The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines today, David Stockman resigned as President Reagan's budget director. Fires charred thousands of acres in 11 Western states and Canada, and Secretary Shultz pledged support for the anti-Vietnamese guerrillas in Cambodia. Robert MacNeil is away; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After a rundown of the day's news, we have four focus segments on the NewsHour, beginning with the Stockman resignation. Time magazine's White House reporter Larry Barrett explains why. Then the California fires. The head of that state's firefighting effort joins us for an update. Next, a documentary report on the illness that cripples so many elderly people, Parkinson's disease. And finally a debate over a proposed new gun control law.News Summary

WOODRUFF: White House Budget Director David Stockman submitted his resignation today, to be effective August 1st. He will go to work for a Wall Street investment banking firm, Salomon Brothers, later this fall. The 38-year-old Stockman has guided the Reagan budget office through years of sharp spending cutbacks and been the focus of controversy in several instances when he criticized the President's economic policy. Just last month he came close to getting in hot water again over remarks he made expressing the need for a tax increase if enough budget cuts weren't made to bring down the federal deficit. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said Stockman's decision had nothing to do with any differences he's had with the administration. It is known that one of his greatest frustrations recently has been over the budget deadlock on Capitol Hill. Today President Reagan was holding two meetings with congressional leaders to explore ways to break the stalemate, to stress the urgency of the situation. In the wake of the Stockman announcement, leaders of both parties said he will be sorely missed.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, (R) Kansas: I think he's frustrated about getting Congress to really face up to hard choices, but I think any OMB director who has been there for four or five years would have that experience, whether it was Mr. MacIntyre [who] did a good job for President Carter, or others who have been in that position. It's a tough job, and you don't make any friends around this town by saying no, but if you're looking at the good of the country, saying no is not a bad idea.

Sen. LAWTON CHILES, (D) Florida: He was a person that could add up the numbers and recognize where you had a situation that you couldn't bridge any other way, and I think he knew from trying to prepare the budget for the President that would be submitted to us, that there was no way to do it with spending alone. I think he also recognized that there was no way you could grow your way out of it. So I think he became one of those people that was disillusioned with the supply-side theory, the Laffler curve, those things that you're going to get pie in the sky. I think he was a realist that way, and I think that was helpful to have somebody in the White House that knew how to read the numbers.

WOODRUFF: In a few minutes we will talk with a White House reporter about Stockman's term and his reasons for leaving. Jim?

LEHRER: The story of the fires in the West got even worse today. More than 10,000 firefighters were out again trying to stop the menacing flames that have now consumed more than 900,000 acres of brush, forest and rangeland in 11 Western states and Canada. Today it was the California town of Los Gatos that received a major threat as 4,500 people were evacuated from a fast-moving fire that charred nearly 14,000 acres and was being fought by more than 1,000 firefighters. A heat wave throughout the West was making the effort there, as elsewhere, a difficult one. California remained the hardest-hit state, but there were also fires burning in Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, Montana, Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, Nebraska and South Dakota, as well as the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba. We will look further at the fire story in a focus segment tonight.

WOODRUFF: President Reagan today spelled out the reason he has often chosen not to mention the seven Americans still being held captive in Lebanon. Speaking to a group of news editors, the President explained that he has not included them when he has listed recent terrorist incidents because he is concerned about their safety.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: There has been some talk here and there, and even some of them out of their frustration and grief have said "out of sight, out of mind," and that isn't true. There has never been a minute from the first kidnapping on that we've not been doing everything we can. Our great problem is the secrecy, the inability to locate and find -- are they being held by one group all together? Are they separated? We have reason to believe now, from some of our intelligence gathering, that they are being moved around quite often. And our difficulty with taking some action is the very fact of their lives. And we're continuing, and we meant it when we tried our best to get them included with the 39 that came home, but evidently they're in the hands of others not having to do with the same hijackers as this last time.

LEHRER: The Moslems of Lebanon agreed today to stop killing each other. Meeting in Damascus, Syria, 13 factional leaders signed off on a 16-point peace plan which includes a new constitution for sharing political power in the country. They also agreed to improve security at the Beirut airport. As they agreed, six more people died in fighting among Moslem factions in Tripoli, Lebanon.

Israeli military sources reported also two suicide car bombs exploded within 10 minutes of each other in the Israeli zone of south Lebanon, killing at least 17 people, most of them Lebanese civilians.

And there was more death in South Africa today. Seven blacks were killed in a clash between police in a black township near Johannesburg. The police said the blacks were shot while attacking the homes of black policemen, but the blacks said the seven were killed after police forced them to leave a vigil for four blacks who were killed last month.

WOODRUFF: The Reagan administration said today that it would seriously consider sending a permanent delegation to Vietnam to work with officials there on resolving the fate of missing Americans, if Hanoi is ready to demonstrate it has a sincere desire to move ahead rapidly on the issue. White House spokesman Larry Speakes made the statement in response to questions about Vietnam's announcement over the weekend that it will return the remains of 26 missing servicemen.

While Washington was making encouraging sounds about cooperating with the Vietnamese, Secretary of State Shultz was visiting the border of neighboring Cambodia, known as Kampuchea. Today Shultz toured a refugee evacuation site at the border between Cambodia and Thailand, where he was greeted by tens of thousands of Cambodians carrying signs and urging the U.S. to send them weapons to help drive the Vietnamese out of their country. Shultz later told a news conference in Bangkok that the U.S. fully intends to keep providing economic and humanitarian support for the refugees, but he did not include military aid for the Cambodian resistance groups. Shultz also declined comment on a newspaper report yesterday that the CIA has been providing millions of dollars in covert, non-lethal assistance to the non-communist resistors. Stockman Resigns

WOODRUFF: In our first focus section tonight, we'll find out what's behind the resignation late this afternoon of David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget. For four years Stockman has led the Reagan administration's charge to cut federal spending. His unusually high profile for a budget director made him an easy and frequent target for critics of the administration's cuts in social spending. In a statement issued from the White House President Reagan praised Stockman for serving with dedication and distinction, adding that he deeply appreciated Stockman's tireless efforts to bring fiscal discipline to the federal budget. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, had this reaction.

