The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a Newsmaker interview with Defense Secretary Perry, the decision to exclude Ross Perot from the presidential debates with Perot running mate Pat Choate and debate commission co-chair Paul Kirk, the fight against heroin abuse in Seattle, Rod Minott reports, a new study on the connection between diet and cancer, Marian Burros explains, and the kindness of gorillas and other strangers as seen by essayist Roger Rosenblatt. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today ordered 3500 more U.S. troops to Kuwait. He said he had authorized the deployment last weekend and signed the orders last night. In a NewsHour interview, I asked Defense Sec. Perry why it appeared the allies were not supporting the United States in Iraq.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: In my eight years in government, Jim, I have never seen such a discrepancy between the reality--the facts on the ground--and the perception on this issue. One of the reasons I wanted to go to the region and talk with all of the heads of states of these countries was to get a first-hand estimate of what is going on, where does the coalition stand. And I can tell you the coalition is alive and well.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have the complete interview right after this News Summary. President Clinton briefed congressional leaders on the Iraq mission this morning. Afterwards, Sen. John McCain told reporters he did not think the administration had matched deeds with rhetoric.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: In foreign policy, if you say you're not going to stand for an invasion of a Kurdish area and then do relatively nothing, there's a price to pay. And if you say that you're going to respond disproportionately, as our Secretary of Defense said a short time--two days ago--and don't, then there's a price to pay. And when your allies become very uneasy, in fact, non-supportive, except for the British, then you have a very serious challenge.

MR. LEHRER: French officials announced today they would permit American fighter bombers to fly over France if Iraq fires on allied planes patrolling the no-fly zones. They said the French government was still opposed to an unprovoked strike. The Presidential Debates Commission today recommended excluded Reform Party candidate Ross Perot from the 1996 debates. Commission Co- chair Paul Kirk said Perot did not qualify as a viable challenger to President Clinton and Bob Dole. He spoke at a Washington news conference.

PAUL KIRK, Commission on Presidential Debates: Our decision and that of our advisory committee was made on the basis that only President Clinton and Senator Dole have a realistic chance as set forth in our criteria to be elected the next President of the United States. The application of the criteria to Mr. Perot and other party--third party or independent candidates, did not result in a finding that any of them has a realistic chance to win the election. The purpose of the commission is to bring before the American people in an unvarnished debate format those candidates from whom the American people actually will choose the next President and Vice President of the United States.

MR. LEHRER: Perot campaign coordinator Russell Verney said the commission's ruling was not objective. He called it a travesty.

RUSSELL VERNEY, National Coordinator, Perot Campaign: The commission should have been making the decision based on objective criteria. We meet all of the objective criteria that they've established. We're on all 50 state ballots in record time, 11 months. The Reform Party has qualified in all 50 state ballots. We have organization in all 435 congressional districts, as well as all 50 states. We have 29 million dollars leftto spend in our campaign. If they want people to have won the campaign before September 17th, then they're mistaken; the election is November 5th.

MR. LEHRER: Verney said the Perot campaign would follow a lawsuit challenging the commission's ruling. We'll have more on this story later in the program. In the presidential campaign today, President Clinton toured a vocational school in Westland, Michigan, near Detroit, and then addressed a rally at a high school. He said education and training programs were critical to building the nation's economy. And he praised a Justice Department report that said violent crime dropped 9 percent last year. Bob Dole also spoke about crime today. He visited a county jail in Phoenix, Arizona, where many inmates are housed in tents, despite summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees. He said it was a prison that worked. There was a House hearing today on the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war were abandoned after the Korean War. One report said some were subjected to deadly medical experiments by Soviet and Czech scientists. Recently declassified documents revealed that more than 900 American POW's may have been left behind in North Korea. A former military aid to then President Eisenhower testified today.

COL. PHILLIP CORSON [Ret], Former Eisenhower Aide: In the past I've tried to tell Congress the fact that in 1953, 500 sick and wounded American prisoners were within ten miles of the prisoner exchange point at Panmunjom and were never exchanged. Subsequent information indicated they all died afterwards. During my tour of duty as special project commander in charge of the Far East Command, I received numerous reports that the American POW's had been sent to the Soviet Union. These POW's were to be exploited for intelligence purposes and subsequently eliminated.

MR. LEHRER: North Korea has denied keeping American POW's after the war. Ford Motor Company and the United Auto Workers Union reached a tentative agreement last night. It would guarantee jobs for about 95 percent of Ford's hourly workers for three years, thus limiting Ford's ability to shrink its work force for the first time. Ratification is expected by September 29th. UAW President Steven Yokich said he hoped similar agreements would be reached with GM and Chrysler. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Sec. Perry, the Perot decision, a comeback for heroin, the diet-cancer connection, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to a Newsmaker interview on the Iraq situation with the Secretary of Defense, William Perry. He returned last night from a trip to the Persian Gulf region and to Europe. I talked with him this afternoon.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, welcome.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: Thank you, Jim. It's good to be here again.

MR. LEHRER: The order has been signed to send 3,000 more U.S. troops to Kuwait, is that correct?

SEC. PERRY: Three thousand five hundred, that is correct. I signed the orders yesterday.

MR. LEHRER: Now, what is their purpose? What is their mission?

