The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we look at the politics of money. White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell debate President Bush's weekend veto of the bill to reform campaign financing. Then another in our series of voter's voices, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to party line voters about Ross Perot. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Los Angeles police and the FBI today arrested four men for the beating of a truck driver during the recent riots. A local news crew broadcast live pictures as the driver, Reginald Denny, was pulled from his truck and beaten nearly to death. President Bush and other politicians often referred to the incident to dramatize the lawlessness that accompanied the urban unrest. Three of the men were arrested early this morning. The fourth surrendered a short time later. They're charged with attempted murder, mayhem, robbery, and torture. Police Chief Daryl Gates spoke at a Los Angeles news conference.

DARYL GATES, Los Angeles Police Chief: The Los Angeles Police Department is very, very concerned at our inability to reach Mr. Denny at that time he was being assaulted and after and to assist him. And so we're hopeful that at least this will atone for some of that in bringing these very, very vicious criminals to be prosecuted. Each of these individuals are alleged to be members of a local street gang. We know them to be identified as street gang members. And once again, we're very, very pleased to have made these arrests.

MR. MacNeil: Police are using news footage and home videos of the incident to try to identify six others who may have been involved. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush presented Congress today with a six point urban legislative package. Much of it had been proposed before. It included anti-crime programs, incentives for business investment in inner city neighborhoods, a home ownership program, education and welfare reform, and job training. The President briefed reporters on the package before meeting with congressional leaders this morning. Reporters asked if it took the Los Angeles riots for him to address inner city problems.

PRES. BUSH: No, because, as you know and have been pointing out to me, some of these things have been proposed before. But we're going to now fight for them to get them passed. And I'm going in there in a couple of minutes in the spirit of cooperation, holding out my hand to Congress and saying, look, let's not try to get credit, let's try to get something done for this country, put it back to work, help these cities. And I think this is a good program. And the fact that some of the ideas have been proposed before and have not been enacted does not mean that they're not new. They are new.

MR. LEHRER: Democratic leaders in Congress sent President Bush their own set of proposals yesterday. After today's meeting, House Speaker Tom Foley said he was optimistic something would get done. He said there were already areas of agreement, such as enterprise zones.

REP. TOM FOLEY, Speaker of the House: There are some differences between the two proposals. We're going to examine those differences, try to work them out. There's a strong desire to try to move ahead on a number of these areas where there is strong consensus building. And I think that's one of the areas. I can't give you today, nor can anyone, a line by line description of all the compromises and adjustments that'll be made in these various approaches to the problem. But the spirit is very strong to work it out, and I think we will.

MR. LEHRER: There were Presidential primaries in West Virginia and Nebraska today. President Bush and Bill Clinton were favored to win their respective races in both states. The President already has more than enough delegates to win the nomination of his party. Clinton has 80 percent of the delegates he needs.

MR. MacNeil: In economic news, the government reported wholesale prices edged up just .2 percent in April. A big drop in vegetable prices and moderating energy costs helped keep wholesale inflation in check. So far this year, it's running at an annual rate of just 1 percent. Also today, the Bush administration predicted that the U.S. trade deficit will continue to shrink this year. The forecast was in a semiannual report to Congress on trade. It acknowledged that the trend could be reversed by a severe economic downturn in Europe and Japan. A media company controlled by television evangelist Pat Robertson today offered to buy United Press International. Robertson bid $6 million in cash for the bankrupt news agency at an auction in Rutland, Vermont. It is the only offer for the entire company. A judge will decide whether to accept it. The 85 year old news agency filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last summer. The company said it would have to shut down on Friday if it failed to raise additional cash.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush said today he will attend the United Nations-sponsored earth summit. He made the announcement at the start of a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Boutras Butrasgali. The summit was planned to address worldwide environmental problems like global warming. It will take place this June in Brazil.

MR. MacNeil: NASA went back to the drawing board today to try to find a way to snag a marooned communications satellite. Last night, astronauts of the shuttle Endeavour made a second unsuccessful attempt to rescue the $150 million satellite. At one point, space walking astronaut Pierre Thout appeared to have it, but a specially designed capture bar failed to retain it. The shuttle has enough fuel for only one more try, which will take place tomorrow. NASA officials said three astronauts might be sent out to try to wrestle the 9,000 pound satellite into the shuttle cargo bay by hand.

MR. LEHRER: The directors of the CIA and FBI said today they supported the release of classified information about the assassination of President Kennedy. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is considering legislation to release thousands of documents which have been kept secret since the investigation by the Warren Commission. CIA Director Robert Gates testified before the committee this morning.

ROBERT GATES, Director, CIA: Mr. Chairman, the only thing more horrifying to me than the assassination itself is the insidious, perverse notion that elements of the American government, that my own agency had some part and I am determined personally to make public or expose to disinterested eyes every relevant scrap of paper in CIA's possession in the hope of helping to dispel this corrosive suspicion. With or without legislation, I intend to proceed.

