The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, media violence day in Washington, Elizabeth Farnsworth explores the fallouts and meanings; the four leading Republican Presidential candidates have a debate, we have excerpts; money, Margaret Warner and two experts look at what it means to Presidential politics, the Senate has a life or death debate about the Whitewater investigation, Kwame Holman reports, and our second round of candidate stump speeches continues with one by Pat Buchanan. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Coast Guard will protect a Saturday protest off the coast of Cuba. White House Spokesman Mike McCurry made the announcement today. Cuban exiles plan to send a flotilla of boats and planes to the site of last week's shootdown of two civilian planes by Cuban military jets. The four Cuban-Americans aboard the private planes were killed. U.S. officials claim the shootdown occurred in international waters. Cuban authorities say it happened over their territory. McCurry warned Havana not to interfere with a Saturday demonstration.

MICHAEL McCURRY, White House Spokesman: We will not tolerate further any unlawful actions by the Cuban government. We believe that efforts to honor the lives of the victims of Cuba's brutality deserve the support of all Americans, and we will strongly enforce our laws to prevent incursion into Cuban air space and territorial waters that potentially endanger the lives of Americans.

MR. LEHRER: A Cuban government spokesman had asked the United States to stop the flotilla. He said Cuba would use all means necessary to counter violations of its territory. At a congressional hearing in Washington today, Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana said he received information the U.S. Air Force was aware Cuban jets were about to attack the civilian planes Saturday, but he said the Air Force did nothing to stop the encounter. A Defense Department spokesman denied that report. He said the Cuban fighters were not challenged because they did not threaten the United States. At the White House today, 30 television executives agreed to create a rating system to help parents screen out sex and violence on television. The new telecommunications law requires new TV sets to be equipped with a V-chip to block programs. Without a rating system, the V-chip cannot be utilized. President Clinton praised the broadcasters' efforts.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The media and the entertainment industry has agreed to a voluntary system of ratings for television programs. These ratings will be put in place by the end of this year or the beginning of next year to help parents decide what programs they want their children to watch, and the V-chip will give parents the power to block those programs they do not want them to watch from their televisions. We're handing the TV remote control back to America's parents so that they can pass on their values and protect their children.

MR. LEHRER: Industry spokesman Jack Valenti said broadcasters cannot take the place of parents and teachers who have the ultimate responsibility for a child's character and conduct.

JACK VALENTI: There must be a national renaissance of individual responsibility so that a child understands clearly what is right and what is plainly wrong. Absent that kind of moral regeneration in the home and in the family and in the school and in the church frankly no rating system, however purposeful, no V-chip or electronic device and no government law is going to salvage that child's conduct.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In South Carolina today, the four leading Republican Presidential candidates held a one-hour debate. They did so before a business group in Columbia. Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, and Bob Dole clashed over negative advertising, balancing the budget, and taxes. The important South Carolina primary is Saturday. We'll have extended excerpts from the debate later in the program. Senate Democrats today blocked a Republican effort to extend the Senate Whitewater investigation beyond midnight tonight. Republicans will try against next week. Democrats were willing to extend the investigation until April 3rd, but not beyond. Republicans wanted unlimited time. Money was also an issue. We'll have extended excerpts from that debate later in the program. House Speaker Newt Gingrich won a victory in federal court today. A judge throughout out an elections law complaint filed by the Federal Election Commission against the Political Action Committee run by Gingrich. His group, called GOPAC, argued that it only needed state and local political candidates and did not have to register with the FEC. The judge agreed. And in the House of Representatives today, members approved the so-called Freedom to Farm Bill. The vote was 270 to 155. The measure overhauls federal farm policies dating back to the Depression. It phases out price supports for corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops. Subsidies for sugar, dairy products, and peanuts would continue. Farmers would also no longer be paid to keep their land idle to control crop supplies. Today's debate focused on the impact the bill would have on taxpayers.

REP. CALVIN DOOLEY, [D] California: The premise behind this policy is, is that over the next seven years we will obligate the taxpayers of this country to spend $36 1/2 billion to farmers regardless of what the prices of the commodities will be.