Sen. PETE DOMENICI, (R) New Mexico, Budget Committee: From my standpoint I think he's done more to educate the Congress, the American people and even this administration on the realities of budgeting and of fiscal policy. Clearly I will miss him from the standpoint of both his detailed knowledge of the programs of this government, which I believe is unparalleled, and coupled with the fact that he understands the big picture. He's truly an asset, and this administration is going to sorely miss him.

WOODRUFF: Stockman became the first budget director to make a strong impression outside Washington by his outspoken, sometimes even brash, public statements. He readily called for cuts in popular programs like Amtrak and sacred cows like military pensions.

DAVID STOCKMAN, Director, Office of Management and Budget: It's a scandal, it's an outrage. And the institutional forces in the military are more concerned about protecting their retirement benefits than they are about protecting the security of the American people. And when push comes to shove they'll give up on security before they give up on retirement. Now, that's just another true fact of life, and I'll probably be in hot water for saying it, but I'm going to say it because it's about time it was said. Now, I hope some of you up here who think the military budget's too big call on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ask them what they're going to put in the kitty by supporting a reasonable and moderate military retirement reform plan to go along with what we need to do on the civilian side.

[April 29, 1985] And I will tell you that there are few programs that I can think of that rank lower than Amtrak in terms of the good they do, the purpose they serve, the national need that they respond to. And I think the symbolic litmus test comes down to this. If we don't have the courage, if we don't have the foresight, if we don't have the comprehension of our problem sufficient enough to get rid of Amtrak, I don't think we're going to save much out of the budget at all.

WOODRUFF: But Congress showed little taste for eliminating Amtrak and the military none at all for reducing pension benefits. The frustrations of swimming against a tide of red ink began showing on Stockman, and many in Washington took this speech last month to be his swan song.

Mr. STOCKMAN [June 10, 1985]: The economic warning signs are abundant and all around us that drastic and decisive action needs to be taken. If the economy moves along at the slow clip that it's been on the for the last several quarters, the size of the deficit reductions needed to get us out of the danger zone will only be that much larger.

WOODRUFF: Rumors of Stockman's resignation have been circulating here in Washington for several months, but the actual announcement came as a surprise today because, budget negotiations between the House and the Senate remain at an impasse. For some bckground on the reasons for Stockman's move today, its possible effects on the budget stalemate, we have Time magazine's White House correspondent, Laurence Barrett. Mr. Barrett has covered the Reagan White House since 1981. Larry, first of all, why is he going?

LAURENCE BARRETT: It was foreordained when Don Regan replaced James Baker as chief of staff that Stockman would look for a way out sometime this year. He was very much allied with Baker and with Richard Darman, who is now deputy secretary of the Treasury. He felt at home with them and felt that they were allies in his quest, his perennial quest for what he called "the big fix." He was much less congenial with Don Regan.

WOODRUFF: Why is that?

Mr. BARRETT: Oh, they had been to some extent rivals back at the beginning of the administration when Stockman outshone Regan, then the new Treasury secretary. Also, Regan, at least in his first couple of months, gave every indication of supporting the President in the President's adamant stand against a number of measures that might have produced a compromise. Now, Don Regan himself has changed on that score as he became better educated in the budget numbers.

WOODRUFF: So it was foreordained, but --

Mr. BARRETT: But I think Stockman would have stayed had he seen some larger hope for getting that big fix, which he defines as reducing the budget deficit to some manageable proportion. He was a study in frustration for years. Year after year he would labor mightily inside -- and outside, as we saw in those film clips -- to bring some rationality into the equation, and year after year he was defeated for one reason or another. Most recently it was politics. During the 1984 campaign the President made what now in retrospect clearly is a blunder, painting himself into a corner on Social Security, giving the Democrats an excellent political issue. The President then --

WOODRUFF: On Social Security, saying that he wouldn't increase Social Security --

Mr. BARRETT: He wouldn't cut Social Security benefits under any circumstances now and forever more. Well, you can't attack a deficit without at least nibbling away at entitlements, and it's very difficult to attack other pension systems without also taking a small, modest slice out of Social Security COLAs.

WOODRUFF: So he was frustrated.

Mr. BARRETT: He was a study in frustration.

WOODRUFF: And yet he presided over some of the biggest budget cutbacks we've seen in modern history in this country.

Mr. BARRETT: That's a little deceptive. He presided over a reduction in the rate of increase, by and large, not really in cutbacks, not really in the kinds of cuts that were necessary to get one of the great goals of Reaganomics, which is to say a reduced impact of the federal government on the economy. But in some ways Stockman was more Reaganite than Reagan. Stockman had the courage or the brashness, whatever else it took, to go after really popular programs. The President did not always have that.

WOODRUFF: So how unhappy is the President to see him go? I mean, we saw that he made a very polite statement.

Mr. BARRETT: Yes, it was a polite, benign statement. The precise timing of the departure is very awkward for the administration. In fact, the President and Don Regan were informed of the timing only a couple of days ago.

WOODRUFF: So the President knew several days ago.