SEC. PERRY: Well, for 15 years, Jim, Saddam Hussein has been a danger to the region, threatening his neighbors, developing weapons of mass destruction, committing atrocities against his own people, attacking his neighbors. So all of the countries in the region, certainly Kuwait, have every reason to fear him. When the Iraqi government called Kuwait and accused Kuwait of committing an act of war for accepting our F-117's, a very belligerent, very aggressive statement, the Kuwaiti government had some legitimate reason for being concerned. So we have a brigade of heavy armored equipment in Kuwait. We have one battalion of troops with that.

MR. LEHRER: These are infantry.

SEC. PERRY: Infantry--well, mechanized, armed troops.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

SEC. PERRY: And we suggested to them Sunday morning we could round out that brigade, send the troops over, so that there could be a full, heavy armored brigade in the desert, training, ready to go. They considered that offer for less than 24 hours and accepted it. The reason they accepted it, as I said, is because they thought there was a palpable danger. At the same time, we sent a Patriot battery to Kuwait to protect them against missile attack.

MR. LEHRER: Now so, the total brigade is now--that's 5,000 troops, right?

SEC. PERRY: It's just under 5,000 troops.

MR. LEHRER: Just under 5,000. Now, there were reports that the Kuwaitis were reluctant to take these troops. Were those true?

SEC. PERRY: No, not at all true. I met with the Emir, the crown prince, and minister of defense Sunday about noon. I made the offer to send the troops in. And the Emir and the crown prince were very grateful for the offer. They said they needed to review it with their defense council, would do that and get right back to me. That same evening, they reviewed it, and the next morning they called me and said, please send the troops. Now, in-between in that roughly 20 hours of time between when I made the offer and when they--and when they authorized it, there were a blizzard of press reports about the Kuwaitis being hesitant or rejecting the offer. It's nonsense. This is a pretty serious consideration for them; it was not at all unreasonable for them to sit down and discuss it with their defense council before they gave an answer.

MR. LEHRER: One of the reports said that they were annoyed that it was announced by the United States before they gave approval. Did they express annoyance with you about that?

SEC. PERRY: Before they--before they had a chance to express anything when I met with the Emir, the first thing I said to him was I apologized for the leak of that information. What had happened was that on Friday night the President accepted my recommendation to make that offer to send those troops over there, and I immediately sent an alert order to our troops at Fort Hood.

MR. LEHRER: Down in Texas, right?

SEC. PERRY: Down in Texas, so that when the authority did come, when the deployment did come, they would be ready to go. And one of our overzealous public affairs people misunderstood the alert order to be the deployment order, and so it was a mistake. It should not have been announced. Therefore, when I got to Kuwait, the firs thing I did was apologize for that premature release.

MR. LEHRER: That flap is now over?

SEC. PERRY: That's all over. There's nothing to it.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Now, but the flap did contribute to this idea that many Americans have that for some reason the people we're over there to help don't want our help because the Saudis, a Saudi government official even said today that the United--that the Saudis certainly wouldn't have let those troops in there, and there are all kinds of reports like that. What's going on, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. PERRY: I have--in my eight years in government, Jim, I have never seen such a discrepancy between the reality--the facts on the ground and the perception on this issue. One of the reasons I wanted to go to the region and talk with all of the heads of states of these countries was to get a first-hand estimate of what is going on, where does the coalition stand. And I can tell you the coalition is alive and well. They, first of all, and most importantly--I discussed with each of--and let me just summarize- -I talked with the, the--all of the leaders in Saudi Arabia, from the king, crown prince, minister of defense, all of those equivalent leaders in Bahrain, all of them in Kuwait, the key government officials in Turkey, and the British and French minister of defense, so I have a very current and very authoritative view of what the--what the coalition believes today. They all believe that Saddam Hussein is--threatens the stability of the region, is a danger to his neighbors, is a danger to the free flow of oil in the world. They believe there is a danger that he will develop weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, biological weapons. And they all believe that the military presence of the United States is key to containing him and is crucial to containing him, and that the lynchpin of that military operation is what we call Operation Southern Watch, which is the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Southern Iraq. That is absolutely the key element of our strategic interest, all of those countries committed to sustaining Operation Southern Watch in its expanded form for the indefinite future.

MR. LEHRER: But they don't all support the use of the firing of the missiles against the Iraqi targets by the United States, did they?

SEC. PERRY: Some of--some of those countries are needed for the execution of strike. Most of them are not. Those that are needed supported it. The--

MR. LEHRER: The Turks said they wouldn't allow planes to fly from there for these strikes, did they not?

SEC. PERRY: We did not request--

MR. LEHRER: You didn't request it, okay.

SEC. PERRY: The Turks--had no intention of requesting--the Turks are not needed, not necessary for this operation. So--we didn't request the Japanese government either, they're not needed for the operation. But the countries that are needed for the support of Operation Southern Watch all committed to it, those that are needed for the--any strike we might have to make. I want to emphasize, though, we don't want to make any more strikes, and I hope we do not have to. We have sent a warning to the Iraqi government. The warning says do not take threatening actions against our air crews; If you do that, there will be very serious consequences. But I hope and I believe that they will take that warning seriously, and there will not be threatening actions against our crews.

MR. LEHRER: Have there been any indications one way or the other in the last say two or three days?

SEC. PERRY: Yes. In the last two or three days, many of the things they had been doing last week they stopped doing. They have not fired any more SA-6's. That's the mobile missile that they had in the area. The have fired six of those over a period of three or four days.

MR. LEHRER: This was at U.S. planes, right?

SEC. PERRY: Well, presumably U.S. planes. None of them came even close.

MR. LEHRER: But they were in the no-fly zone, right?