MR. LEHRER: Gates also announced the CIA was releasing a 110-page file compiled on Lee Harvey Oswald before he was charged with the assassination. The documents include information about Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 and his activities after returning to the United States in 1961.

MR. MacNeil: The civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina today forced the withdrawal of the last European Community peace monitors. They fled the capital just after dawn. EC officials said the warring Serbs and Muslims were out of control and the situation had become too dangerous for its people. In Washington, the U.S. announced the recall of its ambassador to Yugoslavia to protest the Yugoslav army's aggression against Bosnia. European Community nations did the same yesterday. More than 1300 people have been killed in Bosnia since ethnic battles broke out two months ago. That's our summary of the news. Now, a debate on campaign finance reform and key voters consider Ross Perot. FOCUS - '92 - THE POLITICS OF MONEY

MR. LEHRER: Campaign finance reform is our lead story tonight. On Saturday, President Bush vetoed the first reform legislation to pass Congress in a decade. The Senate Majority Leader and the White House Counsel debate the wisdom of that veto after this backgrounder by Congressional Correspondent Kwame Holman.

[DEMONSTRATION]

MR. HOLMAN: Once principally the subject of obscure congressional debate and reformist lobbying, the campaign finance reform issue recently spilled out onto the sidewalk.

[DEMONSTRATION]

MR. HOLMAN: In this year, when politicians are getting more heat than usual, demonstrators targeted the biggest political fund- raiser Washington has ever seen to criticize the prominent role of money in politics.

MAN: We're simply drawing the point here that private money, huge contributions, are putting the White House and public policy in Congress on the auction block. And that's not the way a democracy should run.

MR. HOLMAN: Inside, a record $9 million was being raised at a dinner for Republican congressional candidates. Most of the GOP's elite were there, led by the President, himself. Contributors paid at least $1500 apiece just to sit down to dinner. $92,000 bought them a private photo opportunity with the President. Both Republicans and Democrats say they don't like the idea of having to raise so much money, but that the reality is without it, without a lot of it, they couldn't win elections. For instance, during the 1990 Senate race in North Carolina, Republican incumbent Jesse Helms spent $13.4 million. His Democratic challenger, former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gant, spent 7.8 million. Those record figures will be exceeded in a number of races this year.

SEN. BOB KASTEN, [R] Wisconsin: The people of America are right to be angry, damn angry, about the way that our political process is working. In my view, and I think in the view of the people all across the state of Wisconsin, genuine campaign reform is absolutely essential.

SEN. JIM SASSER, [D] Tennessee: Passage of this legislation is long overdue. The money chase that candidates for public office must engage in has to come to a halt.

MR. HOLMAN: Fed up with the money chase and the perception that Congress is tainted by it, members on both sides of the aisle agreed the time had come foran overhaul of the campaign financing system. But agreement ended there. Voting along straight party lines, the Democratic Congressional majority pushed through its own package of reforms. Among the major changes, voluntary spending limits of $600,000 for House candidates and up to 5 1/2 million for Senate candidates, depending on the number of eligible voters in the state.

SEN. DAVID BOREN, [D] Oklahoma: Those of us who have crafted this bill believe that the most important thing we can do to return government back to the people is to put a limit on campaign spending. In over 95 percent of all of the elections in this country for the Congress, for national office, the candidate that raises the most money wins.

MR. HOLMAN: The Democratic plan would give benefits to those candidates who accept the spending limits, including reduced rates for campaign mailings and broadcast advertising, and some public financing in the form of matching funds like Presidential candidates currently receive.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: This bill represents the greatest congressional perk yet to come along. It is ridiculous when we are debating putting pay toilets into the Senate to be opening up a campaign bank to reach into the taxpayer's pocket to take the taxpayer's money.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: I think it's important to remind people that when we're talking about a perk here, as pointed out by the Senator from Massachusetts, in the last 12 years, the President of the United States has received over $200 million in federal funds to finance his Presidential campaigns. I wonder where their voices are in complaining about that perk.

MR. HOLMAN: Also contained in the Democratic bill, PAC reform; the maximum contribution a Political Action Committee could make to a Senate candidate would be reduced from 5,000 to 2500 dollars. And there would be limits on the total amount of PAC money a candidate could receive, no more than 20 percent of the Senate candidate's total campaign fund, for a House candidate no more than 33 percent of the total war chest. And money raised by political parties, like the $9 million raised at the big Republican dinner last month, would be strictly curtailed, and the sources of it fully disclosed. But Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah complained Democrats virtually ignored an even bigger problem.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: The fact of the matter is is that the unions spend about $36 million directly that has to be reported every year. Indirectly, they're spending, it's estimated by the National Right to Work Committee, $300 million a year in these sewer moneys that nobody even knows about. And you wonder why Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives for 56 of the last 60 years. This is one of the reasons.

MR. HOLMAN: The reforms approved by Congress would not take effect until next January, too late to impact candidates running this year, candidates like newcomer Tom Hattery of Western Maryland. Hattery had spent most of last winter on the phone talking to potential contributors.

