The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Tuesday, House Speaker Tom Foley and White House Budget Director Richard Darman debate the balanced budget amendment, and columnists Ellen Goodman and Bill Raspberry, businessmen H.R. Bloch and Kenneth Langone and community activist Jacquelyn Jackson Quinn debate the Ross Perot attraction. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WOODRUFF: The United States and Russia failed to reach a new agreement today on reducing long range nuclear weapons. But the two sides held out hope a deal could be struck before next week's summit between Presidents Bush and Yeltsin. Sec. of State Baker and Russian foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev spoke to reporters after a morning meeting with Mr. Bush.

ANDREI KOZYREV, Russian Foreign Minister: [speaking through interpreter] With regard to voter rejections and strategic offensive arms. I want to make one thing absolutely clear. We do not need those arms and we are not going to use them against the United States.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of State: I think that there's a genuine recognition on the part of both countries that we ought to reduce the levels of these weapons in the light of the new political environment as substantially and quickly as possible. The timing of these reductions and the mix of the reductions are the main elements where there continue to be differences. It's not enough simply to say reduce weapons. You have to talk about what kind should be reduced and you have to consider the reductions of those weapons that are of the most destabilizing nature.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Russian delegation left for Moscow this afternoon. Baker said the discussions would continue. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The bombardment of Sarajevo continued today. The Bosnian capital has been under siege by Serbian forces for two months and supplies of food and medicine are reported to be critically low. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled the fighting, many to Croatia, which has its own refugee crisis from earlier fighting there. The United Nations is trying to get help to refugees still in Sarajevo. The Security Council has approved a plan for U.N. troops to take over the airport for relief flights but only if there is a cease-fire.

MS. WOODRUFF: There was another example today of the growing overlap between talk shows and Presidential politics. Democratic candidate Bill Clinton appeared for a full hour this morning on NBC's Today Program fielding calls on a broad range of topics. He called for more opportunities for the candidates to express their positions on issues.

BILL CLINTON, Democratic Presidential Candidate: This race is going to go down to the end and I think it won't be decided until the debates are over. I just wish we could have more opportunities like this and more debates. If it were up to me, we've got 21 weeks, I'd do one a week from now until election day all over this country, just like we're doing, not an attempt to score points against Perot and Bush, but in an attempt to honestly answer the questions of the American people.

MS. WOODRUFF: Clinton plans to participate in several more call- in programs in the next week. Ross Perot will appear on the Today Show for one hour of phoned-in questions Thursday morning. President Bush has so far turned down offers to participate in call-in programs. Vice President Quayle spoke to a convention of Southern Baptists in Indianapolis today. He attacked what he described as the "media elite."

VICE PRES. QUAYLE: Talk about right and wrong and they'll try to mock us in newsrooms, sitcom studios, and faculty lounges across America, but in the heart of America, in the homes and work places and churches, the message is heard. And that's why I say this about the scorn of the media elite, I wear their scorn as a badge of honor!

MS. WOODRUFF: A federal judge in Los Angeles today struck down a decency standard used by the National Endowment for the Arts in making grants. He said it violated free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The ruling came in a suit brought by four performance artists who were denied NEA grants. An NEA spokeswoman said the agency and the Department of Justice were reviewing the ruling.

MR. LEHRER: The opening words in the House debate about a balanced budget amendment were heard today. They came over a Democratic proposal for a law instead of a constitutional amendment. And it was rejected by a vote of 220 to 199. It would have required the President and the Congressional Budget Committees to offer plans that would eliminate the deficit by 1998. House Republican Leader Bob Michel called it a phony, because it contained no requirement that Congress enact such a plan. The proposed Constitutional amendment to balance the budget is due for debate tomorrow. We'll hear from House Speaker Foley and White House Budget Director Darman right after this News Summary.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gunshot wounds are now the leading cause of death among black and white teenage boys. That finding was presented in a special edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association published today. The editors said violence, especially gun-related violence, has become a national public health emergency. They also blamed guns for a doubling of suicide rates among children and adolescents since the early 1960s. Former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, one of the editors of the special edition, called for national gun control.

DR. C. EVERETT KOOP, Former Surgeon General: As I travel around this country, I find a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo and every place that I have a public forum and talk with parents, they are absolutely petrified about the fact that their children have to go to school, walk through metal detectors, and that as many guns are found every day in their children's schools, each one of which could be the cause of their child's sudden death. And I think eventually that scales will tip in the direction where the public will say enough is enough.

MS. WOODRUFF: Koop and the editor of the Journal offered a proposal to license gun owners in the same way people are licensed to drive, with testing for skill and competence. A spokesman for the National Rifle Association said the proposal included "the same laundry list of half-baked ideas we have seen in the past." A former top official of the Department of Housing & Urban Development was indicted today in connection with the agency's influence peddling scandal. Thomas Demery, an assistant housing secretary during the Reagan administration, was charged with conspiracy and conflict of interest. The nine count indictment included five criminal charges. If convicted, Demery could face up to 13 years in prison and a $1 1/4 million in fines. His lawyer said he did not knowingly take any official action affecting his personal financial interest.

MR. LEHRER: A Japanese-led investor group received initial approval today to buy the Seattle Mariners Baseball Team. It came from a committee of Major League owners. The issue goes to a vote of all 26 teams tomorrow in New York City. The president of the Nintendo Company of Kyoto heads the group that wants to buy the American League Mariners. The sale would be the first ever to owners outside the United States or Canada.