SEC. PERRY: They were in--we had planes in the no-fly zone at the time they fired.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right.

SEC. PERRY: So we presume that they thought they were firing at U.S. planes. They were not close. They were no immediate danger to us, but they expressed an intent to fire at U.S. planes, and, therefore, they could become a danger.

MR. LEHRER: If there have been no signs of any hostile acts in the last two or three days, why then are we sending the 3500 new troops?

SEC. PERRY: The threatening actions involve more than firing missiles. The threatening actions have to do with the deployment of the air defense systems on the ground, have to do with other things they have done in the past that we consider threatening. We consider it threatening if they illuminate our aircraft with the radar, even if they don't fire a missile. So there--

MR. LEHRER: Explain that, illuminate--in other words, they turn the radar system on?

SEC. PERRY: These are guided--their surface-to-air missiles are guided missiles. They require radar to track the airplane, and then guide the surface-to-air missile to the airplane. The reason the FA-6's were fired wildly was they did not turn on the radar. The reason they don't turn on the radar is because we have anti-radiation missiles, and their air defense crews on the ground have learned that's very dangerous to turn on their radars.

MR. LEHRER: Let me make sure I understand what you're saying, Mr. Secretary. If the Iraqi government through its defense commands or through troops--troop movements, or whatever, does nothing else up to this point than what they've done up till now, the U.S. contemplates no military action, is that right? In other words, the status quo is okay as we sit here?

SEC. PERRY: We will take no further military actions if they do not threaten our air crews, and there are many things they could do to threaten our air crews. I don't want to catalogue them all.

MR. LEHRER: But they're not doing it as we speak?

SEC. PERRY: There are some things they have to do differently than they are doing right now in terms of a deployment of their forces on the ground. They know what those are, we know what they are, and we will be watching very carefully to see that they do them. There are some things they have to refrain from doing. Those are obvious, like firing missiles at our airplanes and turning on their target tracking radars. So they understand very clearly what they have to do and what they have to refrain from doing, and we will be watching very, very carefully to see that they follow those.

MR. LEHRER: Well, what I'm suggesting is that it would take a new, a brand new overt act on their part in order to trigger another missile response from us?

SEC. PERRY: No. It's more than that, Jim. It would also require them to refrain from doing some things they're doing right now, some deployments they have right now.

MR. LEHRER: So they're still under the threat of another missile- -

SEC. PERRY: They're still under the threat.

MR. LEHRER: --attack.

SEC. PERRY: But I want to emphasize, I want to emphasize, we are not seeking to take any more military action. We have given them fair warning. We hope that they will comply with that warning. I expect they will comply with that warning.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. McCain, among others have suggested that the end result of all of this, where we sit here today, is that Saddam Hussein won. I mean, he's got--with his-the Kurd faction that he supported in the North, they now occupy that. He's way ahead of the game. Do you agree with that assessment?

SEC. PERRY: I don't agree with that at all. First of all, it is quite premature to say what is going to happen to the Kurds in the North. Secondly, our interest in the Kurds in the North is not a vital national security interest. It's a humanitarian interest. That's why we are concerned about the Kurds. And we maintain that humanitarian interest, and we continue to pursue it. As recently as yesterday I was in Turkey with Assistant Secretary Pellitoe. He is staying on to work with the Turks to find ways to improve the humanitarian situation of the Kurds in the North. But our vital interests are in the South, in the South where they have the danger of coercing or attacking neighbors in the South, as they did in Kuwait--we do not believe for a moment that Saddam Hussein has given up his ambitions in that direction, and we also have vital interest in the development of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Only the military force we have here, only the maintenance of the no-fly zone, Operation Southern Watch, gives us a way of controlling that. It gives us enormous leverage. What we have done is extended that no-fly zone--

MR. LEHRER: As a result of his actions.

SEC. PERRY: As a result of his actions, he has lost strategically very substantially because that no-fly zone and no-drive zone prevents him from massing his forces, prevents him from training in the South, prevents him from doing things which he could do to invade or to move to the South. It's a very substantial restriction on him.

MR. LEHRER: But what would you say finally, Mr. Secretary, to those who suggest that the message to Saddam Hussein is just the opposite, you want--you want to take the North, you can take the North, we'll fool around in the South, but as long as you do--as long as you do those kinds of things, you're still free to act?

SEC. PERRY: The message to Saddam Hussein is if you threaten our vital national security interests, you will be facing military action from the United States. That is the message which he has and which he has very, very clearly, I believe.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SEC. PERRY: Thank you, Jim. FOCUS - NO TO PEROT

MR. LEHRER: Now to the Perot presidential debate decision and to Margaret Warner.

MS. WARNER: The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates recommended today that Ross Perot and all other third party candidates be excluded from the upcoming debate between President Clinton and Bob Dole. The commission said its unanimous recommendation was made "on the basis that only Clinton and Dole have a realistic chance as set forth in our criteria to be elected the next President of the United States." For more on this, we're joined by Paul Kirk, co-chairman of the Debate Commission and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Welcome, Mr. Kirk. PAUL KIRK, Commission on Presidential Debates: Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: On what basis did you decide that Ross Perot and Pat Choate have no realistic chance of being elected?