REP. PAT ROBERTS, Chairman, Agriculture Committee: This bill establishes hopefully a market transition from the command and control style of government support to the free market through a series of fixed and declining payments, declining payments.

MR. LEHRER: The House Farm Bill must now be reconciled with a version that has already passed the Senate. In Bosnia today, the Bosnian government declared the siege of Sarajevo officially over. The announcement came as the Muslim-Croat Federation assumed control of the former Serb suburb of Ilijas and an adjoining road. Most Serb residents evacuated the area before the transfer. In New York federal court today, the Daiwa Bank pled guilty to sixteen counts of fraud, deception, and other charges. The large Japanese bank was accused of hiding more than $1 billion in losses. The bank will also pay a $340 million fine, the largest ever levied in a U.S. criminal case. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to media violence, a debate in South Carolina, the politics of money, a Senate Whitewater debate, and a Pat Buchanan stump speech. FOCUS - SELF CONTROL

MR. LEHRER: Today's big Washington spotlight on media violence is our lead story tonight. Elizabeth Farnsworth is in charge.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The White House meeting with the telecommunications chieftains came after several years of pressure from parents and politicians. Last Spring, Senate Majority Leader and Presidential hopeful Robert Dole specifically targeted Time- Warner.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, [R] Kansas: [June 5, 1995] Must you debase our nation and threaten our children for the sake of corporate profits? The corporate executives who dismiss criticism should not misunderstand. I'm not objecting to some little tiny group of zealots or an ideological fringe. From inner city mothers to suburban mothers to families in rural America, parents, parents are afraid and parents are growing angry.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The drum beat of criticism continued from across the political spectrum. Tell all talk TV was the target for a group headed by moderate Democrat Joseph Lieberman and conservative Republican Bill Bennett.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, [D] Connecticut: [October 26, 1995] No to this cultural rot, no to the exploitation of personal tragedies and embarrassments, no to the peddling of perversion to 8 million children watching talk TV every day.

WILLIAM BENNETT, Former Cabinet Official: [October 26, 1995] Does anybody doubt that these shows degrade the people who are on them, that these shows degrade human personality? Do the sponsors think not? If not, why not?

MS. FARNSWORTH: In January, in his State of the Union, President Clinton upped the ante.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: To the media, I say you should create movies and CD's and television shows you'd want your own children and grandchildren to enjoy. [applause] I call on Congress to pass the requirement for a V-chip in TV sets so that parents can screen out programs they believe are inappropriate for their children.

MS. FARNSWORTH: President Clinton got what he wanted. Earlier this month, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act which requires TV manufacturers to begin installing the V-chip, with the V standing for violence. The act also urges the creation of a rating system and today, President Clinton praised the industry executives for having voluntarily come up with one.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: As a result of our discussions, the media and the entertainment industry has agreed to a voluntary system of ratings for television programs. These rating will be put in place by the end of this year or the beginning of next year to help parents decide what programs they want their children to watch.

MS. FARNSWORTH: A worse alternative from the industry's point of view would have been having a government-appointed group do the ratings.

TED TURNER, Turner Broadcasting: When we looked at how the vote went, over 95 percent of our members of Congress voted for this V- chip bill. I mean, it was an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and we got the message, and we really don't really have any choice anyway. We are either going to do it, or it's going to be done for us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: It won't be easy to come up with a system that can cover over 600,000 hours a year of programming, and already critics say the current plan doesn't go far enough.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Joining us to explain this historic agreement are Jack Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, and Kay Koplovitz, founder and CEO of USA Network, a national cable network. Thank you both for being with us. Mr. Valenti, what does the agreement--what is the agreement?

JACK VALENTI, Motion Picture Association of America: Well, first, it's a historic agreement, as you said. It's the first time that all of the disparate elements of the world of television networks, movie studios, cable, PBS, creative guilt, all got together in common cause. Now, unlike what was said earlier, the industry did not have to do this. The law does not require us to do it. The law says there will be a V-chip, but it does not require and cannot require--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Although, didn't the law say that if the industry doesn't do it, that a government-appointed body would within a year?

