The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news today, the Senate told President Reagan to cancel his visit to the Bitburg cemetery. Mr. Reagan called for a reassessment of U.S. policy toward Nicaragua. The Republican budget package failed to come to a vote again in the Senate, and the U.S. expelled a Soviet military attache over the death of the U.S. Army major in East Germany. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Here's our rundown on the NewsHour tonight. After the news summary, three focus sections. Senator Howard Metzenbaum discusses the Bitburg resolution he introduced with conservative Richard Viguerie. Judy Woodruff reports on the President's recent difficulties. Is the second Reagan term losing momentum? We discuss that further with political analysts John Sears and Harry McPherson. Then a documentary report on a plan for education reform in Minnesota.News Summary

LEHRER: The U.S. Senate today asked the President to stay away from Bitburg. Eighty-three of the 100 senators signed a resolution which then passed by a voice vote. It calls on Mr. Reagan to cancel his May 5th visit to the World War II cemetery where 2,000 German soldiers, including some 50 SS troops, are buried. The stop should be replaced by one at a symbol of German democracy, said the resolution. It had bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled Senate, including that of the Republican majority leader, Senator Robert Dole. Dole said on the Senate floor that the resolution was not an effort to jump on the President but an expression of the Senate's belief homage should be paid to the civilians and allied soldiers who died at the hands of the Nazis. Other senators explained their positions afterward this way.

Sen. ALAN CRANSTON, (D) California: Why is the current German government holding President Reagan to a commitment he never should have made and which the American people don't want him to keep? Are Germany's ties to the United States and the West so weak, so tenuous, so insecure and uncertain that Germany's price for reassurance is the humiliation of our President? Chancellor Kohl, free President Reagan. Let our President go.

Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM, (D) Ohio: The loud and clear message to the Germans is that we want reconciliation with the Germans but we don't want our President paying his respects to the Nazi SS Waffen troops that are buried at Bitburg. There are far more appropriate places that can be chosen.

Sen. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) Pennsylvania: The loud and clear message to the West German government is that the United States Senate, which has quite a lot to say about U.S.-West German relations on appropriations matters and others feel very strongly about this issue, and it's something that we will remember.

LEHRER: A key Senate sponsor of the resolution and a critic of it will discuss its merits and wisdom in our lead focus segment right after this news summary. Robin?

MacNEIL: President Reagan ordered a top-level review of options to influence the situation in Nicaragua following congressional defeat of his plan to aid the contras. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the President had asked Secretary of State George Shultz and National Security Advisor Robert MacFarlane to review the full family of measures that could be taken. Speakes said the review had become necessary because the House vote rejecting contra aid has compromised the situation. At the White House President Reagan received South Korean President Chun Doo-Hwan with praise for his declared aim of restoring full democracy. The President also commended Chun for his direct talks with North Korea.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: President Chun and I share a concern about the continuing forward deployment of North Korean forces toward the demilitarized zone. We agree that this deployment heightens the need for vigilance on our part. The two Koreas today stand apart, but this may not always be so, and we pray it will not be. I expressed support to President Chun for the Republic of Korea's creative approach in engaging North Korea in direct talks. We share the conviction that the key to reducing tension lies in a direct dialogue between the parties.

Pres. CHUN DOO-HWAN, President of South Korea [through interpreter]: The President of the United States has reaffirmed the firm commitment of the United States to the defense of Korea. We also share the view that endeavors to resolve the Korean question through direct dialogue between South and North Korea are more important now than ever before.

MacNEIL: As regards his domestic situation, in advance of today's visit, Chun gave some freedom to opposition leader Kim Dae-Jung and lifted bans on other government critics.

LEHRER: It was a bad day for President Reagan's plans for cutting the federal budget. First, a White House ceremony to honor volunteers turned into something else when one of the honorees pleaded with Mr. Reagan not to cut benefits for young and elderly native Americans. Seventy-two-year-old May Chee Castillo, a Navajo Indian from Window Rock, Arizona, was honored for risking her life to save some children from a burning school bus. She spoke then to the President in Navajo. Mrs. Castillo pleaded for schools, hospitals, senior services, and she asked the President to preserve Social Security at current levels. She said Social Security was the only source of income for many native Americans. There was this response from Mr. Reagan.

Pres. REAGAN: And, Mrs. Castillo, I would like to say that I think most of those things that you were talking about here and those problems come under what we have called the safety net, and which we intend to continue, and even with regard with our battles to lower the deficit, these things will not be done away with or reduced.

LEHRER: Meanwhile there was trouble in the Senate, where the leadership backed away again from a vote on Mr. Reagan's budget-cutting plan. Senate Majority Leader Dole conceded he still did not have the votes to win it so he put off the vote until next week. He said several Republican senators had reservations about the plan that trims Social Security increases and eliminates Amtrak and 16 other federal programs. Senator Dole had originally hoped to get a favorable vote last night on the overall plan to capitalize on Mr. Reagan's Wednesday night address to the nation. The Democrats also served notice today of their opposition to the plan. Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina was among those to speak out and to offer a freeze alternative. His plan includes $25 billion in tax increases and none of the severe domestic cuts in the Republican plan.

Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS, (D) South Carolina: Our submission of a freeze is across the board, a shared sacrifice. It includes a freeze of defense, a freeze of Social Security and all other entitlements, a freeze on federal pay, a freeze on the social programs and a freeze on revenues or tax expenditures. It's just like the mayor of a city in America would do; he'd take this year's budget and translate it into law for next year. We've taken President Reagan's budget that he ran on, and was overwhelmingly re-elected upon, and we want to re-enact that in law for next year and save the government $35 billion.