MS. WOODRUFF: Britain became the last European Community nation to agree to sign the treaty protecting plants and animals at the Rio Earth Summit. The announcement further isolates the United States which has refused to sign it, saying it would cost U.S. jobs. The EC also issued a joint call for stronger controls on global warming than those supported by the U.S. Also today, the U.N. released a report at the summit that said cutting of tropical forests increased 50 percent over the past decade. It said 41 million acres of forest are destroyed each year, mainly in South and Central America.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the balanced budget amendment and a Ross Perot debate. FOCUS - BALANCING THE BOOKS

MR. LEHRER: For once, Washington and the late night TV comedians are talking about the same two things, Ross Perot and the balanced budget amendment. And they are our two main things tonight as well. First, the amendment. It's been decades since a President proposed or a Congress enacted a balanced federal budget. The push now is for a constitutional amendment that would make them do it to, in the words of a key sponsor today, "give a little added push to give us the backbone to balance the budget." President Bush supports the idea; the Democratic leadership of Congress opposes it. The battle was joined today in the House. But the opening round was over an alternative proposal that would merely make it a law, not a constitutional amendment. Here's a little taste of that debate.

REP. BARBARA KENNELLY, [D] Connecticut: We all want to reduce the deficit and the difference is what vehicle we use. I insist we don't need a constitutional amendment with all its unanswered questions. Today, as we always have, today, right here in this hall, we have the constitutional ability to balance the budget.

REP. JIM KOLBE, [R] Arizona: At a time when the public is demanding the Congress act with fiscal responsibility, it's disingenuous and irresponsible to bring this bill to the floor and suggest it will do anything more to balance the budget than all the other failed attempts. A dog with a sign around its neck that may have a label "monkey" on it is still a dog. Putting a balanced budget sign on this bill doesn't make itso.

REP. LEON PANETTA, [D] California: Let me make clear my belief that no law, no amendment, is ever going to provide the leadership we need to do what we should be doing now, which is to be debating the policies to get us to a balanced budget. The dangers of an amendment are clear. The dangers of an amendment mean that we are saying to the American people because of a failed policy, we've got to go amend the Constitution. Well, are we going to go amend the Constitution because of inner city problems that we failed on? Are we going to amend the Constitution on the education that we failed on? Are we going to amend the Constitution because of health care problems that we're not facing? My God, do we always have to seek some excuse for not doing the right thing?

REP. ROBERT WALKER, [R] Pennsylvania: This country needs real balanced budgets. This country needs a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What we don't need is this kind of legislative proposal. It does nothing useful. It has not been subjected to any kind of legislative hearings. It is designed only to give some people legislative cover when they do not do the right thing later this week, namely vote for the balanced budget amendment.

MR. LEHRER: This afternoon, the House rejected the idea of a balanced budget law. Tomorrow it will begin debating the constitutional amendment. Now, two of the leading players in this affair, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tom Foley, Democrat of the State of Washington, and Richard Darman, President Bush's Director of the Office of Management & Budget. Mr. Darman, that backbone quote that I read was from Congressman Stenholm of Texas. Do you agree that the issue here is backbone?

MR. DARMAN: I think we need the constitutional amendment in order to provide additional discipline and clearly, additional discipline is needed.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Congressman Foley?

REP. FOLEY: No. I think that there's a need to reduce the deficit. Everyone agrees on that. The question is: Will a constitutional amendment, if enacted and made part of the Constitution, help or hurt in that process? Will it have other unintended and damaging consequences to the institutional, constitutional frame work of the country? I think the answer is that it will not help, it will hurt, and it will confuse and damage our constitutional condition. I think it's a very bad mistake. Obviously, it's a frustration with the failure of the President and the Congress to come together and effectively deal with the deficit in terms of its present level that pushes people to this result.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Darman, as we saw on the tape and as everybody has said, what the Speaker has just said, that particularly Congressman Kinley said, the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States already have the power to balance the federal budget deficit. Why do you believe and does the President believe and the sponsors of this in the House and Senate believe that the constitutional amendment is also required to get them to do it?

MR. DARMAN: First of all, the President does not have the power.

MR. LEHRER: He has the power to propose, which he has never done.

MR. DARMAN: No. That's not quite right. I've heard that said many times. The President has proposed a balanced budget three out of four times and this fourth time --

MR. LEHRER: Over a period of years.

MR. DARMAN: That's right. And everybody, everybody -- there isn't anybody who's proposing it who proposes to do it in a single year - - everybody proposes to do it on an orderly basis, so we ought to put that issue aside. the problem is from the President's standpoint, two-thirds of the federal budget never comes to him for review. Two-thirds of it grows and grows uncontrollably every year. It doesn't even come up before the Congress. It's just ignored. That's where our spending problem is. And there's got to be some additional discipline to force us to attend to it. Let me say a word about theories of how this could be done, other than by constitutional amendment. One is that you can do it by law. The most recent test case there is the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law. When it was passed, the budget was supposed to be balanced within four or five years. The deficit at that time was $221.2 billion. Four years later, it had gone down by 0.7. It was 220.5. So the law didn't work. The other theory is that, well, we can't act responsibly on our own; we need a crisis. Well, look what happened in '87. We had a stock market crisis. We had a panic. We had a summit called. We had all of the lights on. People got together. The summiteers worked and they produced $6 billion in savings per year. They did not get the job done. It's evident the current system simply system simply doesn't get the job done. Forty-four states have a balanced budget requirement. They make it work. We ought to make it work at the federal government.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with that? What would be the harm in doing what Mr. Darman is saying?