MR. VALENTI: It said the FCC would then appoint a commission but there are many First Amendment lawyers in this country who believe that that is unconstitutional. However, I am and others believe that it was in the long range interest of the parents of this country that we come together in a voluntary--and I stress voluntary--agreement to rate TV programs and to encode them so that the so-called V-chip or electronic device will allow parents a choice or not to blank out certain programs that their very children they might deem to be unsuitable. This is what we did 27 years ago with movie ratings which have persistently won high approval from parents because we give additional information to parents, so that parents and not a government or a Congress or anybody else can make choices for the parents of this country, and we're doing this, and I think it's a wonderful thing we're doing because it's right to do but not because we were required to do it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I know that much has to be worked out but do you think it will end up, the system will look a little like the movie rating systems, with the G, the PG, and, and NC-17 and that kind of thing, no kids under 17, and--

MR. VALENTI: The answer is I don't know. It's taken all of our strength and energy and passion and commitment to bring ourselves together under a common tent, under a common canopy to do this work, and I applaud people like Kay Koplovitz and others in the cable industry, networks, and everybody else who came together on this. We've got a lot of work to do to sort out the difficult, tormenting, even terrorizing questions that have to be asked and have to be solved before we can finally put this into operation.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. We'll get into some of those questions in a minute. Ms. Koplovitz, why did this happen now? For years, the industry has not wanted to do something like this, has said that it was against free speech.

KAY KOPLOVITZ, USA Network: I think you have the confluence of a number of factors right now, and not the least of which is the fact that there is a law that has been passed and part of the Teleco Bill does require the V-chip, does not require us to do this ratingsystem, but I do think there is a resonance in our communities and across the country for parents who want to have some guidance, and I think that we in the industry agree that information is important for parents to have. I think we have a different situation today than we had 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, we had three broadcast networks, a few stations in a community. Today, 70 percent of the homes of the country see multiple stations, maybe as 70 different stations, and networks coming into their home, and I think that the industry is beginning to realize that there is a plethora of programming, and that some guidance in giving information would be helpful to parents. And I think that's the resonance we hear and what we are responding to in this industry.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Valenti, some critics have said that this will just open the way to more violence and sex in programming because a broadcaster can label it, but there it is. They can do as much as they want of it, as long as it's labeled. Do you think that's true?

MR. VALENTI: Well, the answer is I liken this to the television equivalent of the Lewis & Clark expedition. Like them, we don't know what's on the other side of the mountain. There are a lot of things we don't know. What I do believe and Kay and others share with me is that parents ought to have more information to help them monitor and supervise the TV viewing of their young children. Whether this is, as we say, the law of unintended consequences will take over, I don't know. All I know is that we're going to try to do this, to do it right, to do it with integrity, and with honorable purpose, and that is our aim, and this is what we're going to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What are the risks in this? For example, I was thinking about this. Researchers from four universities recently announced the results of a study on television violence. I think the cable industry helped pay for the study.

MS. KOPLOVITZ: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And it showed that in--the premium cable channels had violence in 85 percent of their programming. What are the risks to those networks, to those programs, or those companies? An advertiser might say, I'm just not going to advertise if you have to label it some kind of a label not suitable for children.

MS. KOPLOVITZ: Let me clarify something for you. They didn't-- the study did not say that the violence occurs in 85 percent of the programming or 57 percent of the programming on other channels, or whatever. It was of those programs that were viewed by the researchers. They did not view all programming. They viewed programs chosen at random. So they were talking about the programs that they viewed. It was not a complete survey of all programs. Let me make that clear, first of all. Secondly, there are--

MS. FARNSWORTH: But it is risky, isn't it?