LEHRER: And a famous government report celebrated its second birthday today: "A Nation at Risk" was its title and its subject was the state of the public schools in America. The report warned of a rising tide of mediocrity in the schools, and it set off a chorus of criticism and reform that is still underway. Education Secretary William Bennett, in an anniversary statement today, said the reforms are beginning to take hold throughout the country and there is now reason for optimism. We will have a report from Minnesota later in the program on one particular attempt at reform.

MacNEIL: The United States expelled a Soviet diplomat today in retaliation for Moscow's refusal to renounce the use of force against American military liaison officers. The dispute began when a Soviet sentry shot a U.S. Army major in East Germany last month. The State Department called the Soviet position unacceptable and gave the diplomat, an assistant military attache at the Soviet Embassy, seven days to leave the country.

In Warsaw, the seven nations of the Communist military alliance met today on its 30th anniversary and renewed the Warsaw Pact for 20 more years. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, told his allies Moscow would agree to deep cuts in nuclear weapons if the United States would abandon its Star Wars defense project. It was the first time Gorbachev had left the Soviet Union since he took power last month. The Warsaw Pact was formed when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization decided to let West Germany rearm and join the Western alliance. The ceremony took place in the same hall where the original Warsaw Treaty was signed. The renewal is subject to ratification by the members -- U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Romania and Bulgaria.

In South Africa police reported five more deaths in more incidents of violence and arson in black townships. Three of the victims died in clashes in which police opened fire. The South African president, P.W. Botha, ruled out talks with the African National Congress, as suggested by the ANC leader Oliver Tambo. Botha said he would not negotiate with anybody who supports violence.

In southern Lebanon, Palestinians and Muslim militiamen moved into villages evacuated by Israeli troops. The Palestinians went on a rampage near Sidon, looting and burning two Christian villages. Here's a report on the aftermath of the Israeli withdrawal by Keith Graves of the BBC.

KEITH GRAVES, BBC [voice-over]: For a month the Christians poured down fire from the hills upon the Muslims below. Now the Muslims are taking their revenge. They're heading east from the coast through the hills, driving the Christians before them, ransacking and looting deserted Christian villages and putting buildings to the torch. The Christian gunmen responsible for it all had traveled south 25 miles from Beirut a month ago to attack the Muslims of Sidon. They killed more than 100, wounded 500, but when things got too hot they fled, escaping by sea, taking their guns and armor with them and leaving the hapless Christian villagers to the ravages of the revenge-seeking Muslims. This is territory where Christian loyalties are to the murdered president Bashir Gemayel, hard-line Christians who have for years lorded it over the Muslims, lately backed by the now-retreated Israelis. So there are many scores to settle. And, ominously, amongst the Shia Muslim gunmen are Palestinians, back in evidence here for the first time since the Israeli invasion nearly three years ago was supposed to drive them from Lebanon.

LEHRER: Back in this country, United Press International will file for bankruptcy. The board of directors of the news service voted unanimously to do so this morning in Los Angeles. A UPI spokesman said the company did not have the money to cover its current payroll. Federal bankruptcy procedures could make it possible to reorganize while being protected from creditors. The spokesman said he expected UPI's news wire and other services to continue uninterrupted.

And finally in the news of the day, a reminder that daylight savings time comes again this weekend. That means turning the clock ahead one hour. It should be done at or before the official changeover, which comes at 2:00 a.m. Sunday. Storm Over Bitburg

LEHRER: The lead story tonight is the unusual resolution that blew through the United States Senate this afternoon. It calls on President Reagan to cancel his trip to the Bitburg German war cemetery next month and replace it with a stop that would be a symbol of German democracy. Eighty-three of the 100 senators signed the resolution and it passed by a voice vote. It is only a resolution and it is not binding on the President, but many of Mr. Reagan's fellow Republicans supported it. Its co-author was a Democrat, Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio. He is here tonight with Richard Viguerie, a leading conservative activist who is now running for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor of Virginia, among other things. Senator, what do you see as the purpose of this resolution?

Sen. METZENBAUM: I think to let the President as well as the West German government know that the United States Senate, which I believe represents the people of this country -- it certainly does, and certainly with all shades of political opinion -- we don't want the President to visit Bitburg. Bitburg's the place where the Nazi SS Waffen troops were buried. We don't think he should be laying a wreath there. These were the most vicious and ferocious of the Nazi troops. These were the same troops that at Normandy, just 30 miles away, mowed down 100 American prisoners of war who were totally defenseless. They were involved in the Battle of the Bulge, in which we lost 18,000 Americans and 83,000 were casualties. There are so many more places that can be visited, that should be visited, where the President can pay his respects. And he certainly doesn't have to go to Bitburg. And I think many of the senators are saying, as I'm saying, that the Germans should not be insisting that he make the visit to Bitburg.

LEHRER: But, Senator, why the resolution today? This has been going on now for many, many days. The President has said, as the White House said again today, there was going to be no change. He was going to go to Bitburg. Why pass the resolution this afternoon?

Sen. METZENBAUM: Oh, that's a pretty simple answer for me because I've been trying to get that resolution to the floor day in and day out for about the last 10 days, and finally this afternoon, when I knew that we would not be in session tomorrow and we'll have no votes on Monday and the President's leaving on Tuesday, I indicated to the leadership of the Senate that either they gave me a window where I could bring up this resolution and bring it to a vote or I was going to force a vote on the issue, and I think rather than have me force a vote they thought it was better to work it out in a conciliatory manner, and I was pleased that they did do so.

LEHRER: Mr. Viguerie, what do you think of what the Senate did?