REP. FOLEY: Well, in the first place, the Constitution is I guess argued here is the last resort and it should certainly be the last resort before we rush forward and amend the Constitution. And I regret the fact that the President seems to be in favor of amending the Constitution for abortion, for term limits, for a balanced budget amendment, for just about everything that one can think of. There's a constitutional amendment constantly being argued as the solution to problems. In some years, the Congress and the administration have acted I think quite effectively. In the 1990 budget agreement, we undertook to lower the deficit by 500 billion over a five-year period. And we've been largely successful in meeting the goal of that agreement. The problem of course has been recession and other circumstances of the economy. But to suggest that the Constitution, if it includes a balanced budget amendment, will work to force the kind of decisions that people say have eluded us, I think is a mistake. It is a pure hoax.

MR. LEHRER: Why won't it work?

REP. FOLEY: Let me just tell you what happens. In states where we say we have balanced budget amendments that work, states have taken actions in many cases to place their capital expenditures in a different level of budget than their operating expenses, dividing them as the federal government does not do. Secondly, they've created new --

MR. LEHRER: You mean like building roads or new courthouses or whatever?

REP. FOLEY: Those things are not counted.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right.

REP. FOLEY: Then, in addition to that, they've created new entities that have taxing authority, such as port commissions and port authorities, to take up some of the slack. I got a letter a year ago from one of the really outstanding conservative thinkers in the country, legal thinkers, I think. Judge Bork, I know someone that Mr. Darman admires and in the sense of his abilities, I admire him very much, he was very strongly opposed to this on the grounds that -- the constitutional amendment -- on the grounds that the theory that we'll bring the Congress together and the President and they'll either raise taxes or cut spending or both so there are other options that could occur under the pressure of a mandated balanced budget. One of them is to put other requirements on the states and local governments, the kind of mandates that the states and local governments are complaining about bitterly today. The other is to regulate private business to have it take over responsibilities of government. Finally, if we get into a constitutional amendment, he says the theory is that the courts will work out the differences between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch on these issues which is either, he said, a cruel hoax or a dismal prospect. We've got the capacity. It is suggested that we don't have the discipline and that the constitutional requirement will give us the discipline. I'd like to come back to this, but I think it's going to complicate the process rather than ease it. It's going to create difficulties rather than resolve them.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Mr. Darman, take us through what you see would be a good case scenario. If there was a balanced budget amendment, how would the budget actually get balanced?

MR. DARMAN: Let me first, if I might, just deal with a few of the Speaker's points.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

MR. DARMAN: First of all, I trust it's agreed we do not now have the discipline. We badly need the discipline. We have $4 trillion worth of debt. Within five years, if we follow the current course, that's going to be up to $6 trillion. It's already $65,000 on average for every family of four. And we're not investing in the future. That's the fundamental problem. Let me just say a word about why a constitutional amendment is appropriate, then get to your question. Why it's appropriate, peculiarly appropriate here - - the amendments to the Constitution, most of them, have been to protect individual rights of one sort or another. We agree with that. In this case, what the current problem is is that we have a good representative democracy, relatively speaking, to represent the people who are here now. We're good at that. We spend a lot on ourselves. What we do, however, is fail to represent the people who aren't yet here, children, grandchildren, the generations yet to come. There is no one who is their current representative, except by honor. And that, unfortunately, doesn't quite do the trick. The future generations need constitutional protection of their rights, protection against a system which right now is biased highly towards spending on ourselves and leaving the bills to a generation that's now represented. It's a classic case requiring constitutional protection. I regret that it's come to this. For most of the years of my professional life related to public policy I have thought reasonable people could somehow get themselves together and get the job done responsibly, but it just isn't happening.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Take me through how with a budget, with a balanced budget amendment, the budget would actually be balanced.

MR. DARMAN: There would have to be implementing legislation, I assume, of one sort or another to provide the enforcement mechanism.

MR. LEHRER: Cut spending, raise taxes.

MR. DARMAN: No, there are different ways. I'll tell you what our approach would be. What our recommendation is, is that we pass a growth agenda, a responsible growth agenda, to get this economy moving again, not at exorbitant rates. We're not pushing that. We'd like it, but just a normal recovery would be satisfactory, and settle in at the long-term historic growth average of 3.2 percent real growth for the economy. If we do that, we cut the deficit problem as it's currently projected in half just to begin with. That's just by getting back on our normal growth path line.

MR. LEHRER: That's just because the economy's growing, it puts more tax revenue, and current rates --

MR. DARMAN: -- it's certainly a spending requirement.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. DARMAN: So if we can just ge the growth path back on its historical trend line, that'll cut the problem in half. Now, for the remaining portion of the problem, I refer to 2/3 of the budget that's totally out of control, doesn't come before anybody for annual review. It's that portion that is growing most rapidly, in many cases at double digit rates.

MR. LEHRER: Social Security, Medicare, those things?

MR. DARMAN: Not Social Security. Social Security used to be the problem in rapid growth in the seventies. It is no longer the problem. It's growing at about the inflation rate and we would not touch Social Security. But the remainder, yes, health costs are exploding and so are other retirement programs, but so are a host of other programs. It's about $900 billion, about 750 billion of which is controlled in some degree or other. What needs to be done is to slow the rate of growth of those programs to the rate of growth in eligible population, plus inflation, plus a little bit for an orderly adjustment. Let me give you a startling fact. If you could slow the mandatory program so-called, this 2/3 of the budget, if you could slow its growth, still grow, but slow its growth to inflation plus population, in 10 years, that alone would save about $2 trillion. It's an absolutely phenomenal amount of money.

