week where he talked about democracy in Haiti had a large impact, I know, in Haiti and on Duvalier himself, who asked for the actual transcript of what the secretary had said. And in the course of the week we had the chance to, and we took the chance, to say that we thought that for him to stay meant a great deal of bloodshed. We did not say go, but it was clear to everybody that the time had come.

WOODRUFF: Well, other than bloodshed, why did the administration want him out?

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, the policy that we're following in all of Latin America, with pretty good success, is to press for democracy and economic development. And that just was not the nature of the Duvalier regime. It was a very old-fashioned repressive government, and it was inconsistent with this tremendous surge of democracy in the hemisphere. So on reasons of principle we wanted it out. But the pressure that had built up in Haiti in the last years, especially the last few weeks, it was really getting to the point where there could have been tremendous violence if he tried to just put it down, which is what his father did in a similar situation.

WOODRUFF: But a week ago now, the administration prematurely announced that he was gone, and you're still telling me the United States didn't initiate all this, even though we clearly expected him to leave a number of days ago.

Sec. ABRAMS: No. He's been thinking about leaving for certainly a week, maybe 10 days, in that there were certain people around him who said the time is coming, we're getting to it now; in the end it's going to take violence to stay in power. We knew that there were other advisors on the other side, and the question was how could we maneuver the situation in conjunction with Haitians who wanted peace so that there was as little violence as possible? And that was really what we were doing, talking to people about what a peaceful transition could look like.

WOODRUFF: Let me turn the question around. Why was it the responsibility of the United States to get this man out of the country? Why not leave his fate up to the Haitian people?

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, it was a kind of a stalemate. It wasn't our responsibility to do it. But we are the most powerful outside influence in Haiti, and we had to express an opinion. We had to give our analysis of the situation. What Haitians were telling us was that stalemate had now really reached the point at which the amount of violence would escalate, and the two sides, that is, the Duvalier side and really almost everybody else in the country, were just about coming to blows. So what do you think, what is your view, what is your analysis? People kept coming to us and saying, "Say something." And the first thing we said, really, was what the secretary had to say, I guess it was over the weekend or maybe Monday morning. And then privately we gave our analysis, that is, that the only way he can stay is bloodshed, and obviously we were against that.

WOODRUFF: But with the problems the administration has had with Baby Doc, why didn't the administration move sooner?

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, it's not our job to appoint governments for countries and to decide who comes and who goes. What happened in Haiti was that for reasons having nothing to do with us, there was a crescendo of opposition to Duvalier, starting, I would say, a couple of years ago and building to now. So when you get this stalemate and you are on the edge of a tremendous amount of violence, and everyone is turning to you and saying, "Do you have anything to say? Please say something," well, the answer of course is to say, "Yes, we want to avoid the violence."

WOODRUFF: The new government, this commission, what is the administration's assessment of it?

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, it's pretty positive so far. Admittedly, it's only been in power about 12 hours, but the three military people involved are people we know well and have a high opinion of. There are people in the Haitian military who are not so good. These are among the better, more intelligent people, more capable professional soldiers. The two civilians we know well too. M. Gourgue who is the head of the Human Rights League, we know particularly well. The things they've said today, they called in the whole diplomatic corps, and they are saying the right things about a turn to democracy and about respect for human rights. Radio Soleil --

WOODRUFF: Have we put a time limit? I mean, have we said in a certain number of months we expect you to --

Sec. ABRAMS: We have not put a time limit on. Again, we're not trying to run the country, but we're looking for signs. The first -- one of the first signs came today, when the Catholic Church radio station, Radio Soleil, which Duvalier had closed down, reopened and is broadcasting free and uncensored news. That's the kind of sign we look for. The government is trying to maintain order without violence. That's another of the kind of signs we look for. So for a government that's been in power 12 hours, they're doing pretty well.

WOODRUFF: And what about resumption of U.S. aid, is that just too early to say or --

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, it is too early after just a half a day. But we would hope to resume it, because they need the money very, very badly. It's a desperately poor country. And we have some money that's been withheld from the Duvalier regime, so I would hope we could move on that pretty quickly.

WOODRUFF: One other question on Baby Doc. Where does he go? The French are saying they're only giving him temporary asylum.

Sec. ABRAMS: Well, I don't know the answer to that question. He is now in the hands of the French and they have the primary responsibility to answer that, but I'm not sure anybody knows.

WOODRUFF: Secretary Abrams, thank you for being with us.

Sec. ABRAMS: You're welcome.

WOODRUFF: Now for a Haitian's view of the situation, we have joining us Marc Bazin. Mr. Bazin served previously as Haiti's finance minister and more recently has been an official of the World Bank. He has been active in Haitian opposition circles here in the U.S.

Was the U.S. helpful, Mr. Bazin, or did the U.S. prolong Baby Doc's regime?

MARC BAZIN: I think the U.S. was very helpful in the end, putting some pressure on Jean-Claude Duvalier to leave, first by noncertification and also the statement by Secretary Shultz.

WOODRUFF: I'msorry, the first --

Mr. BAZIN: Noncertification of assistance for 1986.

WOODRUFF: For human rights.

Mr. BAZIN:

For human rights violation. Obviously many people in Haiti would have expected a stronger action earlier, but I understand that better late than never.

WOODRUFF: What is your assessment of this new government?

Mr. BAZIN: I must say, this morning, when I heard the news without having heard anything else from the State Department or from Haiti, just the good news coming in on the radio, I was a bit worried because the composition of the government seems to be heavily oriented toward the military. Although I know very well Gerard Gourgue, who is [unintelligible] a friend of mine, and Alec Sineas, who is a former colleague of mine in -- government.