RICHARD VIGUERIE: Well, I think that a lot of our viewers, Jim, would wish that the U.S. Senate could move as quickly to deal with the matters of deficits and high interest rates as they do on something that seems to be heavily political. The President is obviously, Senator, not honoring those SS troopers there; he's trying to heal the wounds of a very bitter war, and these people, the Germans, are as strong an ally that we have in the world today, and this is an attempt to heal some wounds, and he's not honoring those troopers that brutalized our soldiers and the Jews back 40 years ago. But also something else, Senator. If this is really a concern about the Holocaust, why isn't something done about an on-going holocaust? Isn't the best way to honor those who died, those six million people who died in the German Holocaust of 40, 45 years ago, to prevent an on-going holocaust in Afghanistan, the Miskito Indians in Nicaragua? The Congress had an opportunity this week to oppose the Soviet Union's murder of people in our own hemisphere, and they ran from that opportunity.

Sen. METZENBAUM: Richard, I don't want to change the issue before us, because the issues to which you address yourself are matters that are before the Senate and I'm prepared to debate them with you, and I'm not sure whether we'd agree on all of them or disagree. But the only issue before us this evening and the one that is so relevant at the moment is, should the President visit Bitburg, lay a wreath on the graves of soldiers who were involved in murdering helpless civilians? These very same SS Waffen troops actually massacred civilian cities and just wiped the people out. They not only went after the Jews. Don't forget the fact that there were six million Jews lost in the Holocaust and there were 11 million people in total lost. And every single one of them, every single one of them is memorialized when the President visits there. But why do it by laying a wreath at the tomb of an SS Waffen soldier?

Mr. VIGUERIE: Senator, he's not laying a wreath at the tomb of an SS trooper. He's laying a wreath at the tomb of those German soldiers there to try to heal the wounds of a war with a very close, important ally right now.

Sen. METZENBAUM: Richard, he could visit -- he could lay a wreath at the tomb of Konrad Adenauer. He could lay a wreath in a church --

Mr. VIGUERIE: Senator, let me ask you a question.

Sen. METZENBAUM: -- in a service memorializing Germans and Americans as well who lost their life --

Mr. VIGUERIE: Senator --

Sen. METZENBAUM: This is a cemetery that only has SS Waffen troops and other --

Mr. VIGUERIE: Okay, Jim?

Sen. METZENBAUM: -- German --

Mr. VIGUERIE: It has 47 SS troopers and thousands of German soldiers. Senator, many of our members of the United States Congress go to the Soviet Union, literally, and lay a tomb at Lenin's tomb -- lay a wreath, excuse me, lay a wreath at Lenin's tomb. Do you have a problem with that? Do you try to push a resolution to condemn your colleagues who are laying awreath at one of the greatest mass murderers in the history of the world?

Sen. METZENBAUM: I don't have the same kind of feeling in that context. Don't forget this purpose. When those colleagues go to the Soviet Union, they do many things there. They talk to the Soviets about letting free the refuseniks, letting people leave the Soviet Union; they talk about bringing to a halt the arms race, and whatever they do in that respect -- and each of them has to decide for himself, but in this instance there isn't any reason why the Germans should be insisting upon the President's visit to Bitburg and why the President himself should be causing himself all of this embarrassment.

LEHRER: Mr. Viguerie, let me ask you this question. The purpose, as you say, and the President has said, for the visit from the very beginning was reconciliation.

Mr. VIGUERIE: Sure.

LEHRER: Some who feel the same way you do, some of the senators, in fact, who voted with Senator Metzenbaum said today that purpose has now been lost, for whatever reason, because of the nature of the controversy that has emerged. Do you disagree?

Mr. VIGUERIE: Well, certainly I think the President's political opponents have taken this opportunity to jump on him. They're not able to lay a glove on him on many other matters --

Sen. METZENBAUM: Richard, Dole spoke for this and Simpson spoke for it.

Mr. VIGUERIE: Well, because people like yourself put so much pressure on him, Senator --

Sen. METZENBAUM: And Trent Lott in the House spoke for it. I mean, all sorts of Republicans --

Mr. VIGUERIE: Only because --

Sen. METZENBAUM: -- Specter voted for it --

Mr. VIGUERIE: -- only because the liberal Democrats -- only because the liberal Democrats have put so much pressure on him.

Sen. METZENBAUM: I want to tell you something. I put a lot of pressure on my Republican colleagues a lot of times, but I don't get them to speak for the position that I advocate. This is an instance in which they agree, and don't forget, even before the resolution was on the floor, Robert Dole on national television last weekend indicated he didn't think the President ought to visit Bitburg.

Mr. VIGUERIE: Senator, this, we have to remember, as liberals are quick to remind this President, you are President of all of the people, and there is a lot more involved than the domestic political problems here in this country. The West Germans are our most important allies in NATO, supplying half of our NATO --

Sen. METZENBAUM: And they should appreciate the importance of this, and they ought to back off.

Mr. VIGUERIE: They should, Senator --

Sen. METZENBAUM: Nobody wants to affect that relationship, Richard. I want them to be our ally.

Mr. VIGUERIE: Well, I'm afraid the President's -- we should have a situation -- as you know, Senator, we used to have, years ago, where politics stopped at the water's edge. I'm afraid nowadays it kind of starts at the water's edge.

Sen. METZENBAUM: Richard, you can't make this political because there are almost as many Republicans who are on this resolution as Democrats, and the Senate passed it unanimously. There wasn't one negative vote. So this is not a political issue. This is a bipartisan matter.

LEHRER: Do you think the President should not cancel the visit now? He should go no matter what?

Mr. VIGUERIE: Not now. Sure, it's easy in hindsight, Jim, to say that it was a mistake. But, having done that, there is the big ballgame. We've got a lot of things to look at, and this President must be seen as being strong, as being decisive, that his word is his word and he's not going to run when some of his political opponents like Senator Metzenbaum put pressure on him, and I think the repercussions for years to come would be significant --

LEHRER: Do you think --

Mr. VIGUERIE: -- if the President runs from Senator Metzenbaum now.