MR. KIRK: The criteria we base the decision on is the same criteria that the commission made its decision in 1992 that Ross Perot should be invited to debate. And that is, uh, at that time there was a feeling that Ross Perot had a realistic chance of being elected. In his campaign which he had no limit on the amount of money he could spend, he went forward and participated in the debate, I think got a substantial boost, if you will, in his stature from the debates, went off to the polling booths, as the American people did, he got 19 million popular votes but didn't carry a single state, nor did he win a single electoral college vote which is basically the system we operate in. This time around, the circumstances are somewhat different, that Mr. Perot, as is his right, chose to have a limit on his campaign spending, the federal election limit, the monies that were granted to him for this election, and so his ability to spend the kind of money to move forward is limited. Secondly, the figures that we see in examining polls and other factors indicate that while a lot of people would like to see Mr. Perot in the debate, upwards of 70 percent of the American people polled don't think he has any chance, and wouldn't vote for Ross Perot for President under any circumstances. Those are some of the considerations that went into the decision. The other thing that I think, Margaret, if I may, that's important to point out, uh, there are some 200 people who have filed for President of the United States. And then the commission looks at each and every one of those individuals, measures their, their candidacy against the realistic possibilities, and basically you winnow down to some handful of candidates, if you will, to measure whether they have something more than a theoretical chance of winning. The question that the commission is left with is: Where do you draw the line? And I think what we did in 92 and did again in 96, draw the line when the American people will see those one or two or three candidates who have a realistic chance, not a theoretical chance or not as important as it may be to make the debate more interesting a realistic chance of being elected, and that was the basis on which our decision was made.

MS. WARNER: But if you look at the objective poll numbers say compared, today compared to in 1992, Ross Perot before he was admitted to the debates, when he got back in the campaign in October was at only about 10 or 11 percent. As you pointed out, it was the debates, his performance that catapulted him up to 19 or 20 percent. Also at that same time, only again 70 percent of the people said they would never vote for him under any circumstances. What--I think it's hard for him to understand and I'm sure many of his supporters--what is really so different today?

MR. KIRK: The difference today I believe is two. There was a test of Mr. Perot in 1992. The fact is he had--earlier in the 92 calendar, he led the major party candidates. Then he decided not to continue his campaign and he suspended it, and I think people decided he probably wasn't going to be in. His numbers fell automatically. He did go into the debates. He did get a boost. But it was proven after the campaign that, in fact, he really didn't have a realistic chance, he didn't carry a single electoral vote. My point is as we compare those circumstances to today's circumstance, his standing is low in the polls, he has less money to spend, and the purpose of these debates, Margaret, are not to provide a launching pad for a campaign or a candidacy. This is the world series. This is the end game, if you will, in terms of the debate process. I wish, frankly, that there were a lot of other kinds of forms than there are, a lot of other kinds of forms and debates and opportunities for people to make their ideas known and to contribute to them to the discourse and dialogue of the country. Our purpose and mission is basically to give the American people a focus decision on the candidates who are realistically going to compete, and one of them will be the next President of the United States under that criteria.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let me ask you this now just to explain to our viewers how binding or unbinding this recommendation of yours is. In fact, it's up to the Clinton and Dole campaigns to really decide this question, isn't it?

MR. KIRK: Well, the Clinton and Dole campaigns obviously have different views about this, but both campaigns are aware of our criteria. We can't change the criteria. We have said, as we said earlier today, that with respect to Mr. Perot or any other candidates that are mathematically capable, that is on enough ballots to be able to carry electoral majority, the door frankly is open as far as the Commission on Presidential Debates is concerned. The invitation will be extended when these factors are reviewed in the calendar to decide is that candidate or are any of these candidates realistically able to compete for the Presidency of the United States.

MS. WARNER: Okay, but Mr. Kirk, let me get this straight. If the Dole and Clinton campaigns come to you after the negotiations and say, we have decided we would like to have five debates and in the first one Ross Perot will be included, which the Dole campaign-- let's just say theoretically--might agree to in return for getting more debates--would you then say sorry we won't host that debate, go somewhere else, or would you sponsor the debate?

MR. KIRK: I can't say definitively. Our first impression would be we don't want to, by any means, be precluding the opportunity for that kind of a discussion for the American people. I think those kinds of formats and forums are important. I do think that in order for us to be able to withstand further litigation and so forth, we have, we have criteria in place. I don't think we can just absolutely discard it in the face of contests from other campaigns and so forth, so we'd have to obviously be prudent and review and discuss it with our legal counsel as to whether that is something that, in fact, we could do.

MS. WARNER: But you are saying it's a possibility?

MR. KIRK: I think at this point I'd have to say we'd have to review it. I do--you know, if it contributes to the dialogue and helps the American people understand the choices, fine. As I say, we'd have to review it.

MS. WARNER: All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Kirk. Thanks very much.

MR. KIRK: Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Now reaction to today's decision from Pat Choate, the Reform Party's Vice Presidential candidate. Welcome, Mr. Choate. PAT CHOATE, Reform Party VP Candidate: Thank you.

MS. WARNER: I'm sure you're unhappy about this, but refute, if you would, Paul Kirk's point that Ross Perot is so far down in the polls and so many people said they wouldn't vote for him that he just doesn't have a realistic chance of winning.

