The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, President Reagan said again the Iran deal was not a mistake, and nobody will be fired. Philippine President Aquino averted a coup led by 200 army officers for the firing of her defense minister. And Barclays' Bank of Great Britain said it was pulling out of South Africa. We will have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After tonight's news summary, the News Hour looks at the Iran fallout inside the Reagan administration. Then the thwarted Philippine coup is the subject of our newsmaker interview with the Philippine ambassador. And finally, a debate over birth control clinics in schools. News Summary

LEHRER: President Reagan stook his ground on Iran today. He said dealing with Iran on arms and the U.S. hostages in Lebanon was not a mistake, and he intended to fire no one. He said it this way in an impromptu exchange with reporters in the Oval Office. It came during a picture taking session with South African leader Gotcha Buthelezi.

REPORTER: Mr. President, some of your supporters are saying you ought to admit you made a mistake, the arms sales to Iran, so you can put that matter behind you.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I'm not going to lie about that. I didn't make a mistake.

REPORTER: Any staff changes at all at the White House or the State Department?

Pres. REAGAN: Now you're all getting into another subject. We're here to meet with someone who has a very real problem and see if we can be of help in the South Africa situation.

REPORTER: Well, are you happy with your staff?

Pres. REAGAN: What?

REPORTER: Are you happy with your staff?

LEHRER: The President spoke admist a shower of news stories about changes at the top. Some said Secretary of State Shultz was on the way out. Others said it was Chief of Staff Donald Regan, National Security Adviser John Poindexter, or al three. The policy that led to the Iranian discussions also got a going over on Capitol Hill today. Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead was the point man for questions from the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Rep. LEE HAMILTON (D) Indiana: I call to mind a statement that the President made which said that since U.S. government contact began with Iran, there has been no evidence of Iranian government complicity in acts of terrorism against the United States. Is your statement contrary to the President's? And if not, why not?

JOHN WHITEHEAD, Deputy Secretary of State: Well, I don't like to differ with my President, but I believe there is still some continuing evidence of Iranian involvement with terrorists.

LEHRER: Whitehead also said the National Security Council should stick to giving advice on policy issues. He said it is difficult for the State Department to cope with NSC operational activities.

Also this afternoon, President Reagan held a meeting of his top foreign and national security people at the White House. The conferees included Shultz, Regan and Poindexter. White House spokesman Larry Speaks said the purpose was to discuss Middle East policies, including those toward Iran. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: The White House today praised Philippine President Corazon Aquino's handling of this week's attempted coup attempt against her government. In the Philippines, the government announced that nearly 200 military rebels who had been involved in the plot against Mrs. Aquino had planned eventually to "bump her off." But the government also said that President Aquino had regained control of the defense ministry after ousting the key conspirator, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile. The move was part of a major overhaul of the government in which President Aquino had demanded the resignations of all cabinet members. So far, she's accepted only Enrile's.

LEHRER: Barclays' Bank is the latest major business to quit South Africa. The British banking giant said today it would sell its remaining 40% interest in Barclays' National Bank of South Africa. We have a report from Sheila McVicker of the CBC.

SHEILA McVICKER [voice-over]: Barclays' is the second largest bank in South Africa -- a bank that until today represented one of Britain's largest investments there. Just last night, South African Barclays' managers were told their London head office intended to sell -- a decision that they say will hurt the Pretoria government. But South African financial markets today were calm as the news came that the huge South African company Anglo American, better known for gold and diamonds, was buying control of the bank -- but buying it at fire sale prices. Through years of campaigns and protests, Barclays' Bank in Britain has been singled out by anti-apartheid groups -- groups that have organized so effectively that Barclays' is known to have lost millions of dollars worth of business.

[on camera] British companies account for the largest share of foreign investment in South Africa, and Barclays' was the first of those to decide it was time to leave. Its decision indicates a lot of pessimism about that country's future and may persuade other British firms that it's time to take a look at getting out.

LEHRER: As we saw earlier, the leader of South Africa's largest black tribe was in Washington today. Chief Gotcha Buthelezi paid a call on President Reagan at the White House, where the two leaders exchanged hopes for a peaceful solution to South Africa's racial strife.

HUNTER-GAULT: The Interior Department today called for major oil and gas development in parts of Northeastern Alaska. Calling the area the most outstanding oil and gas frontier remaining in the United States, Assistant Secretary William Horn said the 1.5 million acre parcel along the Arctic Ocean could contain up to 29 billion barrels of oil and huge natural gas reserves. The plan, which is expected to draw strong opposition from environmental groups, will be open to public comment before a final decision is made.

LEHRER: Now Wall Street has videotapes to worry about. The Washington Post reported today financier Ivan Boesky videotaped as well as audio taped his encounters with stock traders and tipsters. The story said Securities and Exchange Commission investigators did the tapings for seven weeks before the case became public. That's when Boesky agreed to pay a $100 million fine for illegally trading on insider information about takeover bids. He also faces prison for what he did.

There was another piece of takeover news today. The Revlon Cosmetics Corporation called off its drive to take over the Gillette Razor Company. Gillette agreed to buy back all its stock owned by Revlon for $549 million. No reason was given for the deal.

HUNTER-GAULT: In Washington State, more than 1,000 skiers are stranded in the tiny hamlet of Glacier and probably will be stuck there until Tuesday. Despite emergency sandbagging, floods, triggered by five inches of rain and melting snow, isolated the town of Glacier and dozens of other small communities. For a while, the main east-west highway in the state was also cut off. Today, 80 families were evacuated from a flooded area 25 miles southeast of Seattle, and weather forecasters predict more rain.

LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to President Reagan's troubled effort to put Iran behind him, to an interview with a Philippine ambassador about President Aquino's cabinet shuffle, and to a debate over providing birth control devices to high school students. Shake-Up Ahead?

LEHRER: President Reagan said no twice again today. No, he did not make a mistake in dealing with Iran, no he was not going to fire anybody because of it. He spoke as friends and enemies continued to urge him loudly and publicly to say yes to both questions, and thus get the whole thing behind him. We're going to look specifically at those same two questions with two former top Reagan aides and three newspaper editors. We set the agenda further with an excerpt from the administration's first public go today at explaining what happened before a Congressional committee. The defender was the State Department's number two man, Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead. He spent much of his testimony defending the State Department from Iran policy fallout. The forum was the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rept. HAMILTON: You don't even know if the reports in the paper are correct or not correct that 12 or $14 million of military equipment -- the toes and the hawk missile systems -- were transferred?

Mr. WHITEHEAD: I have seen the reports in the paper, as you have, sir, but I do not know whether they are correct.

Rep. HAMILTON: Do you know if any equipment was transferred by third countries, specifically Israel, to Iran?

Mr. WHITEHEAD: A further word as to our own transfers. I have heard the President's statement, and of course I accept the President's statement, as to the nature of our own arms shipments. But I -- which had to do with the nature of them -- the defensive nature of them -- and also the relative small size of the shipment. As to third nation shipments, and particularly Israeli shipments, again, we do not have specific knowledge of the nature or extent of those shipments.

Rep. HAMILTON: Do I understand you to say that the Secretary of State did not know what arms were transferred by the United States to Iran and did not know what arms were transferred by the United States via third countries to Iran?

Mr. WHITEHEAD: I believe he did not know. He was consulted in the decision making process prior to the decision to move forward with this operation. But he was not kept informed, except very spasmodically and intermittently, once the decision was made to proceed with the operation. I think this recent incident or series of incidents calls into -- calls for a review of the functioning of the National Security Council -- to what extent it should be involved in operational matters. And so the President, it seems to me, must have the right to be able to select someone to carry out missions on his behalf from time to time. And so that also must be weighed into the consideration.

Rep. MEL LEVINE (D) California: Press reports speculate that the President's wife has been interested in the dismissal of your boss, the Secretary of State.

Mr. WHITEHEAD: He is one of the, and maybe the, finest, most able, greatest Americans that I have ever seen. It would be a terrible tragedy if his position became a casualty of this whole affair. He is an extremely able American. And it is extremely important that he be retained in this position. Because he can lead the kind of forward movement that brings us out of this if he has the opportunity to do so.

Rep. HAMILTON: We thank you very much for your testimony today. We know it's been a difficult afternoon for you. We commend you for your presence and for your testimony.

Mr. WHITEHEAD: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for me to say one last thing? It's a work on behalf of the President. I don't -- I know you all know of his standing in the United States and his popularity or how the public feels about him in the United States. But I'm not sure you realize, all of you, to what extent he is admired and almost revered around the country by other leaders. And I would just like you to think of that and to keep that in mind as these deliberations proceed. If you leave him without clothes, if we -- all of us -- leave him without clothes, he will lose the opportunity to lead the free world for the next two years. And I don't believe any of us know that -- want that to happen. He may have been poorly advised in this whole incident, but it is very important that we maintain his credibility with foreign leaders, so that he can continue to provide the leadership that they look to from him and from the United States. If we destroy that in what we do in the weeks ahead, we will have destroyed something very important for the country at a very crucial time for the United States.

LEHRER: That testimony from the Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead. Now to two men who held top positions in the Reagan White House. Richard Allen worked on foreign and defense affairs as Mr. Reagan's first national security adviser. Ed Rollins worked on politics as Assistant to the President for Political and Inter-governmental Affairs.

Gentlemen, first, just so our audience understands, do both of you still consider yourselves Reagan supporters and Reagan men?

ED ROLLINS, former White House adviser: Absolutely.

RICHARD ALLEN, former national security adviser: Reaganauts.

LEHRER: Reaganauts. Okay. So we wanted to make sure everybody understand that when we go into this. All right. Mr. Allen, you just saw what the deputy secretary of state said. Is that -- is that helpful to President Reagan?

Mr. ALLEN: I don't think wo. I don't think the President needs to have an agent asking for mercy before the United States Congress. And I was rather startled by that speech. Although I happen to agree with the content of it, I didn't think the form was particularly appropriate. The President feels he has not made a mistake in this matter. He insists that that is the case. Others of us would have differed about the political or the policy impact of the decision to permit arms to flow to Iran, whether directly from us or through a third party. But the President feels the way he feels, and he's made up his mind. Now the point is to try to get it behind us. He's going to take some lumps, and I don't think that appeals of this sort are necessary. And I don't think that they're proper. I think the testimony could have been ended the way it was, and the deputy security of state, who is a distinguished man in his own right and whom I respect, could have gone back to the Department of State.

LEHRER: Mr. Rollins, how do you feel about what's -- not only what Secretary Whitehead said, but what others in the administration have seen saying in the last few days, apparently speaking on their own?

Mr. ROLLINS: I think it's best if everybody just keeps their mouth shut and supports the President. The President's the only one who has a right to make the final decisions. Everyone that's an adviser has the right to give the advice inside the council, and then it's just best for them to support the decision. If they don't want to support the decision, they can leave.

LEHRER: Okay, speaking of leaving, do you think that's necessary? Mr. Allen say it's time to get -- the President wants to get this behind him. Is he going to get it behind him by doing anything other than firing a few people?