REP. FOLEY: Not one of the suggestions that Mr. Darman has made has anything to do with a constitutional amendment.

MR. LEHRER: They could be done without a constitutional amendment?

MR. DARMAN: But you asked how it would be implemented.

REP. FOLEY: The program that he's outlined could be implemented tomorrow.

MR. DARMAN: If we had the collective will.

REP. FOLEY: If we had the collective will and if -- I hesitate to say this -- the rosy scenario that Mr. Darman has painted would come true. In fact --

MR. LEHRER: You mean 3.2 --

REP. FOLEY: Yeah. No one expects that strong a recovery. We hope it would happen. If you want to make the problem easier, say a 4 percent or a 5 percent growth rate, or a robust 6 percent growth rate recovery and the problem gets progressively easier and you can sort of talk yourself out of any serious problem in doing it. But the question is, back to the constitutional amendment, how does that help? The simple answer seems to be, well, it gives you the discipline. But if you don't have the discipline, you can use the constitutional amendments various ways to exempt yourself from your responsibility by getting a 3/5 majority, for example. That's difficult to do and if you try to do it by a 3/5 majority you enhance not just the political minority in the Congress, but you enhance every geographical and other minority --

MR. LEHRER: Let me explain that quickly. The 3/5 you're referring to is the proposal that's now on the table up there in the Congress would -- the Congress, you could go above the --

REP. FOLEY: If you want to have outlays go above revenues, you have to have a 3/5 --

MR. LEHRER: 3/5 vote.

REP. FOLEY: -- majority of all those who have a seat in the House and the Senate, the constitutional 3/5 majority, if you will. The problem is that that enhances the position that all kinds of special interest groups want to organize to try to deny it and try to control it. It's mischief making in terms of creating special interest influence in the Congress, which somebody would think maybe is great enough already. Secondly, we get involved in the judicial intervention in decisions of spending and taxing, which are classically the responsibilities of the Legislative and Executive Branches of the government. There isn't a single thing that needs to be done to reduce the deficit that a constitutional amendment enhances or improves. In fact, it works against it by creating incentives for special interest groups often with special agenda to come into the picture and ransom, if you will, the process for their own benefit.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Darman, how do you respond to that?

MR. DARMAN: Let me respond to three different concerns the Speaker has addressed. First of all on the question of rosy scenario, I'm very sensitive to that point. There have been periods in which the administration has forecast a too rosy way. I'm suggesting 3.2 percent. That's the historic average from 1950 through 1990, with nine recessions in that period. And it's what most outside private forecasters are saying we're likely to achieve in the second half of this year. Secondly, on the issue of super majorities, the 60 percent vote requirements, exactly because we do not now have adequate discipline, we have to make it tougher for people to decide to go ahead and vote for deficits and vote for increasing debt. Finally, as a system of implementation, there's one additional point I should have raised so that this doesn't go to the courts. We believe there should be law, in addition to the constitutional amendment, that says if the Congress fails in some way or other, then automatically there is built in spending reduction without touching Social Security as necessary to achieve balance, automatically with across-the-board cuts that keeps the same congressional priorities as will have been enforced before, but just reduces across-the-board, as necessary, if there's been no other agreement on a better way to do it.

MR. LEHRER: As a practical matter, Mr. Speaker, what's the vote count now look like?

REP. FOLEY: It's right on -- I would say it's right on the point of going on either way. It take 290 votes in the House of Representatives to constitute a 2/3 vote. I would say that you couldn't get an answer on anyone's oath today exactly where that is, because it's being decided by those who are not yet decided or are leaning one way or the other. It's a very, very close vote. I think, without question, it's going to be a few votes one way or the other.

MR. LEHRER: And the vote will come when, Thursday?

REP. FOLEY: The most important votes will come on Thursday. We may start the vote tomorrow, but the most important votes will come on Thursday. Let me raise another point, because I think that Mr. Darman has candidly said that most of his professional life he has been opposed, not just, as he put it, positively thinking that people could, reasonable people could reach decisions; he's been opposed to a constitutional amendment. He probably will agree to that because it's true.

MR. LEHRER: Is that true?

MR. DARMAN: Yes, I would say until the last several years and my frustrating experience in the last several years. It is true. I had always thought, hoped, and had faith that somehow or other reasonable people would do the right thing on their own responsibility, but it just isn't happening.

REP. FOLEY: See, this is sort of the ultimate argument for the balanced budget amendment. We tried everything else, kind of like putting leaches on the sick patient because you've tried every other cure. The problem also is that we need to balance the budget over time and we need to have some years in which there are surpluses, not just not large deficits but not even small deficits, surpluses. But this is a kind of a mechanistic system that mandates the balance in every -- it doesn't prevent a surplus, but it mandates the balance year after year. In some years, it might create enormous problems if we would try to force an absolute balance. One doesn't know how it could be implemented by the courts, but if it were, it might well lead to a furthering of a recession which in its deepened condition would produce fewer revenues and enhance the problem, putting us into a downward spiral. It could create problems with a forfeit, I should say a problem in the sense of not meeting our obligations and if we should have a default on U.S. government obligations in a year when Congress and the President couldn't come to an agreement and not meet the obligations that the full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to, it would have an upward influence immediately on U.S. interest rates and all interest rates.

MR. LEHRER: That's a scary scenario, Mr. Darman.