LEHRER: Do you think that the German government is justified in holding the President to --

Mr. VIGUERIE: Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. They should have -- you know, I don't know, I don't walk in Chancellor Kohl's shoes. I'm not sure what pressures he's under, but I would have liked to have seen him bail the President out, sure.

LEHRER: Do you expect the President to change his mind, Senator Metzenbaum, or is this just kind of a symbolic gesture on the part of the Senate?

Sen. METZENBAUM: I still think he will.

LEHRER: You think he will not go to Bitburg?

Sen. METZENBAUM: I think he will not go to Bitburg, but I must confess that part of that is that the hope is and the wish is causing my ultimate conclusion that he will not. But I feel that there is such a unanimity of opinion, editorials and all sorts of groups -- there's Polish groups, Czechoslovakian groups and Italian groups -- and across the board they're urging him not to go.

LEHRER: Could you find a way out for the President if he decided he did not want to go? Is there a way out for him? Has he got to go now?

Mr. VIGUERIE: I think the only way that he can't -- that he should not go is if, on their own, the West Germans let him off the hook. Because if he backs away from this, from political pressure by the liberal Democrats here, he will be seen by many of our allies, by our enemies, by our opponents, the Communists, the Soviets, as a person who can be moved and shoved around by political pressures. And he must weather this and it'll pass in a few months, but if he breaks his word now and yields to the political pressure, the repercussions could last many years.

Sen. METZENBAUM: I think the point you made about the Soviets is a very good one, and that is that if he goes the Soviets will eat him up alive.

Mr. VIGUERIE: They're eating him up now.

Sen. METZENBAUM: And the fact is -- thats right, and I'll tell you something.

Mr. VIGUERIE: They're the only winner.

Sen. METZENBAUM: In life so often that person who is strong enough and big enough to say, "It's a mistake and I'm not going to do it," and I think the President of the United States is that kind of man, and I think the American people would applaud that decision if he makes it.

LEHRER: You disagree, right?

Mr. VIGUERIE: I strongly disagree. I still think the Senator, as do a lot of our viewers here, there might be a little hypocrisy that the best way to honor these people is for the liberals in this country to get serious about an on-going holocaust in Nicaragua, Afghanistan.

LEHRER: All right, that's where we came in. Mr. Viguerie, Senator Metzenbaum, thank you both very much. Robin?

Mr. METZENBAUM: Nice being with you.

MacNEIL: Speaking of Nicaragua, the Bitburg controversy wasn't the President's only problem this week. His desire to give the Nicaraguan contras $14 million in aid got blocked in Congress, passed by the Senate, rejected by the House. The nation's editorial cartoonists reflected some of the points made in the debates. Poking Fun

UNCLE SAM, as caveman getting burned by Vietnam fire [Treuer cartoon, Albuquerque Journal, News America Syndicate]: Eeooowww! Ooo, ooo. Oh, boy! Sam learn big lesson. Next time Sam be careful to use right hand.[sticks it in Nicaragua fire]

Pres. REAGAN, dressed as hippie [Willis cartoon, Dallas Times Herald]: I love peace. I want peace in Nicaragua. I hope and pray Congress supports my peace plan. Or I'll be forced to send in the Marines.

Pres. REAGAN [Wasserman cartoon, Los Angeles Times Syndicate]: The president of Colombia backs our policy in Central America.

AIDE: Actually, sir, he sent a message saying he doesn't.

Pres. REAGAN: Well, the Pope supports us.

2nd AIDE: Sir, the Vatican denies that.

Pres. REAGAN: Well, at least God's on our side.

Pres. REAGAN [Bill Day cartoon, Detroit Free Press]: First we cut back the poor.

CONGRESS: You've got it.

Pres. REAGAN: Then we use the money for the military.

CONGRESS: Right on.

Pres. REAGAN: And the MX.

CONGRESS: Go for it!

Pres. REAGAN: And the contras!

CONGRESS: Wrong.

Pres. REAGAN: Where's that in the script?

Pres. REAGAN observing Congress with their heads in the ground, [Benson cartoon, Arizona Republic, Tribune Media Services]: It's known as post-Vietnam syndrome.

CONTRA, surrounded by Nicaraguan crocodiles, opening carbon of surplus cheese [Gamble cartoon, Florida Times Union, Cowles Syndicate]: It's humanitarian aid from Congress.

Pres. REAGAN, under fire in the jungle [Toles cartoon, Buffalo News, Universal Press Syndicate]: Ahhh! Some assistance. I wonder whether it's military or humanitarian. [carried away by Red Cross] We'll call this regrouping. Second Term Troubles

MacNEIL: Were Bitburg and Nicaragua isolated difficulties or signs that the Reagan presidency was losing momentum a few months into its second term? Those questions preoccupied some of the columnists this week and prompted a focus report by Judy Woodruff. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Robin, for a President who got high marks for his first term in office, Mr. Reagan has been having an unusual amount of difficulty as he launches his second term. There are all sorts of theories about why that is, and about how permanent a condition it is. So to try to answer those questions, we talked with some of the people who have had a chance to work with or observe Mr. Reagan up close recently.

Pres. REAGAN [January 21, 1985]: If I hadn't said it so darn much before November 6th, I'd say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: There was almost a euphoria at Ronald Reagan's second inaugural, a carryover from the big win in November ratifying his first four years in office. The promise was of four more years of the same. But less than 100 days later the euphoria has evaporated and the hard reality of governing has set in.

FARMERS: Parity! Parity! We need parity!