WOODRUFF: They are the two civilians --

Mr. BAZIN: They are the two civilians. I know that the weight of habits would go toward the military. What I have heard since then reassured me. First of all, I heard the President of the United States say that he is for democracy in Haiti, and that is the strongest possible support we could ever dream of. And then of course there is Assistant Secretary Abrams that we've just heard, and Mr. Kalb at the State Department. So I believe that we'll be working towards something achievable.

WOODRUFF: But the United States would like to have seen democracy in Haiti a long time ago. Why do you think that'll make a difference now?

Mr. BAZIN: I believe that, first of all, the Haitian people have shown a very strong commitment to social justice and open government. They have been willing to die with bare hands, facing the Tonton Macoute week after week for the last three months.

WOODRUFF: This is the militia.

Mr. BAZIN: This is the dreaded militia, as you call them, and rightly so. And I think also that the forces of change are now committed to a future with a brighter prospect for Haiti.

WOODRUFF: But how fast can there be change? What do you see -- let me put it this way. What do you see the new government, even the transition government's responsibilities to be in this very early stage?

Mr. BAZIN: Well, first of all I would like to see this transition government open up the prisons, the jails, and let everybody out. That's the first thing they should do, because there are too many people who have been there for too long. Second, declare Haiti free for Haitians to go in and out. The need for a visa for Haitians to go to their own country is an anomaly that should be stopped. The third thing I believe the military government or the transition government should do is start the process of investigating human rights abuses and corruption. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that should be done on a sort of collective basis. I don't believe in collective responsibility. But there are a number of cases which are blatant cases of corruption, blatant cases of repression, and I think that would show that this government is indeed looking for something different. And the fourth thing I will expect them to do is to announce steps for the electoral process. I believe that there is a need to create a national electoral commission, and for this government to announce when and how this is going to go about.

WOODRUFF: How fast do you think that can happen?

Mr. BAZIN: I don't know. I think that all moderate forces, people who believe in democracy genuinely, should be working toward that end and trying to influence the course of events. I will hope that would come very soon.

WOODRUFF: What do you think the expectations of the Haitian people are now?

Mr. BAZIN: Extremely high. Extremely high on the political side and I'm afraid also on the economic side. On the political side they should be able to be satisfied with a few gestures which would show that we are indeed willing to work toward democracy. On the economic side, the prospects are very difficult for any government.

WOODRUFF: You mentioned a minute ago the United States is saying the right things right now. What are you looking for the United States to do other than resume aid, which we assume is important to Haiti?

Mr. BAZIN: I believe that after the experience of Duvalier, everybody understands that business is usual is no longer feasible or tolerable in Haiti. The deep changes I've been looking for should be pursued vigorously, openly, strongly by the United States. Quiet diplomacy has not been very effective with Mr. Duvalier, and I think that we should open up the debate and put all the cards on the table.

WOODRUFF: What do you mean? I mean, just how involved should the U.S. get?

Mr. BAZIN: Well, the U.S. has an extremely important responsibility for Haiti and for the region. And any period of instability, and by instability I mean any period of government which would not be based on the confidence of the people and which would not be legitimate in the eyes of the people, is only going to play into the hands of the extremists. So I think --

WOODRUFF: So you're -- go ahead, I'm sorry.

Mr. BAZIN: I think that the sooner the U.S. could make its weight felt on the side of the democrats, on the honest and responsible people, the better for Haiti.

WOODRUFF: Do you plan to go back to Haiti?

Mr. BAZIN: Oh, yes. Absolutely.

WOODRUFF: And what will you do there, do you know?

Mr. BAZIN: I certainly am going to try to influence things in the direction of serious change.

WOODRUFF: What about the many Haitian exiles in this country? Do you think many of them will want to go back to Haiti?

Mr. BAZIN: I think I would distinguish three categories of exiles. There are those who are political exiles, people who have been having problem with the Duvalier government, whose family has been killed or tortured, and who had to go for their own physical security. Those people mostly will want to come back. There are a second group of Haitian professionals who have been looking for economic opportunity in the United States. Those people sometimes have done very well for themselves; they might wish to have a look first before returning. There's a third category, which are the boat people -- people who have come here under very delicate and dramatic circumstances. And I think that the new government in Haiti should make it a priority to try to get those people back home, and one way to do that would be, for me at least, to create a compensation fund to repatriate them and give them a sum of money that would be enough for them to resettle in Haiti.

WOODRUFF: Well, I know this is a situation that we will continue to watch. Marc Bazin, thank you for being with us.

Mr. BAZIN: Thank you very much for inviting me.

LEHRER: A couple of updates before we go. On last night's Oregon school story about the campaign for votes to raise property taxes and thus keep the schools open in a suburban Portland district, well, the measure carried by a 66-to-34-percent margin; the schools stay open. And on Monday's story about the ice palace they are building in St. Paul, Minnesota, here is the latest from Carol Levinson of public station KTCA.

CAROLE LEVINSON, KTCA [voice-over]: The last ice blocks were laid Weor and resources, this effort would have cost roughly $2 million. The palace was built for St. Paul's annual winter carnival, a celebration of life amid snow and ice. But problems obtaining insurance led officials to ban the public from actually entering the structure. That, however, didn't stop crowds from gathering around the fence Thursday night to watch the dramatic lighting ceremony.

LEHRER: The ice palace will be torn down and completely disappear in 10 days. Officials say it would be too dangerous to permit it to simply melt down and completely disappear on its own. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. A federal court held a key provision of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget act to be unconstitutional. Both sides claimed victory in the Philippines presidential election. And President Duvalier of Haiti fled to France.

Good night, Jim.

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