MR. DARMAN: Well, first of all, I in a way regret to have to point out that all the leading balanced budget constitutional amendments have a relatively easy out. Any time that both Houses of Congress want to by super majority, 60 percent in each House, they can decide to waive it, as the Speaker, himself, pointed out. So I think if we were in recession or in a situation that called for whatever reason for a deviation from balance, the 60 percent vote would be forthcoming. As to interest rates, I appreciate the Speaker's concerns. We'd all like to see them come down. I think if you would ask people in financial markets what would be the likely effect of bringing the budget into balance on an orderly basis and then keeping it there, we have very, very high long-term real interest rates. I think that that's partly because of a fear of inflation as reflected in the market and that you would see a favorable effect on long-term interest rates, more investment, more growth, and that's all to the good.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with the Speaker that it's going to be a very close vote in the House and then in the Senate?

MR. DARMAN: Yes, I do. I think it's going to be extremely close. I think we have all but four Republicans. We could use a few more Democrats and would very much appreciate the Speaker sharing a few with us.

REP. FOLEY: A few more Republicans on our side, I'll make you a trade.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. FOCUS - '92 - THE PEROT APPEAL

MS. WOODRUFF: Next, the other topic of the week, Ross Perot. Ever since the Texas billionaire businessman said a few months ago that if enough people wanted him to run for President, he would think about doing it, his support has climbed in the public opinion polls. Polls come and go, of course, but Perot has brought out some fierce reactions, both pro and con. We get a sample of that now from five people. Kenneth Langone is a New York investment banker. He is a longtime friend and business associate of Perot and a member of the Perot petition campaign's national advisory committee. Henry Bloch is the chairman and Chief Executive Officer of H&R Block, the nation's largest tax accounting firm. Ellen Goodman is a syndicated columnist with the Boston Globe. William Raspberry is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post. And Jacquelyn Jackson Quinn is an education major at Al Corn State University in Mississippi. For the last four years she has been a frequent commentator on the NewsHour. Kenneth Langone, let me begin with you. And let's start with the deficit. And you've just heard two very different approaches to dealing with the budget deficit from two leaders, one in the Republican Party, one in the Democratic Party. How is it that someone who has no experience in government, like Ross Perot has not, how could someone like that come in and have a better idea than either one of these two gentlemen?

MR. LANGONE: Well, first of all, Judy, the principles of running a business are very much like running a government. The problem with our government is we've gotten away from the basics, which include living within our means. If corporate America ran itself like our government is running itself, you would talk about malfeasance of the highest order. There's a -- I find it tragic that these men have to debate something as basic as living within their means. I was thinking here as they were debating the issue much like the person that asks what time it is and somebody tells you how to build a watch, and I think this is kind of sad, because the American people are confused by the whole process. They've lost touch with it.

MS. WOODRUFF: And yet, again, you're looking at two people, Speaker Foley and Director Richard Darman, people who've spent their careers, their lives in government working on these issues. I mean, what is it that makes you believe that you could turn over some of these problems like -- what is it -- the $350 billion deficit to someone like Mr. Perot, who has no experience working on these kinds of --

MR. LANGONE: You know, it's very interesting. If you go back to the founding of America, the whole concept was that the people that went to Congress, the people that went into government, also lived a real life. I don't mean to say that these fellows are living make believe, but you make a point about their whole lives being government. They've lost touch with the real crisis in this country, the problems in this country, the needs in this country. I think what you're seeing in Ross Perot's candidacy here are the American people finally saying, hey, you know what, we can get it back, we can be part of the process. America's ours and we're seizing it again. The owners are taking it over. You know, I've heard people say that Perot's going to buy the election. It's interesting, by the way. Each of the other guys has spent 17 million and we've spent 1.4 million so far. But what's happening is not that Ross is going to buy the White House, but we're going to stop them from selling the White House. And so, you know, your point is -- your question is one that I've thought about long and hard. We need people to relate to reality. I saw three people on television last night, on Nightline, three wonderful people. All they wanted was work. And it was tragic to see the frustration in the faces and the anguish of not being -- the one chap said he couldn't buy sneakers for his children, well qualified, decent.

MS. WOODRUFF: Henry Bloch, you're a businessman. Are these kinds of things that Mr. Langone describes that Ross Perot could bring, are these the kind of things that you're looking for?

MR. BLOCH: I would not agree with that statement. I think running a business, being a Chief Executive Officer of a company, is a lot different than being President of the United States. When you run a company, you've got your own board of directors, you've got your officers, you're all pulling in the same direction. The problems in running a country are completely different. They're very vast. They are very gigantic. And I would hate to take a chance that a person who has been a businessman could also be good in politics, a super negotiator, somebody that could bring Republicans and Democrats together, and solve the problems of this country.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, what about Mr. Langone's point that Ross Perot's been living in the real world and these other people haven't?

MR. BLOCH: Well, for one example, Mr. Perot was a member of the board of directors of General Motors. He found problems with that country, yet, he wasn't able to convince that small board that he was right. He ended up leaving the board.

MS. WOODRUFF: Jacquelyn Jackson Quinn, in Mississippi, is Ross Perot -- what is Ross Perot saying that makes sense to you?

MS. QUINN: I love the objections that I'm hearing tonight, are the very reasons that I have not so much a total belief, but I'm paying a lot of attention to Ross Perot, and why right now I'm supporting him. We're talking about people who have experience in government. Well, in 30 years, I don't see what they've done. We're in as much trouble or worse now than we were before. So he's a businessman, part of government is a business. Five minutes ago we heard a discussion on balancing the budget. I don't see why it should take a constitutional amendment for people who are elected to take care of our business to do it. I think those are the issues we're talking about. We're tired of seeing a government out of control. We're tired of seeing leadership that sways back and forth in the wind every time a PAC or a high, visible interest group makes a lot of noise. We just want some calm consideration. We want people to realize that we need to be listened to. There's just too much going on and Americans, citizens have no input anymore.