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: First, a bitter showdown with American farmers. Mr. Reagan hung tough, but won a lot of new enemies. Then a razor-thn victory for funding the MX missile at the cost of much political good will; the flap over a visit to a German cemetery that refuses to go away; the President's worst defeat in Congress yet over aid to Nicaraguan rebels, and the festering disagreement with fellow Republicans over the budget led finally to a major Reagan retreat on defense with still no assurance of support on domestic cuts.

Pres. REAGAN [April 24, 1985]: Please tell your senators and representatives by phone, wire or mailgram that our future hangs in the balance.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even going on TV this week to appeal for public support didn't bring the results the Great Communicator used to get. It was a far cry from four years ago.

Rep. WILLIAM GRADISON, (R) Ohio: This President is the Babe Ruth of American politics. He's hit most of the home runs, he's set most of the records, but I think he's in a little bit of a slump.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: No one is writing him off yet, but presidential scholar Richard Neustadt warns history is not on Mr. Reagan's side. He told producer Mike Mosettig that modern presidents who get re-elected fall victim to overconfidence.

RICHARD NEUSTADT, Harvard University: In theory it should be the great time of opportunity. You've got -- there you are. You know what you're doing. You've passed your great test of manhood, you've been re-elected; you're going to go down in the history books as a decade instead of a few pages of unsuccess. You ought to be able to greatly concentrate the mind. It does not seem to do so. It does not seem to do so. And I take it that, more than anything else, that has to do with the psycholoigy that follows big victories.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But Reagan aide Ed Rollins says a little overconfidence is not a bad thing.

EDWARD ROLLINS, White House aide: I think as you move into a second term you don't have to quite deal with the political nuances in the same way you do when you're worried about your own re-election. Sometimes you've got to take some hard decisions, and I think you're a little freer to not worry about every constituency group.

ROGER STONE, former Reagan aide: I argue, what better time to be aggressive than now? In other words, now is the time the President has his popularity, now is the time that the party identification is at its highest, now is the time the President's policies are at their highest level of popularity. Now it seems to me to be the time to move the ball.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Much of the new aggressiveness that Republican consultant Roger Stone describes most agree originates in a new White House team led by a new chief of staff, Donald Regan. He switched jobs with the new Treasury Secretary James Baker two months ago. The new White House group is more conservative, but not as politically experienced as that headed by Baker, and many say it suffers by comparison. House Democratic Whip Tom Foley.

Rep. THOMAS FOLEY, (D) Washington, Democratic Whip: In the first administration, I can't call up an example, but it seemed to me from time to time there would be some embarrassment or some public flap over something, and with lightning speed the White House staff would, or the President would, take corrective action and stop the issue from eroding support.

Mr. ROLLINS: I think there has been a change here. It's very obvious, with new leadership on the staff level, and I think that Jim Baker, having spent four years here, was a little bit more attuned to some of the political nuances, but at the same time I think Don Regan has provided a certain strength and a certain energy, new energy, that I think has been very worthwhile.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: That may be, but even the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill says the new team can't take forever to get settled in.

Rep. TRENT LOTT, (R) Mississippi, Republican Whip: There are those that feel, now, wait a minute, enough time getting the organization charts set up, and I think we've reached that point where Don Regan has gone through that.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: However, Lott and others more conservative than he say they are glad to see the more pragmatic Baker gone, even at the risk of making some political mistakes.

Rep. LOTT: You can only tolerate just so much pragmatism. Sometimes you've got to stand for principle and be willing to even lose on a battle when you're looking at a broader picture of a war. I think the real situtation is that the President was getting a little bit uncomfortable seeing himself characterized as Jim Baker's puppet, as the man who was simply the speechmaker-in-chief, simply the ceremonial leader of the United States with Jim Baker functioning as the prime minister. And I think that one of the reasons the President so readily accepted that switch from Baker to Regan was that he sensed that Don Regan would be more a chief of staff and less a prime minister.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Others defend the new White House team by saying circumstances are simply not as favorable as they once were. GOP political consultant Jim Lake.

JIM LAKE, former Reagan aide: They are very tough issues with a sharply divided American people and members of Congress. To win those close ones, it is more a measure of the success of this President's operating style, his ability to communicate to the people and the effective utilization of his staff up on the Hill, much more than if it were easy to win.

Mr. ROLLINS: I think what you have now is you've got a very precarious situation in that 22 Republican senators are up for re-election in 1986. Some feel that they hear the voices of their constituents differently than we in the White House may, and there may be some little distancing between the President and some of his programs. They don't see quite the urgency, and it's more of an every-man-for-himself type effort.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even Democrats concede the times are different.

Rep. FOLEY: First of all, I think that the issues that he's taken on are sometimes issues where there is either a doubtful or a negative public response. In the case of supporting the contras, the whole American policy of providing military pressure on Nicaragua has had a doubtful domestic American reaction. Most Americans have been doubtful, concerned about it, the polls all show that. The President's been running uphill again against that public opinion.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But when you take the second term troubles one by one, the blame still seems to point squarely in the direction of the White House.

Sen. WILLIAM ARMSTRONG, (R) Colorado: Well, in the case of Nicaragua, the President and the administration have been unsuccessful thus far in really explaining satisfactorily to the general public what we're doing down there and why it is important to support the administration initiatives.

Rep. GRADISON: I really believe that the President would have come up with something closer to what he wanted and certainly something that had more of the earmarks of a bipartisan resolution of the problem if his people had been willing to compromise, oh, as recently as a week ago, rather than being in the posture that they are today.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The number-two Republican leader in the House says it wasn't until an eleventh-hour meeting with Mr. Reagan that political reality set in.