Mr. BARRETT: At the end of last week. It's awkward because just this week, just today the President has gone into what is now the climax of the effort to get a budget resolution for fiscal '86.

WOODRUFF: Well, if that's the case, why did Stockman choose to do so now? I mean, he understands the sensitivity of those negotiations.

Mr. BARRETT: Word began to leak out Stockman had made his deal with a New York investment banking house. Word began to leak out. I think it would have been much more prudent for them to do it, say, around Labor Day, after we knew exactly what this deal was going to be or not be. But I think Stockman realized that whatever comes out of this week's deliberations and the fact Reagan had the bipartisan leadership into the mansion tonight for one more effort at a deal. Whatever that deal is, it's going to be another bandaid, another down-payment. It's not going to be the big fix.

WOODRUFF: So what effect do you think his leaving will have? I mean, you're suggesting you don't think it'll have much effect at all, that they're doomed to --

Mr. BARRETT: I think for the short run they're probably doomed to another token swipe at the deficit, mostly for fiscal '86 with not much long-range implications for fiscal '87 and '88, because if they don't get at entitlements, which are big-buck items, over the next few years, then they can't have a long-run project. Symbolically, however, Stockman's departure I think will be read, maybe by the financial community, maybe by some on the Hill, as another sign that the administration doesn't really have the stomach for what it takes to bring about real deficit reduction over the long run.

WOODRUFF: Well, we just heard some congressional leaders saying that there won't be anybody there at the President's ear telling him that he needs to make some of the tough decisions and telling him, "You've got to do what you don't want to do."

Mr. BARRETT: Well, that depends who the successor is. Tonight we don't know. Malcolm Baldrige has been rumored as a possible successor. Baldrige --

WOODRUFF: The commerce secretary.

Mr. BARRETT: Yes. -- does have a reputation for bluntness and candor, has been a realist in a lot of the behind-the-scenes negotiations.

WOODRUFF: They haven't made a decision yet about a successor?

Mr. BARRETT: To the best of my knowledge as of tonight, no. They're going to have an interim acting director, Mr. Wright, Joe Wright. Richard Darman, presently the deputy secretary of the Treasury, has been interested in that job. He was an ally of Stockman early on. He was one of those who knew very early on, in February of 1981, that the numbers did not add up. At this point I don't think it's in the cards for Darman to get that job, although he might like it.

WOODRUFF: What about Stockman's legacy? I mean, in a few words, what has he contributed that will be lasting?

Mr. BARRETT: Oh, I think he made a lot of us in Washington, and perhaps out in the country generally, more sophisticated about the budget process. No one that I've covered in 25 years of tracking politicians and public officials, no one knew his field better than David Stockman and no one worked harder at it than Stockman. That's the great irony. He had the expertise, he had the energy and industry and yet basically he leaves in frustration. But he did educate a lot of people, and I think a lot of us now look with more sophistication on this very arcane process, the making of a budget.

WOODRUFF: Just one quick thing. Do you think the White House is angry at him for the timing of his departure?

Mr. BARRETT: Oh, I think perhaps some of the staff would have preferred to cope with this three or four weeks from now rather than today in the midst of this final negotiation, which may not work at all.

WOODRUFF: Larry Barrett, thank you for being with us.

Mr. BARRETT: Loved it. California Fires

LEHRER: We look next at those devastating fires out West, where 900,000 acres in 11 states have already been scorched, and the end is not yet in sight. California has been the hardest hit, with Governor George Deukmejian declaring a state of emergency in two counties, San Diego and San Luis Obispo, and the city of Los Angeles.

[voice-over] The California fires broke out last week and have killed five people and damaged or destroyed more than 150 homes. Authorities say that some of the fires were caused by lightning but that others were set by arsonists. Firefighters' efforts to contain the various blazes have been hampered by lack of sleep and high temperatures. The fire in San Luis Obispo, which has consumed 64,000 acres, has damaged or destroyed 15 homes and forced the evacuation of 5,000 to 10,000 residents. It also led authorities to close the scenic coastal highway from San Luis Obispo north to Big Sur. That fire is now 80 contained, according to a fire spokesman, and the residents evacuated earlier have begun to return to their homes. The state's biggest fire continues to rage in the Los Padres National Forest near Ojai, 65 miles northwest of Los Angeles. The fire, which is believed to have been started by arsonists, has already claimed some 85,000 acres. Authorities say the fire is no longer a threat, however, to the small cities of Ojai and Carpenteria.

[on camera] Marika Gerard of the independent L.A. News service spoke today with residents in one of the hit areas, the Baldwin Hills district of Los Angeles.

MARIKA GERARD, L.A. News [voice-over]: One week ago today fire raced up a brush-covered hillside in a quiet neighborhood in Los Angeles. More than 50 homes were destroyed by the fast-moving flames. Three people lost their lives. Police are now trying to find the people they say deliberately set this blaze. Firefighters are supervising the tedious task of clearing away the brush on nearby hillsides in the hopes of preventing such disasters next time. Here on Don Carlos Drive there is nothing left but blackened ruins. Residents are left trying to put their lives back in order.

ALICE BENNETT, resident: And we just come up most every day to look around, see if we can salvage anything.

MILDRED WISSLER, resident: Well, everything is sort of confusing right now. You know, talking to the insurance agent and finding out what I can get for living expenses and maybe renting somewhere and finding out about rebuilding.

LEHRER: With us now from Sacramento is the California official in charge of coordinating the state's firefighting effort. He is Bill Medicovich, director of the Office of Emergency Services. He is in the studios of public station KBIE-Sacramento. How would you characterize the situation generally tonight? Is it getting better or is it getting worse?