TOM HATTERY, Congressional Candidate: You know, you can't contribute 100 percent of the time of that phone call raising money, but it's a large percentage unfortunately of time is spent raising money.

MR. HOLMAN: In March, Hattery upset incumbent Beverly Byron in the Republican primary and now says money for his general election campaign is coming in a bit easier, especially from Political Action Committees. But a win on November 3rd won't end Hattery's money chase. The President's veto almost assures he'll have to start his run for re-election the very next day.

MR. LEHRER: Now, to C. Boyden Gray, the White House Counsel, and Sen. George Mitchell, Democrat of Maine, the Senate Majority Leader. He joins us from studios on Capitol Hill. Sen. Mitchell, with a veto, the President has said what about the reform of campaign financing in your opinion?

SEN. MITCHELL: He has said no to reform and his veto will perpetuate the current system which I think is most unfortunate for all concerned. I think of particular concern are the reasons the President advanced the veto; first, that he's opposed to public funding, this from a candidate who by the end of this year will have received $200 million from public funding. If he is truly opposed to public funding, why has he voluntarily participated in the system in which he's received such a vast sum for public funding of his campaigns? Second, in his words, it would perpetuate the corrupting influence of special interests and the imbalance between challengers and incumbents. In fact, this is truly the opposite of what the reality is. It is incumbents who benefit from the present system. In the 1990 elections for the Senate, in 30 races challengers faced incumbents. In 28 of the 30, incumbents out spent challengers. And the overall difference was three to one in favor of incumbents. And as far as perpetuating the corrupting influence of special interests, this comes with particular ill grace following the President's dinner. And that was the name of the dinner held just recently at which $9 million was raised, $6 million of it in so-called "soft money" or "sewer money." Prospective donors were solicited directly by the President of the United States to contribute in amounts that would be against the law if they were contributing to candidates directly, but because of this system which permits these soft money contributions and these special interests, this large sum was raised. As I said, two- thirds of it would not be legal if it were given directly to the candidates who are the anticipated beneficiaries of these contributions. The President also said that he's opposed to it because it has different rules for the House and Senate. Well, that's a non sequitur. It's truly a red herring. The House and Senate are different. The races are not identical and of course, the spending limits cannot be and should not be identical, just as the Presidential election is different from Senate elections, just as the House elections are different from the Presidential election. The suggestion somehow that they must be identical has no logical bearing on the issue at hand. It's most regrettable.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Gray, we'll go through -- Senator, we'll come back and go through some of the specifics -- but first, Mr. Gray, what was the general -- is the Senator right, that the President just simply is not interested in reforming the campaign financing of this in the country right now?

MR. GRAY: No, no. Your introductory piece and Sen. Mitchell both ignore the fact that the President had a bill of his own pending and would sign it if he had the opportunity. The problem with what Congress has produced is that it doesn't do anything about the power of incumbency or about the corrosive influence of special interests. It doesn't alter what is now the situation in the current election cycle in the House of Representatives, for example, where incumbents are being funded by PACs at a ratio of 33 to 1, that is 43 million has gone to incumbents and only slightly over a million to challengers. You can't have fair elections in that circumstance. And this is our principal objection. This general result would not be altered by the bill the President vetoed.

MR. LEHRER: But what about the points that the Senator made, because I read that same statement today, the written statement the President made in his veto message was that he was opposed to public financing at congressional races, and the point that the Senator made and other people have made, if he's so opposed to it, why has he accepted $200 million?

MR. GRAY: Well, his acceptance of public funds has never been questioned until the last three or four weeks. We've been in office now three and a half years and he's had a bill up there for nearly all of that time and this is the first time very recently. He, I think, would be perfectly happy to give up the public financing if his opponent would do the same. He's already given up PAC money, which Gov. Clinton has not done, and left I don't know how many hundreds of thousands on the table. But I think the fundamental point about the Presidential system is the President's limited to two terms. There is no incumbency protection issue involved. There are no such limits in the House of Representatives.

MR. LEHRER: But what I was trying to get at is the President -- the Democrats are right then that the President is not opposed to public financing of elections as a matter of principle; he's just opposed to it in congressional races, is that correct?

MR. GRAY: Well, the issue has never really come up about the Presidential system. It was never made an issue in the legislative process. And so --

MR. LEHRER: Well, what is his objection on congressional races?

MR. GRAY: The way the system works is it's highly punitive. There really isn't much of a fair shot for a challenger. If a challenger has the temerity to raise 81 percent of the limit, that is, 1 dollar over, just 4/5 of the so-called limit, he triggers unlimited matching funding, taxpayer funding for his opponent without limits whatsoever. And that's hardly fair, plus the fact that the incumbent is going to get, we know, if the past is any guide, some $200,000 automatically in PAC funds that won't go, except at a minor fraction, to the challenger. So the challenger starts out way behind the eight ball. And if he happens to raise money, even before he gets to the limit, he's triggered unlimited taxpayer funding for his opponent.