MR. CHOATE: I would say two or three things. First of all, this is a bipartisan commission, which means it's composed of Republican and Democrats. It is not a non-partisan commission. The commission was established in 1985 to take away from the League of Women Voters, which is a non-partisan organization, control of the debates and to guarantee that it would be a two-party debate. Second, Mr. Perot was in the debates in 1992 not because of criteria but because George Bush insisted that Ross Perot be in those debates and, indeed, the commission opposed Ross Perot being in the debate, and the campaigns of Bill Clinton and George Bush had to insist and threaten the commission to take the debates away from them before they would actually permit Ross Perot to be in the debates. Finally, as to the realistic chances of winning, Ross Perot, before the election, immediately before the election, the polls were showing that he would do 7 percent. He did 19 percent, and the exit polls show that if more Americans had followed their conscience, rather than the polls, you would have had a circumstance in which Ross Perot would be the President of the United States today. This commission set out some objective criteria at the demand of the Federal Election Commission. The Perot campaign has met each of those criteria.

MS. WARNER: By that, you mean they are on the ballot, that--

MR. CHOATE: Specific is that the candidates meet the test of the Constitution of the United States, Perot and I do. Secondly, is that we be on enough ballots to have a numerical chance to collect enough electoral votes to win. The Reform Party, after enormous work, by over a billion people, is now on all 50 state ballots in the District of Columbia. We meet that test. The third is that we either take moneys from the Federal Election Commission, or that we have sufficient moneys to guarantee a national race. We have roughly 30 million dollars in the bank from the Federal Election Commission. Now there are only three parties that meet that criteria and test. That was the test that the commission set. We met it. If they wanted us to be at 15 percent in the polls at this point, they should have said so, and we would have spent our money and we would be at this point. They, in effect, are introducing a new set of rules and taking unto themselves a responsibility that belongs to the American people.

MS. WARNER: All right. So you're saying--are you saying that you think that this criteria about a realistic chance of winning is simply unfair? Are you also saying it's unfairly applied to you?

MR. CHOATE: I say that test is unrealistic. Our whole campaign strategy from the very beginning was to have a low-profile campaign until we move into the last 60 days of the campaign, to do long- form programs, to do media and then make a dash to the end in the campaign. We're doing just that. We're seeing our poll numbers go up. We're moving under the overnight polls to 11 percent. Once we're into the debate, we're--which is the time that most Americans are--tune in and see what has happened, after that, we will have a jump in the polls if we're permitted into the debates, and we will combine that with our detail plans and books to describe what we are going to do. We think that we can win this race. What is happening is the Republican and Democratic Parties are attempting to both kill off the new party, new competition before it can begin, and to deny us an opportunity to talk to the American people.

MS. WARNER: All right. So what are you going to do about it?

MR. CHOATE: First thing, we're going to file a suit against this commission. This commission has acted very arbitrarily. Members in this commission are in great conflict. Mr. Kirk is a Washington insider.

MS. WARNER: All right, but--

MR. CHOATE: No, no, no, no. This is very important on this. What we find is Frank Fahrenkopf, who was the Republican member, is the lead gambling lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Ross Perot strongly opposes gambling.

MS. WARNER: All right.

MR. CHOATE: Mr. Kirk represents pharmaceutical in other countries whose interests would come before a Perot administration. Now maybe that had nothing to do with their decisions, but it's very clear they should not have been in this position of deciding for the American people that Ross Perot and I did not have a realistic chance to win office.

MS. WARNER: Well, you just heard, I think--we heard Paul Kirk say that if the two campaigns decided, negotiated an arrangement in which they wanted you at least in one debate, that it sounded as if he was saying the would revisit it. Are you talking to the Dole and Clinton campaigns?

MR. CHOATE: Obviously, we're talking to those campaigns. Bob Dole is saying no. The Clinton administration is saying yes very much to the credit of Bill Clinton. But we're, but we're also saying is to the American media and editorial writers now is the moment where we find where you stand on First Amendment rights, free speech, and open debate, and we're saying to the American public you have just had a group of Washington insiders deny you the opportunity of the only party that other than the Republicans and Democrats that meets all of the criteria, that's spending $30 million of your money. The other things Mr. Kirk said here on your show and this morning is that one of the reasons that they decided that they would not let us debate is that they had decided that because Ross Perot was taking Federal Election Commission moneys, paying by the same rules as the Republicans and Democrats, they didn't think $30 million was enough money. All of a sudden, what we're having the insiders say is we'd like Ross Perot to spend $100 million or $150 million, and if he would do that, they'd let him in. One of the things that we're going to ask the Federal Election Commission is to waive the $50 million--the 50,000 dollar limit on contributions. If they want Ross Perot to spend a great deal more money, if that's the criteria, he's willing to spend it.

MS. WARNER: Okay. We have to leave it there. Thanks, Mr. Choate.

MR. CHOATE: You bet.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the return of heroin, the diet-cancer connection, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - HOOKED ON HEROIN

MR. LEHRER: Now, the city of Seattle addresses the drug problem and the comeback of heroin. Rod Minott of KCTS-Seattle reports.

GARCIA: [singing ba-ba-da-ba-ba-ba] Please call me baby.

ROD MINOTT, KCTS: The man waiting anxiously for a phone call is a heroin junkie. He asked us not to reveal his identity other than calling him Garcia.

GARCIA: It's a quarter after 1, right? Oh, man, I sure wish this sucker would ring.

MR. MINOTT: On a recent afternoon in Seattle, we accompanied him for four hours, only asking him to do whatever he did normally.

GARCIA: Come on. I got one more minute, one more minute, one more minute for the call, then I'm making another one.

MR. MINOTT: In broad daylight, near a busy street, Garcia paged several drug dealers by pay phone in a quest for heroin.

GARCIA: There he is right now. [on phone] Yo! Hello. I would like to get a 30 of white or brown from you.