Rep. LOTT: We told him, I told him, "Mr. President, the votes are not there at this time for military aide for Nicaraguan contras." And we felt like he was not being told that straight enough.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The German cemetery flap also earns the White House low marks, even from members of its own staff.

Mr. ROLLINS: Some mistakes were made, there's no question about it. We wish that the situation wasn't inflamed out there, that the President's motives are to go and honor the German people and not create controversy among our own domestic constituencies, and unfortunately it's out there.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: On the retreat the President had to make on his budget proposal there is criticism from some Republicans.

Rep. GRADISON: I think had he been willing to compromise earlier on a defense number he would have come up with a higher defense number, one closer to what he wanted, than he's likely to get by having held back a little bit.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: And an explanation from others.

Mr. STONE: That's always been a very successful technique for President Reagan, certainly in the first term -- stake out your position, hold as tough to it as you possibly can, compromise only when it's necessary, where the understanding is that you will get most of the loaf but not all of the loaf.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But on the increase in Pentagon spending, Mr. Reagan will get at most half of what he wanted. Many are now saying it's because he didn't tell the voters when he ran for re-election what his plans were.

Mr. PHILLIPS: I think the main reason he's having the trouble now is that he did not make the 1984 election a referendum on his program. He made it a referendum on whether America is back, on whether the liberalism of the 1960s is unacceptable -- which it clearly is to most Americans -- and whether you think Ronald Reagan is a terrific public personality, which clearly he is.

Rep. GRADISON: The public's decisions in this election, this last election, I think were based partly on issues and partly on personality. And it is difficult to claim a mandate on each specific issue, particularly when some of the issues were not the central parts of the election debate.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In any event, the President's allies, although critical of the recent missteps, insist they are only temporary.

Rep. LOTT: I'm not sure it's a valley. I would prefer to think of it as a blip on the screen.

Sen. ARMSTONG: The process by which people govern themselves in a free country is not going to be simple; it's not going to fit into neat organizational charts. It's going to be chaotic. Under the circumstances and given the pressures that we're under, I think we're doing pretty well, and in fact the President is doing extremely well.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even Democrats seem willing to give Mr. Reagan the benefit of the doubt.

Rep. FOLEY: In the normal course of human institutions it wouldn't be too surprising that there ought to be some rough moments, and they're experiencing some now. The question now will be -- from now on will be, is this part of a trend? Is it institutional? Has there been some failing in the way the White House is conducting its affairs in the second term? Is the President in for a lot more trouble and less success in the second term? I think it's too early to say that.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The President's friends clearly agree, but say if anyone expects the President to back down in the future or to be more compromising, they are mistaken.

Pres. REAGAN [April 15,1985]: Through this aid we'll say to the free people of Central America, "We will not betray you."

Rep. LOTT: President Reagan wasn't elected and voted for in 49 states, a majority of the people in 49 states to be a wimp. They like him because he'll take tough stands and that he goes out to win, a lot of times when nobody would believe he could.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The President's political advisors go even further, with a warning to members of Mr. Reagan's own party.

Mr. STONE: Were I a senator up for re-election, I would think long and hard about charting a totally independent course from Ronald Reagan.

WOODRUFF: What do you mean by that?

Mr. STONE: Well, I just think that the President's popularity is very deep and the support for his policies is very deep, and though I think no voter wants their senator to be a rubber stamp, any senator who charts a totally independent course from the President could be making a political mistake.

Mr. ROLLINS: I think the great strength of this party today is the fact that it has a very strong leader at the top. The only way he can be a strong leader is to continue to make tough decisions and to keep us moving forward on his agenda. People understand that and people support that. If he starts to waffle, if he starts doing things purely for political purposes or purely to get members of Congress re-elected, then I think that he himself gets compromised and his leadership ability gets hindered.

WOODRUFF: So Mr. Reagan's aides are feeling cocky, in spite of his recent troubles. But for all their predictions it's not at all clear the rest of the nation's Republican officials share their views, and, as you recall, that overconfidence is exactly what Harvard University professor and presidential scholar Richard Neustadt gets second-term presidents into hot water. Robin?

MacNEIL: Thank you, Judy. For a further analysis of President Reagan's recent difficulties and what they say about his second term, we have two veteran political observers. John Sears is a former Reagan advisor and confidant who keeps his eye on how the administration's doing; and a man who watches what the Democrats are up to is Harry McPherson, special counsel during the Johnson administration, now an attorney in Washington. Mr. McPherson, to use the phrase we just heard Trent Lott use there, is this week a blip on the screen or a valley for Mr. Reagan?

HARRY McPHERSON: Well, it's certainly the most serious blip he's had in some time. A Democrat from a party that just got clobbered in 49 states is in not much position to say that he's in a valley, particularly one like me who didn't think he was going to run again. But he's obviously still got an awful lot of public support out there. I think this is a serious hit for President Reagan, because it goes right at his control of symbols. He has been the most gifted user of symbolism certainly in modern times, and he fouled up using a symbol this time and did it so in a way that betrays not just firmness, but a kind of pigheadedness, at least so it seems to me. And on an issue that an awful lot of people in the United States feel is not just an issue of symbolism but a matter of a kind of moral insensitivity.

MacNEIL: John Sears, how do you feel about that issue, and is this a blip or a valley?

JOHN SEARS: Well, I don't think you can call this a valley at this point. Mr. Reagan, of course, in his long political history has shown himself well able to recover from mistakes in the past. Now, this is a very serious misconception in terms of the symbols involved, as Harry was saying. But, on the other hand, this President better than any we've had in modern history, has shown himself able to recover from mistakes and so I don't view it as a long-term problem.

MacNEIL: How do you, Mr. McPherson, explain this sudden gnashing of gears in what has seemed a remarkably well-oiled machine up to now?