BILL MEDICOVICH: Well, Jim, there is good news and there is bad news, and of course we want to try to keep a note of optimism in this because we take pride in this state's fire mutual aid system and the people that are out there in the ranks, some 9,000 strong, who are supporting our effort to combat these fires. The major problem that we're having at this hour has shifted up north from down south to the Bay Area, San Francisco Bay Area, Santa Clara County, where there's a major fire under way there now surrounding an area called Lexington Reservoir. And this is currently jeopardizing a number of homes that are there, some 4,000 homes. They've had a number of evacuations. Overall, the situation still remains tough, although we are optimistic that we can make some headway.

LEHRER: Do you think those 4,000 homes are in serious jeopardy?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: At this time the winds are unpredictable; the heat wave that has returned to California is not enhancing the situation for us at all, and it looks like we are going to be in for a tough haul over the next few days.

LEHRER: What is involved in fighting this fire -- that particular fire and the others generally?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Well, Jim, as I mentioned, we have a mutual aid system for handling fires in California. It's unique to California. Very few other states have it. And it's been the saving grace in this whole effort. It's a time-tested program that involves neighbor helping neighbor and is coordinated through our fire response agencies, such as the California Division of Forestry working in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and all its resources, the National Guard, the local departments that are involved in the various municipalities and county levels. We bring those people together so that we can focus them on fires wherever they are necessary in the state and we can effectively move them from one area to the other, and most of the time do so ahead of the fire so that we can pre-position people and resources to be able to act promptly and swiftly.

LEHRER: What is the most effective weapon against a spreading brush fire?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: We believe that it is command and control, and we have a system called the incident command system, which effectively gives leadership and direction at the locale where the fire is concerned. It allows us to bring resources in rapidly and effectively use them and also know where people are. It's backed up by --

LEHRER: I meant more in a physical way. I mean, the use of digging holes -- do you dig holes? Are you using water? Or helicopters or -- I mean, you've had a lot of experience now in the last week or so. What is it that actually stops these fires when you're able to stop one?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Well, Jim, we have -- all those methods have been used effectively, and we have been using the aerial resources, air resources. We have an air operations command center that's done jointly with multi-agencies. Been able to use the large air tankers to come in and drop water with fire retardant ahead of the flames, also use helicopters to bring in water and drop those directly on the fire scene. The technique of the firemen is to get out there, start backfires, to carve out trails and bridge the gap between the areas where fuel is intense and where the ground -- the Wildlife fires can take off and kind of set up a Maginot Line between the fires and other areas.

LEHRER: Let's talk about causes for a moment. As everybody says, part of them were caused by arsonists, part of them were caused by lightning striking trees and setting things off. Can you give me some breakdown in general terms as to how much of each?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Well, in two major fires at least -- we know the Baldwin Hills tragedy of course was arson set. The Santa Barbara-Ventura area, which they refer to as the Wheeler fires, has an arson origin. A couple others are listed as being of suspicious origin, and we haven't definitely figured out if it was caused by arson. These things do happen. You couple them with the lightning and with the accidental fires that occur, and of course they can erupt into a major effort. And that's what's taken place in California.

LEHRER: I know the fires are still -- the suspected arson fires are still under investigation, but can you give me any feel for what would motivate somebody to start a brushfire like this?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: You know, that's been an old question that's been asked time and time again. The individuals that do these sort of things obviously have psychological problems. We do try to educate the public and have campaigns that are very effective for the most part, educating the children. There are special programs called fire alerts in neighborhoods, and we bring the message, especially in the urban areas, to the attention of those groups and target groups.

LEHRER: But obviously somebody has not gotten the message. On the accidental fires, take me through that. Lightning strikes what, and then what happens, and why does it happen so quickly, and why does it get out of control so quickly?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Well, in terms of lightning coming in, if the humidity is down and you have an area where the fuels are there -- that is, the grasses or timber -- and it's very, very dry, it of course sparks a fire. That, coupled with winds, and we've had several days of some strong winds in California, it quickly can take that fire and move it very rapidly. And anything that's in its way will be consumed.

LEHRER: What is your feeling now as we sit here tonight? Is the worst over, or, like the fire in northern California that you spoke about a moment ago, is that a sign that things are even getting worse?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Well, you know, as I said there is good news and bad news. Some of the major fires are under control and being contained. This new fire is out of control at the present time. We are moving a lot of manpower and equipment into that area to deal with it, and we want to be optimistic that our system, although it's taxed very heavily, that we will be able to finally get control of this thing.

LEHRER: Are you finding it a little difficult to be optimistic tonight, however?

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Today especially, Jim. But our people -- there are a lot of heroes out there, some 9,000 strong volunteers from throughout the country, from some 12 different states that we have in here, and Governor Deukmejian moved very decisively early on in this thing to activate the California National Guard, to bring their resources in a support role to the aid and assistance of the fire services personnel.

LEHRER: Well, Mr. Medicovich, our best to you and good luck to you and thank you for being with us tonight.

Mr. MEDICOVICH: Thank you, Jim.

LEHRER: Judy?

WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour, a documentary report on the crippling disease that affects thousands of people and a debate over gun control. Progress on Parkinson's

LEHRER: There is finally some good news about a crippler called Parkinson's disease, the subject of our next focus segment. The news came from researchers at Emory University in Atlanta, who may have found a way to reverse the effects of the disabling nervous disease that affects more than a half a million Americans. The possible breakthrough came from injecting brain tissue from fetal monkeys into the brains of grown monkeys with Parkinson's. And there are still many more steps before it will be tried on human beings, but at least that is progress, something that is sorely needed, as we see in this focus report on Parkinson's by Dave Iverson of public station WHA-Madison, Wisconsin.