Mr. ROLLINS: I don't think he has to fire anybody. I mean, he has to make a determination whether he had proper advice when he made this decision. That's purely up to him. He's allowed to have whoever he wants as his staff. There's no question he has a very serious problem on his hands, and how he gets it behind him and how he gets moving forward is still a very difficult situation ahead. And I think that he has to be prepared for going through two or three weeks more of scrutiny by the Congress and by the national media. And hopefully, his popularity and, if he puts the whole story out, will be sufficient to get him back on the right agenda again.

LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Allen? Do you think he has to do something?

Mr. ALLEN: No, I think the President is not forced to do anything. I think ultimately, however, the types of pressures that are building now will continue to build until something is done or he makes a decision about reshaping his team for the next two years. That's not a decision that I'd expect this President to take under the duress that is presently being visited upon him.This is a combination of political pressure, a great deal of hype by the news media, a combination also of people who are scattering to cover themselves and to proclaim their own innocence in the affair and shaking their head at the President, I think this process is going to give him a lot of information about who really supports him. He's got more than two years to go in his administration -- in the second term of his administration here. And I think he's going to make it a success. Ronald Reagan's been in a box before. I have no doubt that he'll be out of this box in due course. Not without some lumps, not without some damage to his credibility. But the record of the Reagan administration is going to be judged not on this issue; it's going to be judged in its entirety.

LEHRER: Ed Rollins, what do you make of these stories in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times that many of the old -- his old California friends, including Ed Meese and others in the administration and Nancy Reagan herself, have been urging the President to clean house, particularly clean out Don Regan, the Chief of Staff.

Mr. ROLLINS: I would be very surprised if the First Lady was involved in that. That's not her style. The others have certainly probably raised concerns. They're worried. Anyone that thinks about this President, knows this President for a long time, is very, very concerned about it. Whether their recommendations to change staff or not fall on deaf ears or not, I can't say. But Ronald Reagan historically has stuck by his staff. He stuck by me in a time of crisis, stuck by Dick Allen in a time of crisis. It's one of his great strengths.

LEHRER: But do you agree with Dick Allen that whether he does it now or whether he waits a few weeks, he will have to make some changes at the top?

Mr. ROLLINS: My assessment is that the President probably will make some changes. But he clearly is not going to be forced into that, and he's going to make his own judgements on that.

LEHRER: Well now, why wouldn't he do it? If somebody -- if everybody says, "Look, Mr. President, you want to get this thing behind you in a hurry." Why wouldn't he do it now, when he could get the most mileage out of it.?

Mr. ALLEN: I don't think it would be wise of him to do it now, because -- if he's going to do it all -- because it would look as if he were simply simpering in front of -- or caving in to the pressure that is being generated from all sides -- the political pressures from the hill from both parties, less overt in the case of the Republicans; the news media pressure. This is not a national demand for someone's scalp. The ritual in Washington is that once a mistake of this magnitude, in the judgement of the media and other pundit circles has been made, that someone's head must roll. And it's very easy to keep up the demand. It's cheap copy. All you have to do is go around continuing to interview anonymous sources. Nobody is putting his name in the newspaper today. One so-called leading columnist today spoke overtly and somewhat proudly of the second-raters in the White House. This sort of thing is a field day for people who survive and thrive on leaks. I think in the long run, you're going to find that the process will have flushed out a lot of people who are not loyal to the administration, who probably ought not to have been there in the first place, and who ought to seek employment in the private or other sectors.

LEHRER: But as a practical matter, Ed Rollins, was Secretary Whitehead right when he told the Congress in that hearing today that the President probably was poorly advised in this Iranian thing? And not only on the original thing, but also on damage control since?

Mr. ROLLINS: My personal feeling is that the President didn't have all the facts when he made the decision. Ronald Reagan has a great ability to make the correct decision when he has all the facts. I don't think there was enough input as to the political ramifications and the long term ramifications.

LEHRER: You think if he'd been given the facts, he wouldn't have done it?

Mr. ROLLINS: My sense is that he probably would not have done it, but I can't say that for sure.

LEHRER: Well now, that's a failure of the White House staff then, correct?

Mr. ROLLINS: Well, my personal feeling is that he didn't get all of the facts that he needed to make the correct decision.

LEHRER: Is that a failure, then, of Donald Regan, the Chief of Staff?

Mr. ROLLINS: Well, it basically is a failure of whoever was giving the advice and counsel.

LEHRER: But isn't he -- isn't he running things over there, Mr. Rollins?

Mr. ROLLINS: Well, there's no question Don Regan is in charge of the White House. He puts his imprint on it. But, you know, he has to delegate his responsibility for foreign affairs to the national security adviser and to others.

LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, don't go away. Listening to Misters Allen and Rollins along with the rest of us have been three newspaper editors from out in the country. From San Diego, California, the editor of the San Diego Union, Gerald Warren. Mr. Warren also spent six and a half years as deputy press secretary in the Nixon and Ford White Houses. From Dayton, Ohio, the editor of the Dayton Daily News & Journal Herald, Brad Tillson. And from Boston, Joe McQuaid, the editor of the Union Leader in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Mr. Tillson in Dayton, do you believe Mr. Reagan should admit a mistake and roll some heads and get on with it?

BRAD TILLSON, Dayton Daily News & Journald Herald: Yes we do. We think that this is necessary for him to put it behind him. He needs to admit a mistake and probably make some staff changes also.

LEHRER: In your opinion, then, it was a mistake. There's no question in your mind it was a mistake?