MR. LEHRER: Let's stop and talk about this issue specifically. Sen. Mitchell, it seems to me that the two of you are talking about two entirely different bills. You say that this bill would, in fact, stop or at least mitigate the advantage that incumbents now have, most of whom are Democrats, and you are saying and the President is saying, Mr. Gray, and Sen. Gramm and others said on the floor of the Senate, Republicans said, no, it's just the opposite. Now, Senator, how do you explain that from your perspective?

SEN. MITCHELL: The evidence explains it. The facts of recent history explain it. In all of the Senate elections since 1986 incumbents out spent challengers 93 percent of the time and won 85 percent of those elections. I just cited the 1990 election in which incumbents out spent challengers 28 out of 30 races. There is no factual evidence to support the assertion made by the President and now by Mr. Gray that this bill will help challengers. What they're saying is that one out of every ten or fifteen challengers will be in a position to out spend incumbents and let's keep the current system for them to the disadvantage of the overwhelming majority of challengers. It's no surprise that 32 current and former Republican challengers wrote the President and urged him to sign the bill. The most significant action that could be taken to limit the enormous advantage that incumbents have over challengers is to limit spending, because almost all incumbents spent more than the limit, all challengers less than the limit. It follows logically, therefore, that a limit produces a lesser amount of spending by incumbents, doesn't affect almost all challengers, therefore, narrows the gap between them.

MR. LEHRER: What is wrong with his logic there, Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: I can't quarrel with the fact that it might narrow the gap, but it doesn't alter the landscape of PAC giving which the President would abolish. PAC giving is not so bad in the Senate where the Majority Leader resides, but in the House, it's -- because in the Senate it's only six to one in favor of incumbents - - in the House, it's thirty-three to one in favor of incumbents. And that ratio will not be altered. Sure, the gap might be slightly narrowed, but the ratio is going to remain roughly the same. In addition, I should point out that in the House -- again, this is something that Sen. Mitchell perhaps can't respond to -- but in the House, the franking privilege provides about a hundred and thirty to forty million dollars in benefits every election cycle, which is three to four times the total amount of all money spent by all challengers combined. And that's before you even get into the PAC money.

MR. LEHRER: But why, Mr. Gray -- it' s not getting through to me or something -- I don't understand why the President objects to limiting the amount of money that could be spent in these races. Doesn't that keep the money down? Doesn't that reduce PAC money and every other kind of money at the same time?

MR. GRAY: It also reduces what the challenger can do and locks him into a vastly inferior status compared to his opponent.

MR. LEHRER: Well, he can still raise -- I mean, he can raise the same amount of money that he could before.

MR. GRAY: If he raises 4/5 of the limit, he triggers punitive opposition funding by the taxpayer against him. He can't possibly overcome the built-in advantages that the incumbent has. He's locked into a position of permanent inferiority. And, of course, I'm not even talking about the franking privileges and all the other privileges of incumbency which are three to four times what he could possibly get in raising money from the public. And that is totally unaffected by this bill.

MR. LEHRER: Quick answer on this, Senator, then I want to go to the soft money question.

SEN. MITCHELL: Yes. First, it is not true, as Mr. Gray just said, that the President proposed to abolish PACs. The President has never proposed to abolish all PACs. He has proposed to abolish some PACs and to permit other PACs to remain in existence. And the inevitable effect of that, as is very clear from history, is that those PACs which are abolished would then reform in the allowable way and you would have a proliferation of PACs. The President's proposal would not abolish PACs and it explicitly would have permitted some PACs to continue.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to the question that was raised by the big Republican dinner, the $9 million dinner, Mr. Gray. The Democrats, Sen. Mitchell has said it and it was said on the floor of the Senate, that their bill would stop that kind of thing. First of all, do you think that kind of thing should be stopped?

MR. GRAY: Not completely. Their bill would throw out the benefits with the disadvantages. The President's bill would have prohibited, as would the congressional bill, bundling, which is the bad abuse of this kind of giving. This should be prohibited. The President would have prohibited it. Unfortunately, the congressional bill goes even further and prohibits all support for parties, as well as leaving totally untouched -- not even disclosure -- support that is provided by labor unions which can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't know, because there is no federal law to require disclosure of this spending, and the President's bill would at least have required disclosure of this off-record spending by unions and perhaps also corporate interests.

MR. LEHRER: Why are the Democrats opposed to that on the labor unions, because they support Democrats, Senator?

SEN. MITCHELL: Absolutely not. And I frankly don't even know what he's talking about. First off, the figure of $300 million used in the introductory piece is a complete fiction. It is a figment of the imagination of the persons who use the figure.

MR. LEHRER: That was Sen. Hatch.

SEN. MITCHELL: Well, he's got a good imagination. He's a close friend of mine and I don't know why -- I'd like to ask him -- I will tomorrow -- where does that number come from. Secondly, I don't know what spending he's talking about. Are you talking about voluntary participation by persons who are themselves members of labor unions?

MR. LEHRER: Is that what you mean?