NURSE: Okay, and here it's a matter of coordination now, gotit? Good. Now switch.

DAVE IVERSON, WHA [voice-over]: This is what's known about Parkinson's disease. It's progressive and it's incurable. After that there are far more questions than answers. This woman has Parkinson's. She can basically do what she wants. This man can't. It usually affects only the elderly, though some get it as early as their mid-twenties. It isn't hereditary, usually. It doesn't kill you; it's just incurable. Parkinson's is a paradoxical affliction that slowly robs its victims, ever so stealthily. In the end it steals a patient's ability to take anything for granted. Parkinson's disease is distinguished by a stiffening of the body, an awkward gait, a mask-like expression and uncontrollable tremors. Patients can have one, some or all of the symptoms. But long before any of those appear, something you can't see has already begun to happen inside the brain.

Dr. PAUL NAUSIEDA, neurologist: If you look at the brains of people who die of Parkinson's disease, they are distinctly different than the normal brain.

IVERSON [voice-over]: Dr. Paul Nausieda is a Milwaukee neurologist. Like scores of Parkinson's researchers around the world, Nausieda wants to understand the fundamental mystery of Parkinson's disease, a mystery hidden inside the human brain. For reasons no one really understand, Parkinson's kills cells in an area of the brain called the basal ganglia. These cells normally produce a substance called dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a critical role in certain motor system functions. Without dopamine the motor system is thrown out of alignment.

Dr. NAUSIEDA: But it's not the motor system that we normally think of in the sense of wanting to pick up a pencil and writing. That one seems to be derived from the cerebral cortex, from the thinking part of your brain. The basal gangria, in the areas that it transmits to, form what's called the extrapyramidal system, and the extrapyramidal system, to define what it does, it's sort of a circular argument. We know what it does when it doesn't work. I think if you had to characterize its functions, it controls those parts of your movements that you don't think about.

IVERSON [voice-over]: And what we don't think about is much of what we do every day. Walking, for example. You don't consciously think about moving one foot and then the other. You do it automatically. But for a Parkinson's patient, the automatic pilot just doesn't work.

THERAPIST: Real wide and head up. That's going to help your balance, too. The wide feet.

IVERSON [voice-over]: The strangest thing about Parkinson's disease is that the muscles in this patient's body are actually fine. So is the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain. Everything, in fact, works. Everything except for a few thousand brain cells of automatic programming. And that is why a Parkinson's patient can suddenly fall flat on her face while walking across the room, yet a moment later can perform what would seem like a much more difficult task, a phenomenon that frustrates both patients and their families.

Dr. NAUSIEDA: They can't understand why you can do some things so well and yet other things that seem very simple -- because they are simple; they're automatic -- are totally scrambled and give the patient great difficulty.

IVERSON [voice-over]: It is the fundamental paradox of Parkinson's disease. What's difficult can be easy, and what's easy or automatic can become impossible.

BERNICE, Parkinson's patient: My leg is stuck.

THERAPIST: Your legs are stuck. Okay, now what are you goingto do when you're stuck, Bernice?

BERNICE: Rock.

THERAPIST: Rock, that's right. You do some rocking, get yourself unstuck.

BERNICE: Okay, I can do it now.

THERAPIST: All right. See, it does work! It really does.

Dr. NAUSIEDA: The patients will stare at the floor, sort of look at their feet to determine where they're at and then visually command one leg to take a step forward. That works for some of them. One of the more novel approaches I've seen, though, is a gentleman who I took care of a number of years ago who would carry wads of crumpled paper in his pocket, and when he would freeze, he would throw a wad of crumpled paper on the floor in front of him and then tell himself he was going to step over the piece of paper.

IVERSON [voice-over]: Fortunately, patients have more than will power or wads of paper to call upon for assistance. This footage from the PBS series "The Brain" illustrates how effective drug therapy can be. A woman who can barely walk is quite literally transformed after she takes levadopa, or L-dopa, a drug first introduced in the late '60s that helps replace dopamine loss in the brain. The results are dramatic. Unfortunately, L-dopa and other Parkinson's drugs can also take their toll. Side effects can be as debilitating as the disease itself, and eventually the drugs often loose their effectiveness. Talk to a Parkinson's patient and you talk about drugs. There are scores of them. L-dopa, Sinemet, Artane, Parlodel. Patients and spouse know them by heart and know as well that none of them guarantee the future. Still, for many patients drugs can make an enormous difference, especially in the early stages of the disease.

Dr. NAUSIEDA: How about right now? How are you feeling relative to the global picture during the day? Is this about average?

KEN KILMER, Parkinson's patient: I'm average or better. I feel very good right now.

IVERSON [voice-over]: Ken Kilmer is a successful Milwaukee attorney whose Parkinson's condition has been brought largely under control. But because of the long-term side effects of drug therapy, Dr. Nausieda has reduced the level of Kilmer's medication threefold. Though he still struggles with a vareity of symptoms, Kilmer's condition has remained at a stable plateau.

Mr. KILMER: With the medication?

Dr. NAUSIEDA: Yeah, with the medication. Why don't you just turn around here a little bit. I want to check your balance. Put your feet together now. Okay, close your eyes. Good. Stand so you're comfy now.

Mr. KILMER: I know what you're going to do.

Dr. NAUSIEDA: I'm going to push on you, right. You ready?

Mr. KILMER: Ready.

Dr. NAUSIEDA: Boy, you look great. I mean, this is really one of your best exams. You look real good.