Mr. TILLSON: I don't think there's any question it's a mistake. And there seems to be a broad, national consensus on that.

LEHRER: On what do you base that, sir?

Mr. TILLSON: I base it partly on what I've read and seen on television, and also from the impression I get from talking to people in Dayton. This is unlike any other crisis that has occurred in the Reagan administration. There are people who have supported the President strongly who say that he really made a mistake on this one.

LEHRER: Jerry Warren, how's it look from San Diego? Are Reagan supporters saying the same thing out there?

GERALD WARREN, San Diego Union: I think they're saying essentially the same thing, Jim. They support the President, clearly. They probably believe that a bridge to Iran -- post-Ayatollah Iran -- would be a good idea. They certainly believe getting our hostages back is a good idea, and they would probably applaud the President for that. The use of arms is -- the sale of arms is more questionable.

LEHRER: Do they hold him responsible, or do they say what Ed Rollins said -- that he was poorly advised?

Mr. WARREN: Those that I've talked to, Jim, say what Ed said -- that he was poorly advised. Ed didn't want to say it, but I think it's clear that that's the Chief of Staff's responsibility.

LEHRER: How do you feel -- I mean, how do you feel about the responsibility? You think it is his responsibility. You think it's Regan's responsibility.

Mr. WARREN: Yes indeed.

LEHRER: And Regan should go as a result of that?

Mr. WARREN: Well, I think Regan would want to go as a result of that, to spare his President any further shame and abuse. The Chief of Staff traditionally has not been a spokesman for any administration on foreign policy matters, and in my view should not be. He should work behind the scenes and insure that the President gets all the advice he needs.

LEHRER: Joe McQuaid from Manchester, how do you think -- what do you think the President should do?

JOE McQUAID, Union Leader: I think he'd be advised to be quiet like his advisers and get on with the business. I don't think heads have to roll simply because the media or Patrick Leahy say they have to roll. Although I wouldn't miss a good occasion to get Shultz the heck out of there and put in Kirkpatrick or somebody with some backbone. I thought Shultz was exceptionally disloyal in public on this issue.

LEHRER: And, in other words, if it was up to you, it wouldn't be Regan; it would be Shultz?

Mr. McQUAID: That's right. And if the President got misinformation, then I would can whoever supplied him with the misinformation. Unfortunately, McFarlane doesn't work for him anymore. It's unclear who was giving out what advice. It's clear that the buck stops with the President. The President made a mistake. He's not going to admit that publicly. And at this point, I don't think he should, because it presents the perception of the media and the Senate Democrats putting his hand behind his back and making his scream uncle.

LEHRER: Brad Tillson in Dayton, how do you feel about that? Several have suggested that even though they think the President made a mistake, they don't think he should admit it publicly. How do you view that?

Mr. TILLSON: I think if he will admit it publicly, he'll get past it that much quicker. I think, as I said, there's a broad consensus that there was a mistake made here. And I think the kind of leadership that the President needs to show includes admitting that a mistake was made.

LEHRER: Jerry Warren, do you think the President will do that or should do that?

Mr. WARREN: I don't think he'll do it right away. I think he should sort of take the holiday off, go back to his ranch and rest up and think about it. And maybe when he comes back, when the Congress comes back in January, he can find a way to question that third aspect of the operation -- sending the arms to Iran.

LEHRER: Let's bring Richard Allen and Ed Rollins back into this. Do you see this thing blowing over, Ed Rollins, any time soon unless he does something very dramatic?

Mr. ROLLINS: I don't see it blowing over. I see it being dragged on for a period of time. I think the Democrats, when they come back in January, will reopen it again. And I think it's just something that the President's made a decision not to make any changes in staff and to hunker down. He's going to have a long, hard fight, and he's just going to do that.

LEHRER: Richard Allen, you know Ronald Reagan's way of operating before. Some have suggested he said, "I'm not going to do things," in the past, but he's changed his mind. Do you think it's possible in this case that tomorrow, for instance, Shultz could go or Reagan could go or Poindexter could go?

Mr. ALLEN: Well, from the leader that I saw at the top of this show, the President was asked at another occasion whether he intended to change or fire anyone, and he didn't give a definitive answer. He said, "You're getting into another area there, and I don't think that represents --" I'm interested in this concept of a mistake. If the President were today, tomorrow, to say, "All right, you guys are right. I made a mistake," he's opened up a whole new salient of attack on him. So the idea that all he has to do is admit the mistake and we'll get it behind us seems to me to be a bit preposterous. All it does is open up another whole avenue and avalanche of criticism.

LEHRER: Let me ask Brad Tillson about that. Brad?

Mr. TILLSON: I think admitting the mistake is only part of the process. I think what he also has to do is make a change in the team, so that this kind of mistake won't happen again. Obviously, admitting it and just continuing down the same path isn't going to solve the problem.

Mr. ALLEN: Yeah, but that's another issue. I'd like to point out that there are two aspects of the mistake that we seem to be talking about. One, categorically, it was not a mistake to use National Security Council emissaries to open up or attempt to open up some sort of dialogue with elements that the President and his intelligence community had identified as moderates in Iran. That's clearly not a mistake. Those of us who disagree -- and I count myself among them -- with the policy of transporting arms to Iran for any reason could consider and do consider that part a mistake. You have to be sure that you understand what's at stake here. And I think that there are some very important institutional questions going to arise. Ed Rollins pointed out that the Congress is going to open on this in January. I think the whole position of the National Security Council, after 40 years as a successful operation, is now potentially endangered. I think there are a lot of issues that are going to stand -- that are going to come to the fore and are going to have to be debated in the nation as a whole.But the President is convinced he didn't make a mistake. And I think that as long as he's convinced he didn't make a mistake and he's the Chief Executive Officer and he's taken the responsibility for it, then that's his business, and it will get behind him.