GARCIA: Now, this here is a $30 bag, and it's a damn good bag.

MR. MINOTT: Within two hours, Garcia had his purchase and was getting ready to shoot up black tar heroin, a highly addictive opiate drug that comes from Mexico and is named for its tar-like character.

GARCIA: She's in the vein now. See, right now I'm gettin' a rush because it's good dope.

MR. MINOTT: Garcia has been a heroin addict for 31 years.

GARCIA: This track runs from right in here to up, up, up here.

MR. MINOTT: A life recorded in the trail of needle scars on his arm.

GARCIA: I like heroin. I use it because it, it takes care of the pain for the minute. You know, for the moment, I can lose myself, I can, uh, forget the bull--you know, and, uh, escape.

MR. MINOTT: But many users aren't escaping deadly heroin overdoses. As in many other big cities, Seattle has seen its heroin-related deaths skyrocket to record levels, quadrupling since 1985. Last year, there were 130 fatalities linked to overdose. And according to recent federal Health & Human Services figures between 1990 and 1994, heroin-related trips to hospital emergency rooms more than tripled in Seattle. Nationally, those emergency room visits jumped 68 percent between 1988 and 1994.

RICHARD HARUFF, Assistant Medical Examiner: This isa collection of things. We've got a syringe there. The black tar is shown there, and also there's some white powder.

MR. MINOTT: Seattle's assistant medical examiner, Richard Haruff, has called the heroin deaths an epidemic, something which he's carefully documented through photographs.

RICHARD HARUFF: This is showing an arm of an individual, died of a heroin overdose, and the small blue area in this slide is the injection site.

MR. MINOTT: Haruff has also collected spoons found with the bodies of heroin victims. Addicts use the spoons to heat heroin into a liquid.

RICHARD HARUFF: I don't know why I collect them. It's just because they're so graphic, and they tell the tale so well, and they also are, are a memory of each death.

MR. MINOTT: Those deaths now average two to three a week. Haruff says victims are mostly white males in their mid to late 30's.

RICHARD HARUFF: Heroin is a very potent depressant of the brain function, and it causes depression of all functions of the brain, in particular in terms of causing overdose deaths, it depresses the part of the brain that controls respiration. So in general, the person stops breathing.

ALONZO PLOUGH, Director, Public Health Department: [talking to individual] We have that meeting scheduled next week to find out more about, uh, the U District needle exchange.

MR. MINOTT: Alonzo Plough heads the King County Public Health Department. He and other experts attribute the rise in deaths to the fact that more users are mixing heroin with other types of drugs, as well as alcohol.

ALONZO PLOUGH: These are accidental deaths in 85 percent, 90 percent of the cases, and 80 percent of those cases involve mult- drug use. So there is something about the way the drug is being used that clearly may be changing, though I, I can't say that there's been an increase in heroin use, in the prevalence of heroin use.

MR. MINOTT: Even though "he" shoots up two to three times a day, Garcia says he's not afraid of overdosing.

GARCIA: A lot of guys will drink. I don't drink anymore. I haven't had a drink of alcohol in, oh, many years, and then they'll go out and slam a 20 bag or 30 bag of heroin, asking for trouble.

MR. MINOTT: That trouble, Garcia says, comes when inexperienced users inject heroin, which has gotten much more potent in recent years. Heroin used to be seen as a drug of choice for the down and out. But in recent years, federal surveys show the drug has spread more to middle and working class people, as well as teenagers and young adults. It's gotten to the point where even this Espresso bar in the city's trendy Capitol Hill neighborhood has a sign warning people not to shoot up inside the bathroom. Ron Jackson, who heads a methadone treatment center, blames heroin's resurgence in part on the young re-glamorizing an old drug.

RON JACKSON, Evergreen Treatment Center: It's a new generation, a new group of people, a new "in" group endorsing the use, people forgetting about some of the negative consequences or glossing over some of the negative consequences.

MR. MINOTT: That view was echoed recently in a "Rolling Stone" Magazine article which labeled Seattle "Junkie Town," a place where many young people attracted to the city's so-called "grunge music" scene end up hooked on heroin. "Rolling Stone" and others point to the deaths of several high-profile Seattle musicians as proof the city is junkie-friendly. [music playing] Two years ago rock star Kurt Cobain committed suicide while high on heroin. At least three other Seattle rock musicians have also died of heroin-related overdoses in the past six years. Jackson says among some musicians, heroin is seen as a rite of passage.

RON JACKSON: Use can be sort of idealized in that somehow this is an admission ticket to artistry or to credibility in that particular field. You're nowhere in this alternative music scene or whatever you want to call it unless you've used heroin.

MR. MINOTT: But Charles Cross, a Seattle journalist, says those rock musician deaths can't be blamed on the city's music scene.

CHARLES CROSS, Editor, "The Rocket": It's not unique to this segment of society. That doesn't mean it's not a tragic problem, and it doesn't mean that we don't need to respond to it as a society, but it's unfair in some ways that we perceive this one segment of our society, particularly creative, young individuals, as if they have a bigger problem than other people, when statistics don't necessarily support that.

MR. MINOTT: Experts say heroin abuse is also on the rise because younger users are inhaling or smoking the drug and later start injecting, once they become addicted. Although police say there's been only a slight jump in heroin trafficking, these street kids, who asked not to be identified, say the drug is easily available.

MR. MINOTT: So how easy is it to get heroin in a city like Seattle?