IVERSON [voice-over]: It is a truism among those who observe the progress of this disease that no two cases are ever alike. It is also true that the wide variety of symptoms often lead to misdiagnosis. That's what happened to Ken Kilmer, an athletic man who went from being an avid jogger to someone who could barely walk.

Mr. KILMER: And this was sort of devastating to me, and particularly it was devastating because I'd go to various physicians and they wouldn't have any answers. Like one of them diagnosed it as lumbar stenosis .

IVERSON [voice-over]: Kilmer visited hospitals in Boston and New York. Even the famed Mayo Clinic missed the diagnosis. Finally, Ken and Lois Kilmer learned what he had.

Mr. KILMER: It takes a period of time that you have to go through before you accept it, and you've got to accept it. And then you get to the point that you've got to stop talking about it. And I would just as soon not talk about it at all any more.

IVERSON [voice-over]: In a California laboratory, researchers just might be getting closer to understanding the essential mystery of Parkinson's disease.

Dr. WILLIAM LANGSTON, neurologist: What I'd like to do is examine you now, and I'd like to start by having you do some walking for me, okay?[voice-over] This whole story began for us when a 42-year-old man arrived at our hospital who had literally frozen up overnight. He was totally unable to move, unable to talk. We had never seen anything like it before. It turned out this gentleman was a heroin abuser.

IVERSON [voice-over]: Dr. William Langston is a California neurologist who many scientists believe just might have stumbled into one of the most promising areas of Parkinson's research, right in the middle of the California drug culture.

Dr. LANGSTON: This looked nothing like heroin abuse. In fact, it didn't look like anything I'd ever seen from any drug abuse. In fact, it really didn't resemble any disease that we knew before. Parkinson's disease, which this was identical to on clinical examination, hits elderly people, usually people over 60, and it takes years to develop. These people had frozen up literally overnight, and they were young.

IVERSON [voice-over]: What Langston and his colleagues discovered was that a powerful synthetic heroin called MTPT was producing acute Parkinsonian symptoms in the people who took it.

Dr. LANGSTON: Classic signs of Parkinson's disease are rigidity and stiffness, slowing down of movement and tremor. These patients have all of those symptoms and many more, all of them seen in Parkinson's disease. The most severely affected patients were really just extraordinary when we first saw them, young people who couldn't move at all. They just sat frozen. Some people called them zombies, and that is kind of what they looked like -- not blinking, staring into space, not able to make any sounds.

IVERSON [voice-over]: Langston discovered that MPTP killed exactly the same cells in the substantia nigra as those killed by Parkinson's disease. With on-going laboratory research he hopes to discover the missing link.

Dr. LANGSTON: The compound MPTP which has caused Parkinsonism in these young drug users has led to the first good animal model for Parkinson's disease, and that's a tremendous boon. Scientists have been looking for that for 50 years. There is even hope that this compound may help unlock some of the secrets of Parkinson's disease. So what's been a tragedy for hundreds could be a medical breakthrough for millions.

IVERSON [voice-over]: It is perhaps the final paradox. A drug culture tragedy helping to increase our understanding of a disease that plagues the elderly. But future cures are still a long ways off, and tomorrow's technology is of little help to today's patients. For them, learning to take life one slow but determined step at a time remains the best therapy, and it is a lesson we might all do well to bear in mind. Gun Control Debate

WOODRUFF: Our final focus tonight is on gun control, specifically legislation being debated in the U.S. Senate today that would ease some of the restrictions in the current federal gun control law. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in the aftermath of the assassinations of Senator Robert Kennedy and the Reverend Martin Luther King. It set up restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms. The legislation being debated today would lift the existing ban on interstate sales of guns and ease record-keeping rules for gun dealers, among other things. The National Rifle Association is the chief lobbying organization for less gun control, and one of the strongest supporters of the new bill. The executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action is Warren Cassidy.

Mr. Cassidy, you've been following the debate today on the Senate floor. They haven't taken a vote yet. Is that correct?

WARREN CASSIDY: We've been following it very closely, Judy, and they haven't. Our latest estimate is that it should be around 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock. Of course, there's many a slip twixt that cup and the lip. They have debated so far what they consider to be the non-controversial issues, and they are entering into those which are more controversial now.

WOODRUFF: Why does the NRA and those who are sponsoring this bill want a change? What is wrong with the current gun control law?

Mr. CASSIDY: The impetus behind the '68 Gun Control Act was wrong in the first place, Judy. It was aimed at the law-abiding citizen. It was aimed at record-keeping and it was aimed at inanimate objects such as the gun. It was not aimed at the criminal misuse of weapons. The reforms that we hope are passed today will shift the emphasis of the law toward the criminal element and away from the law-abiding citizen.

WOODRUFF: How will it do that specifically?

Mr. CASSIDY: It will do that basically by a number -- in a number of ways. It will define what a dealer is. Under the present law it's difficult for a definition. People are accused of selling illegally, but they really have no definition of what a dealer is to this point. It will permit an individual to purchase on an interstate basis, but it must be on a face-to-face basis. You still cannot go through the mail, as we have heard some of the critics of the bill state that it will allow mail-order sales. It will not allow mail-order sales.

WOODRUFF: But why that change in particular?

Mr. CASSIDY: Because it's been a harassment, really, to the law-abiding citizen, someone who goes to another state. They're on a hunting trip. They see a rifle that they would like to purchase. Now they cannot just sign the necessary federal form, 4473, pay their money and take the rifle away with them. They must go back to their home state, go to a federally licensed dealer, an FFL. He sends his permit to the dealer in the other state. The dealer in the other state then mails the firearm to him and the fellow in your home state advises you that it's here and you go pick it up. There is no law enforcement benefit to any of the reforms that we hope are passed today, and I think that that is one of the most important aspects of it.