Mr. McPHERSON: Well, I suppose if you looked at it in a small kind of a microsense, you'd say it's because there's a change in the staff, that a politically sophisticated staff leader, Jim Baker, moved over to the Treasury and a businessman, a capable executive, but somebody without a whole lot of political sophistication has come in to run the White House staff. On a larger level, I've got a feeling that President Reagan and his party may be experiencing on their side something that I think Democrats have experienced over the past 20 years. I think that Democrats, by and large, passed the agenda they were seeking to pass in the '60s and the early '70s, and if they don't have a whole lot on their agenda right now and as an activist party of government, they're finding it rather hard to get people interested in them. President Reagan has pretty well passed his agenda. He did so in the first term, and what remains to be done by him is a whole lot of rather unsexy stuff -- dealing with huge budget deficits, which nobody likes to do; cutting out programs, which not even Stockman likes to do. They're hard for anybody in politics to do, and I think it may be that they're kind of out of gas in the second term.

MacNEIL: Out of gas, John Sears?

Mr. SEARS: Well, I think there is a structural problem that we have today in the fact that of course, under the Constitution, in your second term you're barred from even suggesting or threatening to run for a third. This weapon of being able to at least tell people that you might test your popularity at the polls again was a powerful political weapon in the past. Now, we haven't actually seen a president in his second term, if you think about it, since Dwight Eisenhower. Now, Nixon had a second term, but as we all know, he had grave difficulties of a different kind that kept us from focusing on his power in the second term. I really think that many things that we have seen and will see during Mr. Reagan's second term do come back to the fact that, first of all, when you are not yourself under some kind of constraint in the fact that you might seek office again, you don't look at things as closely as you do. That may appear to be arrogance to some people; it really isn't, in my mind. It's that you have something off your mind that used to pertain to everything that you did. The second thing I would say is that as his term goes on he is not going to have the kind of political power that we saw in his first term, especially after the off-year elections, simply because whatever his popularity may be, it is not as threatening to members of Congress and to other people since everyone knows he can never use it again.

MacNEIL: Has Mr. Reagan's own behavior changed? Is he, to use a word we heard in Judy's report, unbuttoned now, do you think, John Sears? You know him quite well.

Mr. SEARS: Well, I don't think there has been any change in his mental attitude. What I do think, though, is that perhaps some things that might have been very carefully handled when you were, of course, of the mind that you might be seeking office again are not as carefully handled today. I don't go along with the analysis, either, that perhaps the difference here is who's on the White House staff. I think that if you're talking expecially about the trip to Germany, as we all know, most of the preparations for that were done by people from the old staff, and if the new staff has any real liability here, it's that they didn't grab ahold of it from the older people any quicker than they did and have allowed themselves to get dug into a position. But I don't really think that his attitude has changed any, that you'll see a different Ronald Reagan. I just think there is a different level of care involved on the staff level, whoever is there under these circumstances, and secondly I do think that we probably made a mistake in this country when we officialized people in the fashion of not letting them run for more than two terms.

MacNEIL: Mr. McPherson, given President Reagan's skill at handling these events, is he likely to pull off Bitburg gracefully and put it behind him?

Mr. McPHERSON: Well, it sure didn't look like it, did it, for a long time. He seemed to have stepped in the cowpie and then out into the bull nettle and back into further trouble. But now -- I heard a friend today, someone who was in an earlier Republican administration, suggesting that the President will go to Bitburg and will march down, very quickly march down between a row of American soldiers and a row of German soldiers, lay the wreath, turn around and get out of there and go straight to the Remagen Bridge, where of course Americans very bravely crossed the Rhine, and then maybe to Adenauer's gravesite, so that the symbolism will be back on track. To take a minute of whta John Sears just talked about --

MacNEIL: Could you take 30 seconds?

Mr. McPHERSON: I'll take 30 seconds. I think what may have happened in the change of staff is that, in losing Baker and some of those folks, that he lost the kind of brake, the political brake that kind of sensed how far he could go with his ideology. And right now he may have a free rein on that, and he may not have that brake.

MacNEIL: Well, Harry McPherson, John Sears, thank you both for joining us.

Mr. McPHERSON: Thank you. Open to All

LEHRER: It was two years ago today that a blue-ribbon committee warned of a rising level of mediocrity in American education. Its report called on administrators, teachers, parents and politicians to get concerned, get busy and get the system reformed. Our next focus report is about just such a reform effort in the state of Minnesota. The reporter is Carol Levinson of public station KTCA, Minneapolis-St. Paul.

CAROL LEVINSON, KTCA [voice-over]: It's always an honor for any high school team to play in their state championships. It's also common to see the same teams there year after year, usually from the bigger urban and surburban schools, schools with large student populations from which to select the best athletes. But at this year's Minnesota state basketball tournament there were some new faces on the floor. The Ceylon Huskies were there for the first time, representing a high school of 45 students in rural southern Minnesota near the Iowa border.

CORWIN SCHMIDT, Ceylon High School coach: It's sort of a dream come true for us here. We've been at it for a long time and this year it finally came together.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: Making the state tournament was a dream come true for the coach, the team and the whole town of Ceylon. The people here are proud of their kids and very proud of their school. In fact, for many it's more than just a school.

DOROTHY PETERSEN, Ceylon resident: It gives us all life. I mean, it's our focal point. We would be lost without it. I mean, we need our schools. We need our young children around us.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: Many of Ceylon's citizens are worried they might lose their local school. They think it's threatened by Governor Perpich's open enrollment plan. The plan would change the system most Americans grew up with, where you automatically went to high school in your own school district. Under the Perpich plan, juniors and seniors in high school would be allowed to attend any school of their choice in the state, beginning in 1986. If adopted by the state legislature, it would be the first statewide open enrollment plan of its kind in the nation. The governor says he came up with the plan to improve public education in Minnesota by encouraging healthy competition between school districts to offer better programs and to make subjects taught only in certain schools available to every student in the state.