FIRST UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Downtown's pretty, it's pretty easy. I've only been in town a couple of days and-- SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just had four friends that took off to go get a bunch. I mean, it's not even hard. You go--you know the person, you go get it, and you're off doing it.

MR. MINOTT: Both say they've used heroin and found it highly addictive.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's basically the first reaction of doing it is you end up throwing up and you end up going crazy and you end up itching, and it makes you really sick, and then after that, you know, it's just like an intense rush, and you love it, and then you hate it, and then you love it, and you hate it, and even if you hate it, you do it anyway. I mean, it's like--it's kind of like a controlling government. It takes over, and there's nothing you can do.

SINGER ON AD: [scene of male strung on in bathroom] It's the freshest feeling, the coolest high, so pick up some heroin and shoot for the sky.

MR. MINOTT: In order to reach kids like these, anti-drug groups have started airing ads warning of the drug's dangers.

SINGERS ON AD: Heroin for the rest of your life.

MR. MINOTT: A program to stop the spread of AIDS, Needle Exchange, has also been useful in putting people into drug rehab, but those drug facilities report they're already working at capacity, dispensing methadone and counseling heroin abusers. Health Director Plough says even though the program may not curtail drug use, he does feel needle exchanges are helping to stop the spread of a deadlier problem--AIDS.

ALONZO PLOUGH: The national data that have looked at this and the study that was funded by the NIH has shown as clearly as you can in epidemiologic studies that needle exchange does not promote drug use, nor does it promote crime, so that's fairly definitive national studies, and it has proven to be one of "the" most effective measures to reduce HIV-AIDS transmission and Seattle leads the nation in the low rate of AIDS infection amongst injection drug users.

SPOKESMAN: There's the deal right there. It's going down right now.

MR. MINOTT: Despite anti-drug efforts being made, such as sting operations, police say it's been hard to stop illegal drug dealing. SPOKESMAN: The two key players have been nabbed. Nice job.

LT. FRED HILL, Seattle Police, Narcotics Unit: We feel somewhat overwhelmed only in the sense that it, it seems that if you take three or four dealers off the street, there are three or four new ones to take their place.

MR. MINOTT: As for Garcia, he insists he'll never quit using heroin. He plans to keep on shoplifting and dealing drugs to support his habit.

GARCIA: I like it. It's my wife. It's my life. You know, I give up--I give up everything for this. I wouldn't wish this disease upon my worst enemy, you know, I wouldn't, you know, but, uh, uh, I like it myself, and I'll continue on.

MR. MINOTT: Others like medical examiner Haruff say they haven't given up hope that more people can still be saved from heroin abuse. But for now, Haruff says he sees no let up in his growing collection of spoons and syringes. UPDATE - FOOD FOR THOUGHT

MR. LEHRER: Now diet and cancer and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The bad news is that about one third of all cancers in the United States can be attributed to dietary factors, according to the American Cancer Society. The good news is that something can be done about it. Today the society released its recommendations which include limit consumption of meats, especially high-fat meats, limit consumption of alcohol, eat five or more servings of fruit and vegetables daily, include grain products in every meal, and be moderately physically active for at least 30 minutes a day. Here to tell us more about the guidelines and how they've changed over the years is Marian Burros, who covers these matters for the "New York Times." Thanks for being with us.

MARIAN BURROS, New York Times: [New York] It's a pleasure.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's talk about the recommendations. What is it that is so good about fruits and vegetables? What's the tie between them and cancer?

MS. BURROS: If they only knew, then they could pick out the individual nutrients that are in them. They don't know what it is. They think it could be things like carotinoids or phenols. They have no idea exactly what it is, and that's why they recommend fruits and vegetables, instead of supplements that may come from them.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So the research that they're basing this report, these guidelines on, just shows that there's a connection between lower rates of cancer in certain areas and fruits, and eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables.

MS. BURROS: Exactly, yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, the--explain what the carotinoids and these other things are, because some people think they can get them from vitamins, and is that possible?

MS. BURROS: Well, yeah. You can get them from vitamins and you can get them from taking anti-oxidants like beta carotene, although the one study--the couple of studies that have been done with giving beta carotene to smokers turned out that the smokers had higher levels of, umm, cancer who took beta carotene than those who took the placebo. So they know it's something that hangs around beta caroteine, but they don't know what it is. So it's these elements that are found--maybe it's the fiber in the fruit. Maybe it's a combination of a lot of different things. They just don't know exactly. So it may be anti-oxidants. It may be vitamins. It may be minerals. It may be--who knows--it could be garlic but they just can't figure it out yet.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about the recommendations to cut down on red meat? And they specifically to eat more fish, more, uh, foul, more chicken, and less pork, lamb, and beef. Why? What's the connection there, or is that also not known?

MS. BURROS: The connection, they feel, is that it's fairly clear compared to other things that people who eat a lot of red meat are more likely to get prostate cancer and colon cancer. And they're pretty strong on that recommendation. Again, they don't know whether it's the saturated fat in the meat, because meat is a very good source of all kinds of fat, but particularly saturated fat. They don't know whether it is the way the meat is cooked because there are certain mutagenic things that happen to meat, to the protein in the meat in the process of cooking it. They don't know whether it's, umm, overall fat in the meat. It could be a number of different things, but they do see a clear--a fairly clear connection between red meat consumption and those particular cancers. That's why they are suggesting that it's not just high- fat red meat that you cut down on but all red meat, even lean red meat.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, alcohol is confusing because the federal government came out with some recommendations in January, dietary recommendations, not specifically related to cancer, which said that a small amount of alcohol was actually good for people, but this is saying it's not if you think about cancer, right?