LEHRER: Ed Rollins doesn't agree, though, do you, Ed?

Mr. ROLLINS: Well, I think it's just going to make it that much more difficult for him to move forward with his agenda. And I think the last two years, this President can really deal in foreign affairs if he's allowed to move forward with his agenda. I think he's going to be distracted, and I think the longer it takes to get this behind him, the more difficult it's going to be to get on with the things that he needs to get on with.

LEHRER: Let me go back to the three editors on a question that Richard Allen raised earlier. He said that one of the things going here is media hype. From your perspective in Manchester, New Hampshire, is he right?

Mr. McQUAID: Very much so. I think he's definitely right. This is -- the fellow from Ohio says there's a broad, national consensus that this was wrong, and you asked him how. He didn't come up with a good reason on it. The Senate Democrats, having gotten the majority again, sniff blood, and they're not going to let Reagan out for two years, no matter if he says uncle, mother may I, fires everybody in his cabinet. That's the way it's going to play, because they want control in '88. The media tonight, the media tomorrow, they'll finally get tired of the story and go back to something like South Africa.

LEHRER: You read it that way, Brad Tillson in Dayton?

Mr. TILLSON: No, I think that's a lot of baloney. Richard Lugar is not a Democrat. Dole's not a Democrat. George Shultz is not a Democrat.

Mr. McQUAID: George Shultz could be a Democrat if he tried real hard.

LEHRER: Jerry Warren, I'm going to put you in the middle. How does it look from San Diego about how the press is handling this? You've been on the receiving end before on the other side.

Mr. WARREN: I think there is the aspect of the feeding frenzy in the water. However, when the Secretary of State publicly differs from his President, that's the story, and that's not media hype. I think we have to deal with those questions.

Mr. ALLEN: Last time that happened, there was a resolution. It wasn't speedy, but there was a resolution.

LEHRER: Well, how long can this go on like this, Richard Allen, with various members of the Reagan administration saying different things? You said they were all doing it. Well, Whitehead did his today publicly.

Mr. ALLEN: Not much longer, I would say. And not much longer could be a time frame of days to weeks, until something gives. And I think Ed and I have watched this pattern before, and the pressure just continues until the chamber can no longer contain it.

LEHRER: Do you agree with those, Ed Rollins, who say, though, that this is the worst crisis President Reagan has ever had in his Presidency?

Mr. ROLLINS: I think potentially it's the worst crisis. I would not say it's to that point yet. I still think that he can, if they get the complete story out and they don't have the inconsistent stories that are being gold, then I think they can get it behind them. But if you go on for two or three more weeks in which the CIA says one thing, NSC says something, and State says another thing, and the White House says a fourth thing, then I think you're going to have it drag on forever.

Mr. ALLEN: I'd like to -- I certainly agree with that, and I think what has happened here -- of course, it's just one opinion among many -- but this is an operation that seems to have hatched as a very small amoeba, and it grew and grew and grew, and it took on a momentum all its own. I think some questions have to be answered. And if they're going to pull administration spokesmen up there, they might as well pull Bud McFarlane up there and ask him a few questions as well.

LEHRER: My guess is they will eventually. Richard Allen, Ed Rollins and gentlemen out in the country, thank you, all five, for being with us. Philippines: Coup Crusher

HUNTER-GAULT: Our next focus, the Philippines, where President Corazon Aquino is a bit more firmly in power after staving off an apparent coup and firing an arch-rival. Charles Krause has more. Charles?

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mrs. Aquino's arch-rival was Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile. He'd been maneuvering against the president for months, demanding that she fire left wing members of her cabinet and stop negotiating with communist guerrillas. Saturday night, troops loyal to Enrile apparently planned to stage a coup. It was thwarted only after Amred Forces Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos issued an extraordinary statement. He publicly told the army to ignore any orders from the defense minister. Then on Sunday, President Aquino fired Enrile as part of the cabinet shakeup and gave the guerrillas seven days to agree to a cease fire.

CORAZON AQUINO, president, Philippines: -- all cabinet members to give me their resignations. Those who do not do so, I shall nonetheless consider resigned. Almost all have tendered their resignations. I am expecting the remaining few to do so by the end of the day. This will give the government a chance to start all over again. I have accepted the resignation of Minister Enrile, and I have appointed Deputy Minister Rafael Ileto to be the new defense minister. I hereby give notice to all those who may be inclined to exploit the present situation that the sternest measures will be taken against them if they try.

KRAUSE: For more on the implications of Mrs. Aquino's shakeup this weekend, we turn to Emmanuel Pelaez. He is the Philippine ambassador to the United States.

Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. Let me begin by asking you, why did it take so long for President Aquino to finally fire Mr. Enrile?

EMMANUEL PELAEZ, ambassador, Philippines: Well, she is following a policy of reconciliation, and, as much as possible, she wanted to do it in a manner which would not create a reaction, especially in the military. And she found the right moment.

KRAUSE: But at the same time, even she admitted yesterday that, as a result of keeping the defense minister for as long as she did, that many Philippinos began to view her as weak and indecisive.

Amb. PELAEZ: Well, it was a matter of timing. And she did it at the right moment. And if you judge by the results, the moment was right.

KRAUSE: But why do you say that? I mean, was there a coup, and --

Amb. PELAEZ: In the Philippines, you just don't say, "You disagree with me, and so I fire you." She had to show that, as much as possible, she was showing understanding for the criticism of Mr. Enrile. And as a matter of fact, she's going to act on some of the policy recommendations of Mr. Enrile.