WOODRUFF: But what about the argument that these kinds of easing up in the bill will have the effect of making violent crime more possible?

Mr. CASSIDY: Well, happily the two organizations that have been charged basically with its enforcement, the Justice Department and the Treasury Department, are totally in accord with our thinking. They have testified before Senator Strom Thurmond's committee in that very fact, and they have written in to the Congress on that fact. So if the two organizations that are really charged with the enforcement say that these changes are good and proper and will not affect their ability to fight crime, then we have to accept that, I think.

WOODRUFF: So the major changes are making it easier to buy a gun across state lines, is that correct?

Mr. CASSIDY: That is one change. Another change, of course, is it will permit the -- it will define a dealer, for example, so that now if you're going to be charged with mis-selling guns and not having the proper forms and so forth, you will in fact be identified for what you are, and that's never happened before. The biggest thing I think is that it will require intent. Right now there is no intent required for you to be convicted of a felony under the present law. Under the law that we hope is passed in the Senate today, you will have to willfully or knowingly break the law -- know what you're doing and not a careless mistake like leaving out a question on the form or forgetting your place of birth, and those type of things now are felonies. That will change that, and we think that's one of the very most important things. Another point is that under the present law if you are charged with something, your firearms are confiscated. They are never returned now, even though you're found innocent. The law they're debating today, if you're found innocent within a period of so many days your firearms will be returned to you.

WOODRUFF: Warren Cassidy, stay with us. Jim?

LEHRER: The other side of it now from Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio and advocate of stronger gun control laws. He joins us from Capitol Hill. Senator, what are your problems with the McClure changes?

Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM: Oh, I think if you're for law and order then you can't be for the McClure-Volkmer bill. Now, it's interesting to note that the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Association of State Troopers in this country are all opposed to the bill, and they're concerned about the cop-killers. They're concerned about somebody walking into a store, going across a state line, picking up a gun and going out and either killing a cop -- incidentally, 700 of the 900 police officers killed in recent months were killed with guns. And they're concerned about that. And the law enforcement agencies just realize that when you make it easier for criminals to buy guns, more people are going to get killed, and therefore they're opposed to this legislation.

LEHRER: And you think that the interstate change would make that more -- it would make it easier for criminals to get guns?

Sen. METZENBAUM: It's indisputable because today you could not go, say, from Ohio into Indiana or whatever the states may be and just walk in and buy a gun. But the fact is that with this -- with amendments that are being passed on the floor of the Senate at this very moment under the McClure bill, it will facilitate the buying of guns on an interstate basis. And that's just absolutely bound to hurt. And, furthermore, the bill will eliminate the record-keeping that made it possible to trace the Hinckley gun within a couple of hours after the President had been shot.

LEHRER: You mean, if these changes were in law then you wouldn't have been able to trace the Hinckley gun? Is that what you're saying?

Sen. METZENBAUM: It would have been a much more complicated and much more difficult procedure to trace the gun.

LEHRER: What about --

Sen. METZENBAUM: Under the present procedures it's very simple to do.

LEHRER: What about Mr. Cassidy's overall point, though, that the law as now written really affects law-abiding citizens a lot more than it does those who would violate the law?

Sen. METZENBAUM: I'm very glad that you mentioned that. There isn't anybody in the Congress, 535 members, that wants to deny the right of sportsmen to have their guns. Nobody wants to affect their rights. Nobody wants to affect the right of the individualwho wants a gun in his or her home. All of us would agree that they have that right. Nobody wants to impinge upon that right. What we're talking about is that hothead, the fellow who gets sore on a Saturday night, gets all hopped up with drugs or liquor or is sore at his girlfriend or is sore at his friend or somebody else, runs into the store, buys a gun, goes out and kills 'em. I have in my hand here, from the Bedford Gun & Tackle Store up around Cleveland, someone went in and bought a gun, not very long thereafter, walked in the library at Cleveland, bang, bang, bang; killed one woman and two other people. He didn't know them at all, but he just was sore. And what we're trying to do, in addition to the matters that have been mentioned, is to provide a waiting period so that there will be a delay, that you can't walk in and buy a gun immediately. Seventeen states have that now. Unfortunately Mr. Cassidy's organization, the National Rifle Association, opposes any waiting period.

LEHRER: Now, what's the advantage to a waiting period, Senator?

Sen. METZENBAUM: A waiting period means that you can't walk in when you're under the influence of drugs or drink or when you're just hot and sore at somebody, walk in, buy the gun and go out and kill somebody.

LEHRER: Now that is not, of course, part of the McClure changes. That's part of the changes you want to make in the McClure changes, right?

Sen. METZENBAUM: That is correct. If we're going to have this bill, well, then we ought to have put in there some waiting period, which is what was in the bill when it came out of the Judiciary Committee a few years ago. This bill didn't go through a committee; it just came straight to the floor. And I think if it went back through the Judiciary Committee and had the normal hearings, I think with the support of the Fraternal Order of Police and the state trooper coalition and the International Association of Police Chiefs, all of which support the waiting period, I think we very well may have been able to get it in as an amendment in the Judiciary Committee.

LEHRER: Senator, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Cassidy, what about the waiting period that Senator Metzenbaum says should be in this bill?

Mr. CASSIDY: I think the waiting period, Judy, is something that esoterically or theoretically sounds very good. As a matter of fact, most of the violent felonies committed in this country are committed between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. in the morning, and there is no gun store in the country open at that time. Industry records will show that up to 75 of new or used gun sales are to people who already own firearms. The record -- excuse me, go ahead.