MS. BURROS: Yeah. But they're pretty clear about acknowledging that for certain people, men over 50 and women over 60, but even more so for men, uh, there is--there may well, indeed, be better benefits--a benefit-risk ratio may be worth drinking a couple of drinks a day to reduce cardiovascular problems. They do say that with women, it's, it's not as likely to be beneficial but if it is at all, it's for women over 60. They also say some other things that for people who are really concerned about cancer, and I suppose most of--all of us are--I've heard people say that if they had to make a choice between having a heart attack and getting cancer, they'd rather have a heart attack. I think people feel that they can cover from heart attacks but they're not sure that they could recover from cancer. At any rate, for people who are really worried about cancer for women, for instance, who have a history of breast cancer in the family, they say that it isn't unreasonable for women not to drink at all who have that feeling and that as little as a few drinks a week may increase the risk of breast cancer. Uh, when I posed this to someone who was not involved in the actual work on this committee making these findings, he said, well, you know, you can always find other ways to reduce your risk of heart disease. You can exercise more. You can eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains and eat less fatty food. You don't have to drink alcohol to reduce your risk of heart disease. So for some people, it just may not be worth the risk.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What's new in these recommendations? There have been recommendations from the Cancer Society every couple of years. Are these tougher? Are these different?

MS. BURROS: They're much more rigorous and much more specific. The last recommendations came out in 1991, and it was the usual moderation kind of stuff. These are quite specific. And the Cancer Society is in a different position from the federal government when it issues guidelines: [a] they're only talking about cancer, they're not talking other diseases, and [b] the American Cancer Society does not have the kind of lobbying pressures on it that the federal government will have when it's doing some kinds of dietary guidelines. The--they have to take into account--and this is not--you know--a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact that the lobbyists will come in. The meat people will come in. The salt people will come in. The dairy people will come in and talk to staff members who are involved with the federal dietary guidelines, and so more than just science is being balanced when the federal dietary guidelines come out, and the federal dietary guidelines are also the basis for all kinds of decisions on how you do school lunch, for example. The American Cancer Institute doesn't--Society--doesn't have to worry about those things.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, Marian Burros, thanks for being with us.

MS. BURROS: Thank you. ESSAY - GORILLAS IN OUR MIDST

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers the gorillas among us.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: It really wasn't about a gorilla. It was about kindness appearing where it was least expected. The incident, you'll recall, occurred at the Chicago Brookfield Zoo a few weeks ago. A three-year-old boy fell 18 feet into the gorilla cage, and the zookeepers, fearing the worst, turned hoses on the residents to keep them from harming the fallen child. But one mother gorilla, in an act of what appeared to be mothering, picked up the limp body of the boy and carried him to a safe place near the entrance to the cage so that the humans who ran the place could take over from there--one primate helping another. Offers of bananas poured in. Some people wanted to adopt the mother gorilla who, in fact, had adopted us. From one perspective, the story may be seen as the cultural reclamation of gorillas. Heretofore, gorillas or apes were often associated with trouble making, even murder. Tarzan was of them, but in the movies in the 1930's and 1940's, killers often dressed up as gorillas to terrorize the neighborhood. The Murders in the Rue Morgue were committed by a man but his weapon was an anti-social climber. [scream from woman in movie] King Kong was probably the first to display some sign of beauty in the beast. His movie next of kin, Mighty Joe Young, turned out to be such a good guy that the scriptwriters allowed him to live. He too rescued a child in danger. By the time the culture turned pro-sensitivity, one was treated to the mad but lovable Morgan, who dressed up as a gorilla, and to an entire "Planet of the Apes."

ACTOR: ["Planet of the Apes"] Get your sticky paws off me, you damned, dirty ape!

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The highly successful book, "Gorillas in the Mist," and the movie made from it showed how admirable the creatures are, an image verified by the mother gorilla in Chicago. But our recent story was not really about gorillas. It was about the distance between dire assumption and pleasant surprise. The dire assumption was that the gorillas would tear the boy apart or stomp on him, in short, that those who could do harm would. The pleasant surprise is that they did good. It's a rare thing to see. Of course, this sort of surprise works the other way around. Kindness, when it comes as a surprise is a delight; cruelty as a surprise is the pits. Certain people are prone to turn on those who have been good to them, usually out of envy and, therefore, dishonestly, and comes as a surprise, but oddly, never as much as a surprise as kindness out of the blue. Maybe now the gorilla will join the other animals to whom we have ascribed qualities superior to our own. Aesop had his various clever creatures. Jonathan Swift had his noble horses. A great many artists have exalted elephants. And we have Br'er Rabbit, and the wonderful creations of Chuck Jones. Within every one of those animals was a better person trying to get out,trying to realize some heroic capability that was unattainable in human form. So virtue was projected upon another animal, just as kindness was projected upon the mother gorilla in Chicago, whom, in our more ambitious moments, we would dearly love to ape. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again the major stories of this Tuesday, President Clinton said he would send additional U.S. troops to Kuwait to keep Saddam Hussein in a box. On the NewsHour, Defense Secretary Perry said the Gulf War coalition is holding together, despite reports to the contrary. And the Commission on Presidential Debates recommended against having Ross Perot join the fall debates with President Clinton and Bob Dole. We'll see you on-line and tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.