KRAUSE: Like what?

Amb. PELAEZ: Well, like revamping her cabinet. She will revamp her cabinet. She will change some of the ministers. And now that she has a new defense minister who is a team player, the work of fighting the insurgence will be very much a close collaboration between the executive -- the president -- and the minister of defense.

KRAUSE: Well now, one of the points that she made is that she has given the guerrillas, the NPA, until the end of the week to agree to a cease fire.

Amb. PELAEZ: Yes.

KRAUSE: First of all, do you think they will reach an agreement for a cease fire?

Amb. PELAEZ: I believe that with the new stand of the president, the guerillas will agree to a cease fire within a week.

KRAUSE: You think so.

Amb. PELAEZ: I think so.

KRAUSE: Now, what happens if they don't?

Amb. PELAEZ: Well, the campaign against the insurgency will continue. And as the new defense minister has stated, they are going to have a dual approach of softness and toughness. Mr. Ileto is a veteran of the Magsezi era, when he was one of those who fought and successfully stopped insurgency in the 1950s. And their theme then was all-out friendship or all-out force. And he's going to implement this approach.

KRAUSE: Now, do you think we've heard the last of Mr. Enrile? I mean, is he finished now?

Amb. PELAEZ: Well, I don't know. Because the last report is that he is going on a long vacation. He is going abroad, and he says he has no plans for the present. It is possible that he might take part in the electoral process that is going to take place next year.

KRAUSE: But you don't believe that he or officers loyal to him will be continuing to look for an opportunity to overthrow Mrs. Aquino?

Amb. PELAEZ: No, I don't think so.

KRAUSE: And are you satisfied that -- she has talked about a fresh start. She's going to, apparently -- other people will have resigned, and she's going to redesign her cabinet. What is she going to do now?

Amb. PELAEZ: Well, she is going to review the membership of her cabinet and judge the performance of each present member on the basis of integrity and competence. And those who can not come up to her standards will be changed.

KRAUSE: Do you foresee, though, any major changes in her policies, other than getting a bit tougher with the guerrillas?

Amb. PELAEZ: Major changes in policies, no. But more efficient implementation, yes.

KRAUSE: Do you think -- is she going to be strong enough to deal with the very, very serious problems that remain and confront her government?

Amb. PELAEZ: Oh yes, I think so. Because she has the support of the people. And now, the armed forces will beunified, and the two people most responsible for the armed forces, the minister of defense and the chief of staff, are absolutely behind her.

KRAUSE: A last question and very quickly, but there have been a number of political assassinations over the last ten days. Do you think that will be brought under control now?

Amb. PELAEZ: I think so. I think so, because the very people who were responsible for those killings would realize that they will not bring about the destabilization of the Aquino regime.

KRAUSE: Was Enrile one of the people behind those assassinations?

Amb. PELAEZ: No, I wouldn't say so. That's a very serious thing to say, and I am not in a position to say so.

KRAUSE: But -- all right. But we'll leave it at that. I do want to thank you, and I hope we'll see you again soon.

Amb. PELAEZ: Thank you. Birth Control Battle

HUNTER-GAULT: Our next focus takes a look at the emotion charged debate over whether contraceptives should be dispensed in high school health clinics. Within the last two years, some 71 clinics have opened in schools around the country, and some 100 more are in the pipeline. But as the number of clinics has increased, so has the criticism. We get a flavor of that now in this background report from correspondent Elizabeth Brackett.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: The clinic is crowded this morning. Teenagers, some with babies, line up to see the doctor about colds, sore throats and birth control pills. It is the birth control pills that have caused the controversy. This is not the waiting room of a private doctor's office or a public health clinic. This clinic has been set up in the remodeled classrooms of a Chicago public high school. Nearly 1,000 girls attend Dusabel High School. Last year, close to 200 girls had babies. That alarming statistic is why Principal Judith Steinhagen says birth control devices are now available in school.

JUDITH STEINHAGEN, principal: This is a bandaid solution to try and keep at least the high school age girls at Dusabel in school, able to be self-supporting, and delay parenthood until they are better physically and emotionally able to take care of a child.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Students who use the clinic are even more direct.

PAULETTE CAMP, student: My mama can't stop me. Nobody in this clinic can stop me, because I'm going to do it anyway. Why should I do it and get pregnant?

BRACKETT: Critics charge that making birth control devices available in school will only increase the level of sexual activity among teenagers.

PATRICIA DAVIS SCOTT, clinic director: It is unfair to say that a community that has decided to try to impact not only teen pregnancy, but the health of the adolescent generally, I think it's unfair to accuse those people or promoting teen sexual activity.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Patricia Davis Scott is the director of the Dusabel Health Clinic. She points out that the clinic provides basic health care for teenagers in a neighborhood where health care facilities are scarce. Many Dusabel students live in nearby public housing projects. Few students can afford private physicians. Many ignore public health clinics. Scott says 85% of the students who come to the clinic come for basic health care. Last year, only 15% came for birth control.

Ms. SCOTT: We're not a birth control mill here. We're just about taking care of our kids. That's all we're doing.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Carl Turner, who practicesin the Dusabel High School neighborhood, says he worries about the medical care teenagers who do ask for birth control get from the Dusabel clinic.