MS. WOODRUFF: But are you saying that any business person, successful business person could come along and fix this, or is there something about what Ross Perot is saying that makes you think he could?

MS. QUINN: I don't remember him saying, I can fix this as a definite statement. Now, granted, a lot of people see a lot of different Ross Perots. Now, one of the things he said that really caught my interest was the offer of active participations by everyday citizens, which is not something you should say anyway. Citizens are citizens, but I don't want him to give me a definite, I can fix this, but to say let's try some new things, let's come up with some new ideas, let's get on the ball here, let's stop playing games. You're talking about a group of professional politicians, elected officials, who can't manage to write a check without balancing it, and I am supposed to think they are better than Ross Perot? I find that very hard to believe. That's not something that's acceptable to me anymore. The old guard has pretty well shown what they're capable of.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ellen Goodman, what about Jacquie Quinn's point that she -- she doesn't really -- it doesn't matter to her so much about the specifics of what Ross Perot is saying yet at this point?

MS. GOODMAN: Sure. Well, he's in a time when we're just getting to know him and people have no idea who this man is so they're projecting all kinds of things onto him. One thing I found was interesting that both Jacquie and your first guest both talked about Perot as a person who would include, who would bring people into the system, and that's a very attractive possibility, but, in fact, there's nothing in his history that suggests that. The quality of leadership that he projects in his real life history is kind of a top down, can do personality and not an inclusive style of leadership. And I think those are two very distinct profiles of what we want in a leader. One would be loosely described as the kind of control and command form of leadership, which is what he exhibited in his real life, and the other one is what the business school types call the interactive leadership, which is somebody who seeks consensus and common ground and inclusion, and that we hear in his rhetoric, but there's no evidence that he's been that kind of a person.

MS. WOODRUFF: Kenneth Langone, is that right, there's no evidence that he's anything other than a command and control?

MR. LANGONE: Absolutely wrong. Let me tell you. EDS was built - -

MS. WOODRUFF: This is his company, Electronic Data Systems.

MR. LANGONE: His company was built, the industry was one where people could change jobs overnight there was such great demand. Ross Perot's whole style of leadership in EDS was to bring all of his people into the process of decision making. Decisions were made at the lowest levels. People were encouraged to make mistakes. People were encouraged to take charge. The whole concept of EDS, getting the job done, was Perot to send his troops into a job, if you want to call the word "troops," he'd send his men into do a job, to take on the impossible. He'd say, get in there, the job's got to be done, and use your head, do what makes sense, satisfy the customer. This notion that Ross is an autocrat is 100 percent wrong.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Raspberry, does that persuade you?

MR. RASPBERRY: I don't even know what it's about, Judy. I've been saying for a while now I don't get it, with regard to Ross Perot's popularity, new popularity. And I ought to make clear what it is I don't get. I really do understand the disaffection that the American people now have for politics as usual, although I have to say it's a little strange to me that the same people who would elect Ron Reagan twice and George Bush once and have Bush at 90 percent favorable ratings in the polls are now sick of politics as usual. But leaving that aside, so they are sick of politics as usual. What is the attraction to Ross Perot? That's what I don't get. What is there about this man who's sort of an amalgam of Frank Perdue, the chicken man, and Lamont Cranston, the shadow, who seems to have the power to cloud men's minds, what is it about him that makes people think he can do all these things that he says ought to be done? He's not said anything at all that ought to be done that everybody isn't saying ought to be done. The budget needs to be balanced. You know, we need to create jobs, restore the economy, you know, make better apple pie, motherhood, all these things. Everybody believes that. What makes people think this guy can do it?

MS. WOODRUFF: Jacquelyn Quinn, how do you answer that?

MS. QUINN: I don't think -- there's more than just him doing it. Like I said before, a lot of people are interested because he -- there's this chance to have something to say. But then, on the other hand, what you have to realize here is sure, a lot of people have said, they haven't done a darned thing either. I mean, I was looking forward to an education President and I got an education of what not to depend on in terms of educating America's children. In the last four years, I've seen the future of my children and my grandchildren sold down the river behind paying off S&Ls. There's a mess out there. It may be a lot of emotional reaction on our parts, but then again when you look at what we've been through in the past, Ross Perot offers an option, and interestingly enough, one of the things that I find so funny is that he's just enough an enigma right now so that as we said before, I don't think all of us are seeing the same Ross Perot. But right now, as far as I'm concerned, of the three options that I have offered, Ross Perot is at least a difference and no, it's not going to be a lot of the same thing. Now you have to realize he's still got to deal with the Congress and the Senate, which is a very strange group of people, to put it nicely, you know, and I don't think he's so naive as to believe he can dictate to the legislature the way you would in a private company. I don't think anyone would be that naive. I think anyone who believes that is being naive.

MS. WOODRUFF: Henry Bloch, what do you say to Jacquie Quinn's point that if you look at the people who've been talking about all these problems all this time, they haven't been able to fix things, why not let somebody else try it? I mean, I think that's what she's saying.

MR. BLOCH: That's what I'm hearing, but I think that Mr. Perot is a real unknown. For example, I understood -- understand that in 1987 he would be to cut spending and raise taxes. Now I understand he's saying he would lower taxes. I would rather not take a chance on a businessman. I don't think his qualifications as a proven businessman necessarily qualify him to be President of the United States and I for one don't like to take that chance.

MS. QUINN: What does qualify people? You know, I'd like that to be explained to me. Exactly what is a job qualification here that we're talking about?