MR. GRAY: I mean there are some bank activities that are in part financed by union dues. Now, if there were disclosure of this, we could have a handle. Maybe it's not 300 million; maybe it's only 30 million. But we don't understand why the congressional bill, the Democratic bill, wouldn't have at least accepted what the President's bill did, which is disclosure of this activity so we could all know.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you this question. We sit here tonight. Now, first of all, Senator, do you have enough votes in the House and Senate to override the President's bill?

SEN. MITCHELL: No.

MR. LEHRER: So it's a dead issue?

SEN. MITCHELL: Well, it will be after tomorrow. We're going to vote in the Senate to override the veto, but we do not have the votes to override the veto. I'd like to just make one point here, Jim, before this gets over. Mr. Gray said earlier the President is opposed to special interests. What are special interests? Does a person who contributes $400,000 to the Republican dinner so that he can come and sit with the President -- is he a special interest, or is he not a special interest?

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Gray.

MR. GRAY: Well, he doesn't contribute to the President's campaign, nor does he contribute to any individual Senate or House campaign. He's contributing to the party. But we do know, we do know what organized Political Action Committee, corporate Political Action Committees do. We do know how much money they give. We do know how corrosive they are. Your colleague, Sen. Tim Wirth, cited these muddied interests as one of the reasons why he is leaving the Senate. And to be sure, the President has not proposed in his legislation to eliminate what we call ideological PACs that are unconnected to either a union or a corporate entity. But these PACs have given traditionally more to Democrats than to Republicans anyway, so I don't know why the Senator should complain about that. We would have proposed, the President would have proposed to eliminate them as well, but we were told it would be unconstitutional to do so. The key is to get rid of what everybody knows to be the corrosive element, not so much in the Senate with all due respect, it is much more in the House, which is where the incumbency reelection rate runs at about 99 percent.

MR. LEHRER: But the end result, just where I was going a moment ago, and we have to leave it here, is that absolutely nothing is going to happen, right? All of this talk and all of the polls that show the people are upset about the way the Congress and the President as well takes money and all the surveys show that, nothing is going to be reformed, is that right, Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: Apparently not. If they're going to take up the President's bill and they're not going to override the current veto which I hope they can't --

MR. LEHRER: And you're not going to take up the President's bill, right, Senator?

SEN. MITCHELL: It's a non-bill. It is another effort to deal with the perception of the problem, rather than with the problem. This - -

MR. LEHRER: All right. I hear you. We have to leave. Thank you both very much. FOCUS - '92 - VOICE OF THE VOTERS

MR. MacNeil: We turn now to the Presidential campaign itself and the factor that is tormenting both Democratic and Republican strategists, Ross Perot. In their latest national survey, the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press found the Texas billionaire finishing in a dead heat with Bush and Clinton if the election were held now. According to the poll, Perot seems to be hurting Clinton more than Bush, although Perot's appeal cuts across all of the nine different voter categories the Times Mirror has identified. In Charleston, West Virginia, last week, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with core voters from both parties to learn why they are supporting Perot.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Kelly Staup is a Charleston native, one of Appalachia's bedrock Democrats, 30 years old, a divorced mother of three, a high school graduate supporting her family by doing odd jobs for a temp agency. Her annual income is less than $15,000. She said that whenever he feels like it, her ex-husband, a former Air Force computer specialist, sends $50, and that's not often. She has no idea where he is. After the divorce, Mrs. Staup rented a three-room apartment next door to her mother. Her low income and attitudes puts her in the Times Mirror's pocket book Democrat category. She believes Democrats are more for what she calls "the common people" like herself. She believes government has a responsibility to help people who through no fault of their own have difficulty helping themselves, a principle she feels was abandoned during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush.

KELLY STAUP: My life has changed drastically in 12 years. I grew up in a middle class family, but we had -- we always had a nice home -- we always had nice things. We never went without anything. We really didn't. And my mother -- I came from a single parent family and my mother worked two jobs, but we still managed to have everything we needed and most everything that we wanted. And we grew up, you know, with a sense of values. And over the years, it just seems like, you know, no matter how hard middle class even families try to work, it's like they're at a standstill. It seems like there's no getting ahead. It seems like things are just harder and harder.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How does it make you feel that your mother was able to make it as a single parent with even one more kid than you have?

KELLY STAUP: It makes you have a very low self-esteem, it really does, to think that you can't even do as well as your parents did for you, and in the same situation. And I hate to blame,you know, lay blame, well, I can't because, I can't because, but there are so many women out there like me who are in the same situation. They want to do better, but there is just not the means out there to do it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the biggest sacrifice you're having to make now because of your circumstances?

KELLY STAUP: To me, it's not my sacrifice. I feel like that my kids make a lot of sacrifices that they shouldn't have to make at this stage in life, because, you know, when I was a kid, you know, I was never told I couldn't be a cheerleader, I couldn't do this, I couldn't do that, and I've had to do that. You know, I've had to say, you know, no, you can't go out for cheerleading this year, because I can't afford it. She did cheer last year and I scraped and saved for her to do it, but this year, I just can't afford it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's involved?

KELLY STAUP: Well, you have your uniform and your shoes and your socks. And it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but within my budget, it is.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That must break your heart.