Gov. RUDY PERPICH, (R) Minnesota: I feel that the young people in this day and age, if they don't have the opportunity for foreign languages, computer sciences, arts, literature -- if that's not made available to them, they just won't be able to compete.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: The city of Minneapolis already has a citywide enrollment system similar to the governor's statewide plan. South High School has a magnet program that students from all over the city can attend on a space-available basis.

MICHELE ROBAN, South High School student: I can study anything I want almost. I mean, we've got five languages, various art classes, English, social studies. Everything -- you can take anything. It's not like, you know, a small high school.

RAFAEL GERETZ, South High School student: The area in Minneapolis where I'm from is not as diverse as this is. If I had gone to my community school, I don't think it would have been nearly as diverse as it is here. I wouldn't have met the people. And, as a result of that, I would not have learned as much.

ERIK BERG, South High School student: This school has really good aspects -- the languages, the magnet program -- but generally I would confirm what everybody else said is that it's the people, because in this school, and this is a part of what this open enrollment plan would do, which I think is a good idea, it gives you a variety of different people. And I think -- to me that's what the most important part of education is.

MAUREEN MASHEK, magnet program supervisor: But, you just read something else that was also first person.

STUDENT: Farewell to Arms.

Ms. MASHEK: Yeah, Farewell to Arms.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: English teacher Maureen Mashek, also the magnet program coordinator, enthusiastically supports the statewide open enrollment plan. She thinks it's time for some changes in public education.

Ms. MASHEK: I'm in favor of any kind of experiment in education. As a third-generation teacher, when I realize that the structure in education is the same way it was for my mother and my grandmother, I think that it is time we try something new. And that's why I'm delighted that the governor of this state really cares enough to propose some structural changes.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: Critics of the open enrollment plan concede that it may work in urban areas where travel isn't a problem and benefits like cultural diversity are top priorities for students. But for Ceylon the priorities and the problems are entirely different. Here they're more concerned educationally with small classes and individual attention and, practically, with maintaining enough state funding to keep their school open. School Superintendant Daryl Bragg.

DARYL BRAGG, Ceylon School Superintendent: The community here is very strongly opposed to the open enrollment plan because they see it as a real threat to our school, because if 10 to 15 students might happen to leave here, that would take enough money out of our budget where our school wouldn't be able to meet the standards of the state and it just wouldn't be able to function as it does today.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: Bragg meets regularly with his parents advisory council to discuss issues that affect their school district. Right now these parents are worried about how their school would be affected by open enrollment.

MYRNA JORTH, Ceylon parent: I'm a taxpayer. I want to see my tax dollars spent. I can't see it spent in Minneapolis. Why not here? Why not where I can come to a ballgame and enjoy it? I can come to a music concert, I can come to the Christmas program. Why can't I have it here? It's my tax dollars. That's fair to me, too. I'm paying the bill.

RUTH SCHUELER, parent: There presently is a co-op program in which our students can participate in a larger school for academics that are not offered here that the small school cannot fund. And so I feel that we do have the advantage already that Governor Perpich is trying to present.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: The cooperative agreement allows Ceylon students and students from other neighboring small towns to attend classes at Fairmont High School, about 20 miles away. This program, which has operated for the last 10 years, now has 15 students from Ceylon enrolled in vocational classes such as auto mechanics, child care and office management, classes not available at their community school. Fairmont's full range of academic classes are also open to the Ceylon students, although none are currently enrolled. There's an essential difference between this plan and open enrollment. Under the cooperative agreement, the home school still retains full state funding for every student, but with open enrollment the state funding follows the student. For the Ceylon students who now have the option of a cooperative agreement and the security of their local school, they think they already have the best of both worlds.

STUDENT, Ceylon High School: We learn the basics and we have a lot of fun. We're like brothers and sisters.

STUDENT: I'm satisfied right here. I think I'm getting a lot out of school.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: Many Minnesotans share the skepticism of those in Ceylon about open enrollment. Some say it will destroy the family, taking children away from their parents, or that kids will not choose schools for strictly academic reasons, as the plan dictates, but for social or athletic reasons. But perhaps the governor's strongest opposition to open enrollment has come from the state's two teachers unions, the Minnesota Federation of Teachers and the Minnesota Education Association.

MARTI ZINS, Minnesota Education Association: Our concern comes with the fact that the constitution of the state of Minnesota suggests very strongly that we will have a uniform system of public education for all students within the state of Minnesota. A feature of the governor's choice plan is that it will back off that promise of education for all students and do so at the expense of the poorer students and the expense of the handicapped, offer choice for some of the richer students and some of the academically gifted. And we find that particular feature untenable. And you do not create a public institution that consciously hurts students.

LEVINSON [voice-over]: Many states around the country are waiting to see what happens to this proposal in Minnesota. But no one is watching more closely than the citizens of Ceylon, who feel the life of their whole community is on the line.

LEHRER: That report by Carol Levinson of KTCA, Minneapolis-St. Paul. The Minnesota state senate failed to pass the open enrollment plan this week, but the governor says he will not give up on it. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. The Senate called on President Reagan to cancel his visit to the Bitburg military cemetery. The President told his staff to see what can be done to aid the Nicaraguan rebels. The Senate was unable again to vote on the Republican budget package. The U.S. expelled a Soviet military attache because Moscow won't issue a don't-shoot order to protect American liaison officers. And the Senate confirmed Bill Brock, the U.S. trade representative, as secretary of labor. 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.