MR. BLOCH: Well, I think to be -- to qualify for President, you should be a politician, frankly, because the problems encompass international affairs, farming, business, trade relations, so many things that a normal business person does not encounter.

MS. WOODRUFF: You want to respond to that?

MR. LANGONE: Yeah. I think Mr. Bloch must have a different business than most businesses I'm familiar with and know about. Business is the art of compromise. There are tradeoffs in everything you do in business. I think this notion that you've got to have a professional -- what have we got after all these years of professionals? We've got $4 trillion in debt. We have a $400 billion deficit this year. We have a very unhappy America. We have people that are looking at crises in every place we look. The S&L mess that Jacquelyn spoke to is a point well taken. Did anybody think when they deregulated the S&Ls the mess they were going to create, the implications of that law? Nobody thought about it. I can promise you this. One of the problems people are having with Ross today is that he's not being specific. Well, I'll tell you why he's not being specific. He's studying the issues. He wants to make certain if he makes a political promise, he can keep the promise. If he's offering pie in the sky, he'll have the recipe to bake the pie in the sky. That's something -- Judy, one thought here -- George -- I'm one of those people that worked for George Bush in 1988 very hard, very successfully. Why did I change? For one reason: I took as a vow his promise "Read my lips, no new taxes." That wasn't to me a campaign promise. That was a promise That was a promise to all -- that was -- if there was one crystal point he made, that was it, and he broke it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ellen Goodman, why isn't that sufficient reason for some people to support Ross Perot?

MS. GOODMAN: I'm just still back three paragraphs on the idea that if he hasn't told us how he would cure things, it's because he's deep in the process of cramming for finals. And he will come up with it and we will all be pleased, I mean, I'm still somewhat freaked out by that prospect, quite frankly, Judy. I don't think that -- what are we supposed to do if he hasn't completed this final exam studying by November 2nd -- we just say, oh, well, we know he'll figure it all out, I mean, what is this, an exercise in trust that we throw ourselves open to it?

MR. RASPBERRY: That's what really is so interesting about this whole Perot phenomenon. An example, Marilyn Burger wrote in the Washington Post on the op-ed page --

MS. WOODRUFF: A former journalist.

MR. RASPBERRY: A former journalist, print and television, she talked about Ross, meeting with Ross Perot, and him saying to her that he was wanting to get the guns out of the hands of bad guys. I mean, that could pass the board of the American Rifle Association, National Rifle Association. Everybody wants to get the guns out of the hands of the bad guys. But she said something else. She said she left there convinced that he was then and there working on a way to get it done. Now, he didn't propose anything, didn't tell her he was working on anything, but she left there with this, with this weird confidence that he was about to get it done. He met today with the mayors of -- several big city mayors, some of whom left that meeting not with any specifics of anything he said he'd do, but convinced that he was going to get it done, whatever the "it" was. That's the really peculiar thing about this man.

MS. GOODMAN: Judy, I think that's what's fascinating and sort of scary, that I think what's happened is that people really don't want to solve their own problems. They really do want -- I mean, their mother's sick, they're taking care of their kids, they're going to work, they're trying to pay their bills, and they would like to find somebody to deposit their worries in who would just take care of it, which is why, to a certain extent, this notion of Perot as a strong leader, I mean, we always finally elect a President for his "leadership qualities."

MS. WOODRUFF: That's a good point and I want to -- Jacquelyn Quinn, is that one of the things that you -- about Ross Perot? Is he someone in whom you think you could just turn over the things that are bothering you and say, I trust this man to fix it? I mean, is that what it's all about?

MS. QUINN: You know, I don't trust anyone to the degree that I'm going to turn over my problems. I'm probably one of the lousiest people to checkbook around, but the point is I don't want him to solve my problems; I want him to solve the larger problems that affect the structure of my country. I want to participate in that. I want to know what he's doing. And, you know, if he can't do it, I expect Ross Perot to say, I can't do it. But, you know, we don't want to adopt everything on his -- I think we've done that too long. As a black person, I have seen the promises made by both parties and then I have seen the promises kept only to the point that it is a facade that looks good politically. As an American first, as a black person, as a parent with children, I have problems that I want solved. I will solve my problems given the opportunity, but when I have to worry and I have to watch what goes on, when I don't know what the budgets are going to be like, when we don't have --see, with a good physical program, each man can get where he desires to go. It's like a good school. If a school has good expectations for their students and a sound fiscal management, children will learn. What we're seeing now is it's not happening for us. There's a lot of frustrated, angry, angry people and right now, Ross Perot is a little straw floating by.

MS. WOODRUFF: And that gets to another question and that is: Are people looking too much to one person, to one leader to fix things? Are we expecting too much?

MS. GOODMAN: I think Jacquie's very anomalous in this because I think she is not your typical Ross Perot voter. And she may not be a Ross Perot voter in August. I hope you have her back, but first of all, there is, of course, Perot is suffering from a huge gender gap, among other things, a 14-point gender gap at this point, which is about as big as gender gaps get. And I think it is partially because --

MS. WOODRUFF: Fewer women are supporting him percentagewise.

MS. GOODMAN: Fewer women, significantly fewer, and that is partially because I think women are attracted to and feel just the way Jacquie does -- over life, we've had enough people saying, don't worry about it, dear, I'll take care of it. But I think in this case that pretty much is what Perot has offered us.