WOODRUFF: I was just going to say but Senator Metzenbaum made the point that what about the person who gets upset about something, the hothead who goes in, buys a gun, and whether he waits a couple of hours or whatever --

Mr. CASSIDY: Again, it sounds good theoretically, but the records don't support the Senator's contentions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report is the only collected data in this country year after year, and they will show that in domestic disturbances, where there is a domestic violence, a family has an upset, the police have gone to that same residence an average of four times. It isn't the ordinary American family, you and yours sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner, that's having the trouble because there's a gun there. It's a family that has had the police there at least four times. The states that have --

WOODRUFF: So you're saying that having a gun quickly available wouldn't make any difference --

Mr. CASSIDY: No, I think any psychiatrist will show that if you're in that violent a mood whatever is handy -- 34 states have rejected waiting periods, by the way.

WOODRUFF: Senator Metzenbaum, do you want to respond?

Sen. METZENBAUM: I certainly do. In Florida in a six-month period in one county they picked up 40 felons during the waiting period. In South Carolina they have no waiting period. Three hundred felons were able to go in and buy guns just like that. Now, what you can do during this waiting period is you have an opportunity to check with the FBI's files to see whether or not a felon is attempting to buy a gun or isn't. You can use the fingerprints, you can use the names. And I can't understand why anybody who believes in law and order, anybody who is reasonable would be opposed to a waiting period.

WOODRUFF: Well, is that your chief objection to --

Sen. METZENBAUM: No, my chief objection is to the matter of these interstate sales that would be made more possible under the McClure Amendment, and also the fact that the McClure bill --

WOODRUFF: Well, let me stop you there. Let me ask Mr. Cassidy about that, the interstate sales. I mean, you've heard him explain earlier why he opposes that.

Mr. CASSIDY: Well, I don't understand it, because if I go to the Senator's state, to Ohio, and if the McClure bill does pass and is eventually signed into law, I still have to identify myself to the federal dealer. I can't buy it from an individual. I would have to present my driver's license. I would have to complete the same form in Ohio that I do in Virginia. The dealer has to be cognizant and I do that I'm not breaking the law either of the state of Ohio or the state of Virginia. I fail to see why that would have any effect.

WOODRUFF: Senator Metzenbaum?

Sen. METZENBAUM: There is a difference, because under the proposal of the McClure bill, the dealer would be held responsible to see to it that you comply with the laws of your own state. Now, frankly speaking, no gun dealer is in a position to determine what the laws are of 49 other states, and I don't understand why we have to make it possible. What's wrong with the present law as it is, why we have to make it possible to walk across a state line, buy a gun without any waiting period and go out and raise some hell. It just doesn't make good sense to me.

WOODRUFF: Do you want to respond to that?

Mr. CASSIDY: Yes, very quickly I will respond. I think it is up to anyone who is going to impinge upon the freedoms of the American public to prove that there is a good and sufficient cause for passing laws, legislation, that restrict that individual's freedoms. The senator says he can't understand why we would object to this and he can't understand why we would object to that. I would come back respectfully to the senator and say I think you have to prove, and it has not been proved since 1968, that these laws have benefitted law enforcement. He mentioned Florida and South Carolina. I would like to compare the crime rates in south Florida and South Carolina, and I am sure South Carolina has a lower crime rate.

WOODRUFF: But what about the fact that he mentioned that the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Police Chiefs are both opposing --

Sen. METZENBAUM: And the state troopers.

WOODRUFF: And the state troopers.

Mr. CASSIDY: I would take this opportunity on your program, Judy, and I know we're live, to challenge the leaders of those very respectable organizations to allow their members to vote on that. To date theyhave not. These are leaders that are professing to speak for the rank and file. I would challenge all of those very fine law enforcement groups to poll their members and see how they really stand. They have not done that.

Sen. METZENBAUM: Well, that might be a good idea if the National Rifle Association would be prepared to poll its members on some of these issues. Ninety-one percent of the American people in a public poll indicated they support a waiting period, and my guess is that the members of Mr. Cassidy's organization would do likewise.

WOODRUFF: Have you polled your members?

Mr. CASSIDY: Yes, we have polled them extensively and we do poll constantly, Judy, and that is not the case. The members do not feel that way, and we think that our record in elections show that the public at large does not either.

WOODRUFF: But your point about the police is that you contend that the policeman, policewoman on the beat would be in favor of these changes, despite --

Mr. CASSIDY: Yes, I believe so because they are people that are active in shooting.

WOODRUFF: What do you base that on?

Mr. CASSIDY: The fact that we perhaps have estimated 300- to 500,000 law enforcement men and women who belong to the National Rifle Association. We do get endorsements from them in California, Prop 15 and in Massachusetts, Question 5. They always come down on the side that NRA is on, on the local-state levels.

WOODRUFF: Senator Metzenbaum, a last quick word.

Sen. METZENBAUM: Well, my feeling is that if you're in favor of law and order, you want to stick with the law and order groups such as the police chiefs and the state troopers. And I believe that there is no reason for the McClure bill. I believe that all of us want to protect the right of every American who wants a gun for self-defense and every sportsman to have a gun, but I don't think we ought to have the McClure bill, because I think it's going to cause less law and order in this country.

WOODRUFF: Senator Metzenbaum and Warren Cassidy here in Washington, thank you both for being with us. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this day. David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director, resigned to take a position with a New York investment firm. The fires ravaging brush and forests in 11 Western states continue to spread and the end is not yet in sight, and Secretary of State Shultz pledged continued U.S. support for guerrillas fighting the Vietnamese in Cambodia. Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.