KELLY STAUP: It does. It really does, to have to deny them something that's not, you know, it's not that much of a cost really, and the memories and the fun of it, and just, you know, kid things.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you manage to keep your kids in school and day care?

KELLY STAUP: Social services does help with my day care, because I have an income that is considered low enough that I need assistance.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So in a real sense one could argue that the system is working for you.

KELLY STAUP: I don't know what I'd do if it weren't for the system, because it does help me a lot, but maybe if we had some changes in our system, maybe -- you know, if I received a good amount or a fair amount of child support, I wouldn't need the help I was on, or maybe if there were better education programs and I could go back to school, I wouldn't need any help.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why can't you go back to school?

KELLY STAUP: Well, I can't afford it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you want to do?

KELLY STAUP: I would like to go into nursing, but in order to go to school with a full scholarship or a full grant, you have to go full-time, and I can't go to school full-time and work full-time and manage to raise a family. You know, I just can't do it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you make ends meet?

KELLY STAUP: Very carefully. We rob Peter to pay Paul. You know, we just juggle our finances.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At this point you're more interested, is that right, in Ross Perot? What is it that makes you stop and say, maybe he's the one?

KELLY STAUP: Well, because he's someone new. He's saying that he's going to take a look at things and see what needs to be done and try to do that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And that's the impression you get from Perot but not from Clinton?

KELLY STAUP: It's just one of those gut feelings. It's just something I feel, just something that doesn't feel right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You think it's too pat, too packaged?

KELLY STAUP: It just seems like sometimes we're hearing what is thought that we want to hear. I would rather have someone to say, you know, I don't know the answer but we'll look at the problem and we'll find the answer than to have someone say I know the answer and I'll do it, because everyone does that. Everyone says they'll do it and it doesn't get done.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was your reaction to the events in Los Angeles and do you think that has made any difference in the way you feel about these candidates?

KELLY STAUP: I wasvery shocked to find that they did not find those policemen guilty. It made me angry and I can understand the anger of the citizens in LA. I can't condone tearing up the city, but I don't blame them for being angry. And it just goes to show that there isn't equal justice yet. I have friends who are black and we've talked about racial issues and they have tried to explain to me that, you know, no, there isn't equal justice yet. And I've tried to say, well, sure, there is, you know, sure there is. And after that trial, you know, it really made me realize that they were right. He could have been cuffed and subdued without all the violence. And he wasn't. To me, they were just, they were having fun. They were having fun and how a jury came up with an innocent verdict is just beyond me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you feel about the way the candidates reacted, especially Clinton?

KELLY STAUP: Well, I haven't -- I have not seen anything on television about his reaction. I did watch the speech that Bush gave. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but to me it just -- it sounded like false sympathy. And I feel that Bush just always has false sympathy for anyone beneath him, whether it be blacks, whites, Hispanics, anyone of lower class. I don't think he really cares.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Have you felt all along that the government should do more to help people in urban areas?

KELLY STAUP: I really, I really feel like that they should, because as a friend told me who used to live in New York City, in the ghetto, you know, I told her one day, well, you know, why can't these kids, you know, just get their education and pull themselves up and get out, and she told me, she said, Kelly, you don't realize, you know, that we can't pull ourselves up by our boot straps, she said, because we don't have any boots. I don't think all these people want to sit in housing projects on welfare. I think they want to help themselves but they're in a catch-22 situation. They just can't.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Can you imagine a circumstance in which you wouldn't vote in this election?

KELLY STAUP: No, because I think I would voter for Donald Duck if it would get Bush out of office.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Kelly Staup, thank you. John Taylor is 27 years old, a transplanted West Virginian, the product of an inter-racial marriage, as is his daughter, six and a half month old Kaley. He and the baby's 21-year-old mother, Debby, have not decided yet on marriage. Both are high school graduates. She works as a waitress at a local restaurant. He works as a manual labor in a security sensitive area at Union Carbide earning between twenty and twenty-nine thousand dollars a year. The Times Mirror classifies Mr. Taylor as a '60s Democrat, as such, a strong believer in peace and social justice and a guarantee of equal opportunity for all. Although Mr. Taylor is not happy with the Democratic front-runner, he supports most of the policy positions of the National Democratic Party.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: John, what do you like about the Democrats?

JOHN TAYLOR: Well, in the past I've seen that they've, for example, in the Carter years, they tend to be more people-oriented, for the people, the common people, instead of big business industries, et cetera, and that's who I am. I'm not AT&T; I'm not Honeywell or Rockwell or anything like that. I'm just your average person who's, you know, we have to live here, we want to be heard, but we can't because politicians are politicians and we're the people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So how do you feel about this campaign, who interests you?

JOHN TAYLOR: Mr. Perot interests me because he doesn't really have slick lines. He doesn't have a bunch of come on about, well, I'll do this and I'll do that and read my lips, no new taxes. He's just -- he seems to be more of a down-to-earth person than the other candidates. Mr. Clinton, shouldn't have any faith in him.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

JOHN TAYLOR: The background, all the fuss that's made about him, he doesn't seem to me, doesn't seem earnest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What bothers you?