MR. LANGONE: Isn't the issue here we're electing a person, we're electing a leader, the issue is a crisis in leadership. For example, I found it horrible that after the Gulf War it was a matter of days when we had or Corps of Engineers and we had our troops in their refixing the faucets on the sinks to fix up the Emir's castle and here it is six weeks, and here's leadership, leadership I think, knowing Ross as I know him, would mean Ross being there in LA and getting the best minds and the best talent in this country, contractors, builders, engineers, everybody --

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean after the violence after the Rodney King - -

MR. LANGONE: Exactly. It's been six weeks and we're down to arguing is it going to be one billion or two billion and nothing's being done. These poor old people having to travel seven miles to get a prescription filled, who's thinking about their plight?

MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Raspberry.

MR. RASPBERRY: I guess, Judy, I go back to what Lloyd Bentsen said of Jerry Brown. If Ross Perot is the answer, it must be a damn peculiar question. I still do not get it. And I really do understand the crisis of leadership that Mr. Langone was talking about. We've seen Bush plummet in the polls. I see nothing. And this is literally true, I see nothing in anything Ross Perot has said that leads me or suggests how it leads anybody to think that he would fix all these things, that he is somehow -- you know, I've got nothing against businessmen. I don't have to be a politician to be President. Eisenhower had a fairly successful Presidency coming out of the military. That's okay. I don't have any problem with businessmen doing it. There may be some very bright business people out there. I just don't see it in this guy.

MR. LANGONE: Well, you know, Mr. Bloch talked about Mr. Perot's episode with General Motors. Sometimes being a leader means taking on a very unpopular stance. Keep in mind that -- and somebody earlier mentioned would he say, I can't do it, or if she thought he would say I can't do it and I'll leave. That's exactly what happened with General Motors. He saw a problem there. He said, look, you've got a problem, and isn't it interesting, six years later, the board of General Motors said, hey, you know what, in their action,this guy was right.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about that, Henry Bloch?

MR. BLOCH: Well, he didn't fix the problem. To me, leadership - -

MR. LANGONE: He couldn't!

MR. BLOCH: To me leadership means having a direction and going in that direction. I don't know as a businessman or as an individual, a father of four children, a grandfather of 10 children, what Mr. Perot stands for. If there was a debate between the three candidates, I honestly don't know for all the money in the world what his position would be on any of the subjects that were covered.

MS. WOODRUFF: But he said he's talked about wanting to balance the budget. He thinks we ought to bring down the deficit. He says he's --

MR. BLOCH: Everybody wants to balance the budget.

MR. LANGONE: Yeah. Everybody wants to balance the budget, but nobody's willing to bite the bullet. You know, Mr. Bloch, I think it's interesting that here we are tonight arguing over the shape of the table. The fact of the matter is we are a nation in crisis. The biggest single problem in my opinion that confronts this country is our inner cities. We can't possibly have a vibrant, thriving society in this country with people happy when you hear those sad stories on television that I heard from Chicago last night on another network. I mean, we've got a problem here. And if it takes a businessman to sit and say look, fellows, we've got to work on this thing together, I'll tell you this right now, maybe the rest of the country sees it as something we can afford, but as I view where we've been for the last twenty or twenty-five years, I don't see how we can afford this experience and this game playing in politics.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ellen Goodman.

MS. GOODMAN: Well, I don't see -- I think what Mr. Perot has going for him, quite frankly, is people's doubts about President Bush and Gov. Clinton. But I don't see anything that has been said that leads me to believe that Perot is, as Bill said, the answer.

MR. LANGONE: But those are the only chances we have right now. We aren't being given a chance to pick between 250 million people. We're being given a choice of three people and my proposition is simple. Here's a man who has demonstrated a continual record of achievement and doing it with consensus. People have to understand that EDS became the wonderful, great company it is by Ross Perot's leadership talents and abilities.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Raspberry, why isn't that enough for you, briefly?

MR. RASPBERRY: Well, I suppose if it were my company and I ran the thing, I could achieve consensus too. This is -- Ross Perot is not going to own the U.S., and what does he do when the board of directors disagrees with him, that is, the Congress disagrees with him as the board of directors at GM did? Is he going to quit? I mean --

MR. LANGONE: No, he's going to go back to the owners.

MS. WOODRUFF: Jacquelyn Quinn, you get a word in here.

MS. QUINN: Oh, I was listening. I got really interested. I think we're talking about Bush and we're talking about Clinton. We're talking about Perot. I think we need to look a little farther back and a little farther ahead. I think to a degree you're talking about positions on things, I personally don't want any more easy answers. I personally don't want a position that you stand on during the election and disappears two days after you're sworn in. I -- every election for as long as I can remember I have heard platforms and I have heard positions and it's very seldom that they're followed through on. It's very seldom that I hear things that I feel as though it's for the national good. You know, when you talk about -- someone says Ross Perot hasn't come out on minority issues. There are no real minority issues. There are a few, but our issues are the same as all Americans. I don't want anything special. I just want some honesty and I want somebody to say we've got a lot of problems and the answers aren't going to be easy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, on that eloquent note, we will leave it. And I want to thank you all, Mr. Langone, Ellen Goodman, Bill Raspberry, Jacquelyn Quinn, and Henry Bloch. Thank you all. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the United States and Russia failed to reach agreement on reducing long range nuclear weapons, but both sides said agreement was still possible before next week's summit between Presidents Bush and Yeltsin. Food and medical supplies were said to be critically low in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo as the bombardment by Serbian forces continued. The United Nations troops continued to reopen the airport there for relief flights, but only after a cease-fire. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with the first in a series of Charlayne Hunter-Gault conversations about the racial dived in America. It's called "Can't We Along?". I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.