Dr. CARL B. TURNER: When the objective of a clinic is primarily just to plug the leak, as it were, in terms of teen pregnancy, my vision of what that's doing is simply getting birth control pills in the hands of students as quickly as possible. It's not the same thing as I would approach a young woman coming to my office who is concerned about her family planning and wanting to discuss with me what the problems and what's available. She's not going to be addressed the same way in that Dusabel setting as I would in my office.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Director Scott bristles at the suggestion that girls who receive birth control pills at the clinic are not carefully monitored.

Ms. SCOTT: After we have assessed that she has parental consent, then she has a complete physical examination. This includes to come in and receive them as she needs them.She's given a limited supply. And then when she comes back in, she receives another basic assessment to say, and another questionnaire, to say if she has had any problems.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Area minister Reverend Hiram Crawford says he's concerned about the medical care given at the clinic, but he's more concerned about the moral atmosphere he thinks the clinic creates.

Rev. HIRAM CRAWFORD: The major objective is passing out pills and contraceptives, which is a pushing for fornication and adultery.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Reverend Crawford is so upset about the clinic, he and a group of ministers have filed a lawsuit aimed at shutting the clinic down.

Rev. CRAWFORD: Okay, now what about them other two pastors you were going to bring? Can you bring them with you too?

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Reverend Crawford and other anti-abortion activists demonstrated against the clinic when it opened last year. Reverend Crawford says pregnant girls are referred to local hospitals for abortions.

Ms. STEINHAGEN: That's a lie. That's a lie.

BRACKETT: What if a girl comes in and is pregnant? What is the advice?

Ms. STEINHAGEN: We set up medical -- they will make appointments for medical care. I'm not saying that certainly some girls at Dusabel have not had abortions. But those referrals are not made by the school nor the clinic.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Students at Dusabel say they do not want the clinic to shut down. Trenia Caroll spends her free period as a clinic volunteer. She says the clinic has been effective.

TRENIA CAROLL: I don't think that they should shut the clinic down. Because since the clinic has been here, less girls here have gotten pregnant than usual. Usually there'd be a whole bunch of girls here pregnant. Now it's a lower rate.

Ms. CAMP: The people that are trying to close the place down, they've never been in this neighborhood, they don't know what's going on in the homes. They don't know what's going on in people's heads. All they know is that that school over there is giving out birth control to 15 year olds, 14 year olds, 13 year olds. But if you go to the Board of Health, you can get it at 12. I don't see the difference, and I don't see the meaning of it.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The lawsuit will be heard in a Chicago circuit court early next year. The case will be closely watched by those who would like to see similar health clinics set up across the country. It will also be watched by those who oppose the spread of birth control at school.

HUNTER-GAULT: We expand the debate now with our next two guests. Judith Senderowitz is executive director of the Center for Populations Options, which helps organize school-based clinics. And Dr. Mildred Jefferson is president of the National Right to Life Crusade and a surgeon at University Hospital at Boston University. She joins us tonight from Chicago. Dr. Jefferson is one of those who is a critic who wants fewer birth control clinics in the schools.

What is your major objection?

Dr. MILDRED JEFFERSON, National Right to Life Crusade: Well, first of all, the public does not understand that the school-based clinic movement is not something that has come out in response to teenagers being pregnant in high numbers. It springs from the birth control movement which, over about 70 years, has sponsored programs which have focused on sex education and contraception without the knowledge and consent of parents. It has also been a sponsor of the population control movement which, since 1972, has created offices throughout the country for promoting what they refer to as the sex revolution. So that you have teenagers who are responding in a society that has been manipulated on a course that has really a disproportionate focus on sex now, in order to indoctrinate an entire generation. The school-based clinics coming from that movement are now carrying the message to young people at this impressionable age, which is destroying the opportunity of parents to transmit their own values, destroying the right of these young people to remain young people, and providing them with one particular view of sexual development and sexual practice.

HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Senderowitz, is that what's happening?

JUDITH SENDEROWITZ, Center for Populations Options: I don't think that's true. For one thing, the clinics are very indigenous movements. They start within a community, in response to a community's needs. That is, if a community sees that its young people have health needs, have health problems, then a community wants to try and treat those needs. School-based clinics are comprehensive. They serve all of the concerns that young people have with counselling, with medical care, with referral, with discussion. They encourage young people to consider the implications of their sexual behavior. They encourage young people to abstain, to protect themselves if they don't abstain. But more importantly, to try and treat the whole human being. And that involves their body and their minds. It might involve drug abuse and real tangible conditions, such as poor vision, poor hearing, and conditions that relate to the ability to learn in school.

HUNTER-GAULT: That doesn't sound like the same thing you were just describing, Dr. Jefferson.

Ms. JEFFERSON: No, but that would be convincing to people who don't know anything about their efforts to get this kind of movement started. But you see, we have some of their training manuals, we have some of the papers that they use to help advise those who they want to be the focus of starting the efforts in the given neighborhoods or the given schools.

HUNTER-GAULT: But she's just said that they were an indigenous movement. And in the tape piece, the doctor said that they have to have parental consent in order to dispense the birth control or, you know, provide any kind of medication for the young people.

Ms. JEFFERSON: Well, this parental consent is not what I, as a physician, consider the kind of parental consent from that lets the parent know exactly what the child is going to be exposed to. We know about the clinic efforts that have failed in the past. And they know very well that when they try to put these clinics into the high schools that focus only on the family planning, that the students themselves object. And it was specifically because of the inability to make these clinics succeed in the high schools alone as free-standing family planning clinics that they have surrounded them with this comprehensive health education or health protection. But for example, if you look at the ways given to induce the students to attend, there's the focus on athletic examinations, for one thing. And as the student comes in for the athletic examination, very soon they jump into what that student is doing about sex. You only have to look at the intake forms that the students have to fill in when they come in to know where the focus is. They are being dishonest in the way they are trying to sell the idea to the public. And so far as their being indigenous clinics, part of their instruction manuals advise how to choose those people within a community to be the nucleus of starting the groups, and how to exclude those who may find objections.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that this is just a smoke screen. How do you react to that, Ms. Senderowitz -- that this is just a smoke screen?