JOHN TAYLOR: It's not so much the marital status, things that have gone on in a marriage, because I don't see how that has anything to do with running the country, but you talk about he gets on -- he says he's for all the people -- he's out there shaking hands with everybody and basically you can't be for everybody. I mean, there's going to be some that's going to be left out somewhere, like it or not, but not real confident in his policies. Other politicians seem to -- something happened in the country and they want to jump on, address that issue to an extent. He's pointing the finger at Mr. Bush about this incident in LA and he's just as guilty as anyone else.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How?

JOHN TAYLOR: Because no one's addressed these issues before. I'm 27 years old. This stuff's been going on the whole time I'm alive in South Central LA, Watts was in '65, I was born in '65. This whole time they're supposed to be helping these people, helping them to better themselves, educationwise, jobwise, et cetera. It's done nothing. It's just basically sat there. People have sat there and waited and waited and waited, and now they're like, hey, we're going to voice our opinion one way or another, and this is the only way we know how because we've been repressed for so long. And it's rich -- I don't live anywhere near LA. I mean, I'm from the other side of the world from the conflict and the rioting and the anger and stuff, but the video says it all. I mean, like I'm on videotape now. Pictures don't lie.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How did it make you feel when you heard the verdict?

JOHN TAYLOR: There wasn't that much change because I somewhat expected. When they moved it to Simi Valley, I'm familiar with Simi Valley, and I know the people that live out there. I've seen the people that live out there, and they're not your average people. They live in their own world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You got to know them when you were in the Navy?

JOHN TAYLOR: Yes. Not so much know them as in yes, I know you, I come over to your house for dinner because it's not my say choice of friends to have -- you know, it's basically a white world and you have to live -- if you live out there, you stay away from that kind of world if you're a person of color, because the cops are going to get you or the neighborhood's going to get you -- we don't want you around here, you're trouble. I didn't do anything. I'm defending your country but I can't come in your neighborhood.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did the incident have anything to do with the way you see politicians, government?

JOHN TAYLOR: Yes. Pat Buchanan said that President Bush sent in the National Guard, et cetera, and the military forces a day late. They never should have been sent there. Why? Because they shouldn't have had these riots. Why? Because the government, our wonderful government that we have should have addressed these problems years and years and years ago.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What problems?

JOHN TAYLOR: Discrimination, joblessness, education, basically in your white communities you have good education, and in your black communities, you have substandard -- as they said on the news, our children -- it's not a fact of our children are aspiring to go to college, they're not inspiring to go to high school. That's -- to me, that's a problem, a major problem. And where does it end? I mean, does -- you know, they're talking about prosecuting these people that were rioting. The people are voicing their opinion. You look at our American history, when we were repressed, we had a boot in the throat, at the beginning of our history, what did we do, we started a war with England, and we've said we rebelled, we voiced our opinion with the Boston Tea Party. Isn't that basically the same thing as the LA riot?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What attracts you about Perot that would make you abandon the Democratic candidate?

JOHN TAYLOR: For lack of choice, because I feel more comfortable with Perot because Perot seems to me like more of a people person. He's not making promises and no new taxes and look, we're in trouble; this country's in trouble; I'm here to offer some help. I mean, the man wasn't really even in the running and was slightly forced into it -- and said, hey, you come run, we'll do everything we can to get you into the running.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you know anything about him or the positions he holds, or does that really matter at this point?

JOHN TAYLOR: It does matter to an extent, but then again it doesn't because he's not -- there's not a party of individuals, say Democrats or Republicans, or the independents or liberals that are saying, we're backing him, this is our best we can offer. I mean, if Clinton and Bush are the best that the Democrats and Republicans have to offer, then someone needs to sit back and examine things.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think Perot can win?

JOHN TAYLOR: I feel very strongly he can win because like I say he seems to be more of a people person. Sure, he's a millionaire, billionaire, something like that, but he's soft-spoken, he's not slowing in mind against everybody else. That strikes me as odd. You know, he's running for President, but yet, he's not pointing the finger around; he's just saying basically from the way I understand it is we have problems, let's work on these problems, not it's your fault, your fault, your fault, pointing the finger, passing the buck, because sooner or later somebody's going to have to take charge and say, look, these things are wrong, what's going on is wrong and it's time to put an end to it, or in my opinion, ten years from now we'll have us another civil war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You really believe that?

JOHN TAYLOR: Yes. I feel very strongly about that, but it's not going to be the traditional North and South. It's going to be the poor and the minorities and the repressed middle class against the upper class. And of course the upper class is going to have the guns, the police forces, and the military to protect them and protect their property and their money. But yet, who's there protecting the poor people? I mean, these people's lives are being crushed on TV in the nation's eye, in the newspaper, in the job, in the workplace. Who's helping us? Nobody. When we - - you know, they say, vote, you can make a difference with your vote, and you don't. You can't.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Can you imagine not voting?

JOHN TAYLOR: Yes. I can imagine it this year, because the way things are running.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, John Taylor, thank you.

JOHN TAYLOR: You're welcome.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Self is a Charleston native, a 36 year old mother of two. Her husband, Glenn, is a salesman for a pharmaceutical company. The couple, both Republicans, married four years ago. A graduate of the University of Kentucky, Mrs. Self is a vice president for sales at a travel agency. She calls herself a conservative Republican. The Times Mirror calls her an enterpriser, a bedrock group that is 99 percent white, pro-business and anti-government. Mrs. Self is active in local Republican politics, including the Pilots Club, a Republican women's group. But now she has turned against the Republican Party of George Bush. Last week she signed a petition to put Ross Perot on the ballot and plans to vote for him in November. Why is she so angry?

TRACY SELF: Well, I'm not sure that angry is the exact word. It's frustration, which leads to anger if something's not done about it. And so far, we've watched what's going on with our government and it seems that Ross Perot is trying to cross the lines of Republican or Democrat or any lines in there he is trying to work for the common good of the people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is it that appeals to you about Perot? Is it because he is none of the above, or is it that he has qualities that you particularly admire?

TRACY SELF: He takes an idea and he builds on it and he makes things happen by getting the people to work for him, to work together. In the past, when he was working for a large company and they didn't believe in his idea, he went out, got people together from nothing. He didn't have millions. He didn't have anything, except this idea and a firm belief that it would work. And he got people together and look what he's built. And he got people together and look what he's built. And this is all about getting people to work with him and he finds out what they need and what they want, that plus his personal life. I know that's not on trial, but it's still something that that's what you use to see what a person is really like. And he has led a very disciplined life, his family. They have all been -- I don't mean successful in the term of financially successful -- but they have worked very hard.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: One of the criticism so far of Perot is that he's been very general about issues and what he would do. Do you feel that way and does that bother you that you don't know more about the specifics of what he might do about circumstances and issues?

TRACY SELF: It bothers me somewhat, yes, because I want to see what he would do in certain situations. But I think some of them - - what he's responding to, saying, that's an issue that I have not come to complete terms with as to how I would deal with that. But I will have people advising me and telling me and that's his strong point, is getting people surrounding him, advising him, here's what we think, here's what would work, and his intelligence is the factor that would sway me to say well, I would trust him to do the right thing for the people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think Perot could beat Bush?

TRACY SELF: I do. I think that that's a real possibility. Otherwise, I wouldn't pursue my vote for him and my family is a background of Republicans and my father is questioning why would I want to do something like that. That could very easily -- the people that are going to vote for Perot could throw the Bush victory and that is a possibility. And that has made me think about it. Well, if Ross Perot really does not have a chance at this, do I want to go for him as much as I can, and possibly throw off Bush getting in as President -- if Ross Perot can't be there, my second choice would be Bush.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Have the eventsin Los Angeles colored how you feel about any of the candidates, or the current situation in this country?

TRACY SELF: No. I was glad to see that Bush did step in. I think that was important.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think about those events, the videotape, the verdict, the events, the riots afterwards?

TRACY SELF: I think that the media was partially responsible for what happened all across the country. There was a reason -- we don't know everything that happened in the courtroom.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What does it say to you about this country that all of this erupted?

TRACY SELF: I'm not sure that this is not an isolated incident or an incident where things worked to appear one way when they really weren't that way. I'm not sure -- I don't think we are as backwards as that incident leads the public to believe. And I don't see that type of discrimination going on all over the country. I think we have come a long ways. I think we've got a long ways to go, not just for a specific minority group, but for all minorities, women included.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What has your life personally and your business life been like for the past 12 years through Reagan and Bush, and does any of that affect how you feel now about the whole political campaign?

TRACY SELF: I work in a travel agency and principally our success depends on the success of what people we serve. If our community, if there is not money in the community, if people aren't working and traveling out of West Virginia, then we aren't successful. And we have seen that travel has definitely declined out of Charleston due to the fact that jobs have been cut over the past, oh, six years. We've lost several thousands of jobs through a lot of our chemical plants and then that trickles down to businesses in Charleston that have closed even in the past six months. That does affect us. Those people, those companies might not be our biggest travelers, but the people that work for them earn an income to enable them to travel and that hurts us. I don't blame that solely on the Republican Party. I don't blame that on Reagan and I don't blame that necessarily on Bush.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you're not willing to give Bush another four years?

TRACY SELF: Today, no, I'm not. I'm ready and willing to look for an alternative in Ross Perot. In the past, I have trusted our leaders to the fact that they are making the best possible decisions for the people. I'm not sure of that at this point, so that's why I think we do need to have a change. We need someone in there that can see a growth for our country.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Tracy Self, thank you.

TRACY SELF: Thank you. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Tuesday, police and FBI agents arrested four suspects in the televised beating of a truck driver during the Los Angeles riot. President Bush presented Congress with a six point package of urban legislation. Most of it had been proposed before, but congressional leaders were optimistic that something would get done. Good night, Jim.

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