Ms. SENDEROWITZ: Well, for one thing, only about 20 to 25% of all visits are for family planning purposes. So that does leave the overwhelming majority of visits for other conditions that young people seek medical care on.

Ms. JEFFERSON: -- about contraception and their sex activity?

HUNTER-GAULT: What was the question again, Dr. Jefferson?

Ms. JEFFERSON: Why do they ask them all about their sex activity? Why should a child going into such clinics be quizzed about her sex activity?

Ms. SENDEROWITZ: Young people have a variety of interrelated health concerns. And risk taking in sexual activity is pretty classically an adolescent behavior. We hope that young people will be more mature and more reasonable about making decisions in this area. And that's why we encouage young people to talk about it. Actually, it really is a great help in having the young person be able to talk about such matters at home when it's possible to talk about such matters in school. You know, 86% of the American public believes that information on birth control be available within the school, and it really does help, too.

Ms. JEFFERSON: Eighty-six percent of which public, I would like to know. But a child who is coming into such clinic with an infected finger simply does not need to be quizzed about sexual activity.

Ms. SENDEROWITZ: And probably won't be.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, let me ask you, Dr. Jefferson, do you see -- excuse me -- teenage pregnancy and the increase in sexual activity among teenagers as a real problem that ought to be addressed?

Ms. JEFFERSON: Yes, but not in the way they're going about it. In the first place, they have created the crisis attitude toward teenage pregnancy, because the actual numbers of teenagers becoming pregnant today is dropping, as is the actual numbers of teenagers that exist.

HUNTER-GAULT: So are you saying there's just no need for the clinics?

Ms. JEFFERSON: No, no, no. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the approach they are taking is not an effective one.Because as they focus on their showcase clinics, they are trying to suggest that there is a reduction in the number of births to teenagers. But they have not shown asignificant reduction in the number of pregnancies. And the difference may be the increased number of abortions.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about that, Ms. Senderowitz?

Ms. SENDEROWITZ: No. In fact, the federal -- the U.S. government statistics show that pregnancies and births levelled off in about 1980 to '81, and since that time, they've been dropping. Slowly, to be sure, but they have been dropping.

HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Jefferson, you don't buy that?

Ms. JEFFERSON: No, because the problem is that they are looking at one set of figures, but they are claiming something else when they are trying to sell the effectiveness of these school-based clinics.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, specifically, what are they looking at that you think they're distorting?

Ms. JEFFERSON: The number of births that they count in a population, without letting us know exactly how many young women have actually continued in their programs, what follow up they have, what happens to them in the summer, for example.

Ms. SENDEROWITZ: We have good statistics so far on clinics, even though they're a new phenomenon. And the Center for Population Options, CPO, is conducting a long, three year -- three and a half year -- study on the effectiveness. We know that they decrease birth rates. We know that they increase effective use of contraception among those already sexually active. We know that a school-related clinic has reduced the age of sexual intercourse -- first intercourse -- by about seven months. But importantly -- maybe more importantly -- they detect undetected health problems: heart murmurs, a great number of things. They reduce dependence on alcohol and other substances.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, let -- I take --

Ms. JEFFERSON: That begins to sound like some of the snake oil remedies that people describe, because independent investigators looking at the same figures from their showcase clinics in St. Paul and Baltimore say that they really do not have the evidence of the things that she is claiming are true.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, let me ask --

Ms. JEFFERSON: However --

HUNTER-GAULT: Let me ask you this, Dr. Jefferson. You heard the student in the tape piece say that students are going to engage in sex anyway, and that they are glad to have the clinics in the schools, because at least it gives the students some options. You don't --

Ms. JEFFERSON: No, because in the first place, you're only talking to the students who are participating in the clinics. So you're going to get a different attitude expressed by them. They did not interview, or at least I don't see anything, of the young women who are there and are exposed to the environment when they don't want to be rushed into sexual activity, and they don't want to be pressured, because there is a clinic there where the contraceptives, or at least the advice and information, are available. To me, this is a way of focusing on two different world views. There are those who feel that your whole life is going to be run or your destiny is going to be controlled by your sex organs, and then there are the rest of us who believe that your life decisions and your actions must be controlled by your brains. And you must learn very early -- I was quite disturbed and unhappy with the young woman who insisted she was going to behave as she did, no matter what. The problem there is attitude.

HUNTER-GAULT: And is that what you believe has to be --

Ms. JEFFERSON: Yes, that has to be changed. And that has to be changed by people who understand that they must look at the background in which people are acting our rebellious and insistent activity -- activity which may be against their own best interests immediately and long term.

HUNTER-GAULT: Very briefly, a quick response, Ms. Senderowitz, because we have to move on.

Ms. SENDEROWITZ: Yes. We hope that we can help young people prevent pregnancy, so they do have a better future when they can use their brain, finish school, get a job, and not be dependent on public support. We want to help young people have a better future.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. I'm sorry, on that note we have to leave it there. Thank you both, Dr. Jefferson and Ms. Senderowitz, for being with us.

LEHRER: Again, the major story this Monday. President Reagan said again he did not believe his decision to deal with Iran on arms and hostages was a mistake. And he said he did not intend to fire any of his top aides because of the controversy about those Iranian dealings. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our News Hour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Good night.