MS. KOPLOVITZ: There are definitely risks. I mean, as far as an industry that is supported largely by advertising, and for those of us on the cable side to some degree by subscription fees, there is a big risk, and for broadcasters even a larger risk that advertisers will be intimidated from advertising and programming that they feel is a really worthwhile thing. Not all programming is created for children. You take a series like NYPD Blue, which has been highly acclaimed for its creative content, yet, some people would find some of the language or some of the scenes objectionable, and certainly perhaps objectionable to children. That doesn't mean that advertisers shouldn't be in that show, because very important social issues and challenges that we live every day in our lives are seen on that show. It's extremely worthy of being on the air, yet, it could carry a rating that would intimidate some advertisers from being in it. And I think these are the types of issues that we've got to walk through. We should embrace comments from the advertising community as to what their concerns are. We should try to take them into consideration in forming our rating system. I think this would be appropriate. So yes, we're risking--we have financial risks, we have--I think we have the risk of being overly-criticized for no matter what we do. It's a dead certainty that everybody's not going to be pleased with what we come up with. I mean, that's a certainty. We know that no matter what we do we will be roundly criticized by the left or the right or self-appointed people who feel that they should be the purveyors of our morals in this society, and it's a heavy burden that we bear, I think, but we're willing to take it up voluntarily. It is a huge challenge to us. I hope people don't underestimate or over-anticipate what the results will be, because this will not necessarily change violence in our society. This is just one aspect of it, television.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, and I would imagine one of the main topics of discussion or worries would be that everything will become too bland.

MR. VALENTI: Well, I don't believe that we can make all television programs at the intellectual level of a seven-year-old. What we're trying to do is to sort out through our ratings what is in some of these programs so parents can make judgments about young children. We're talking about six, seven, eight, nine, ten-year- old children, and those are the ones that need to be protected, and that's the information that parents should have, and that's what we're going to do. But I do believe that in the long run, we're going to be criticized heavily, as Kay says, but in spite of that, we're going to continue on and to make this project work. I think it can be done, and it ought to be done.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You know, some, some journalists have written that what you really needed to do was to get this out of the way so that you all could deal with a much more difficult issue or at least an equally difficult issue coming up, which is the question of whether the digital parts of the airwaves will be given away or auctioned off, as Sen. Dole and others have called for.

MR. VALENTI: As far as I'm concerned, though, that's, that's not- -that's something not on my turf. And I think some of the broadcasters are dealing with that. What we were trying to do is to try to bring together all elements of this industry that previously were unallied with each other and have them joined in this cause of trying to give more information to parents so the parents can monitor their children's TV viewing, but there will be tomorrow and the day after people saying that's not enough, because some of these people actually want certain shows off the air because they don't like those shows. Every time that I encounter someone who believes that they are the repository of all wisdom, I always want to utter that old Texas prayer that says, Dear Lord, let me seek the truth but spare me the company of those who have found it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you both for being with us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And now some thoughts on today's developments from one of our regular media watchers, Ken Auletta of the "New Yorker" Magazine. Ken, thank you for being with us.

KEN AULETTA, The New Yorker: [New York] My pleasure.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You have just heard all of that. What do you make of it? Do you have anything to--any comments?

MR. AULETTA: Well, actually I have several. One is that if you go back almost 30 years to when the movie studios put in their rating system, that was not exactly voluntary. In fact, it was very parallel to what's happening today in that the government put pressure on the movie companies to come up with some kind of a rating system to protect parents, just as the government has put pressure today on the television industry to come up with some kind of rating system.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think of the agreement?

MR. AULETTA: Well, I mean, as they say, God is in the details, and we don't know the details yet. I mean, I think it is an attempt on the part of the television industry to, to respond to not just the Congress but who the Congress is responding to, which is the public, and a feeling they have that there is too much sex and violence and that as parents, particularly in the two-parent home which the majority of Americans now have, they need some help as parents in terms of what gets on the air. Hopefully, it will reflect what is programmed not just what is rated on the air, but how to do that, it is much more complicated to rate television shows than it is movies for two reasons. One, you have many more, you have roughly 800 movies a year that are rated versus, as Ted Turner said today, roughly 600,000 hours of television time. So you've got a lot of decisions to make. Do you rate news shows, talk shows, daytime television, or just prime-time shows, Saturday morning shows, children's shows? That's one set of questions, and the other set of question is that the other reason that it's more difficult in a movie theater you have someone who polices the ticket seller or the person who takes your ticket who polices the entrance to that movie theater. We don't have that kind of a system obviously in our home.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But after writing about this and watching this for, for many years and knowing the heated debate that's gone into this, do you think this was the right first step to take?

MR. AULETTA: I do, yes. I think it's the right step to take for the industry not just because it is substantively correct and politically correct in the short-term, but in the long-term for the television industry, they've got some other fish to fry, and Mr. Valenti was asked that question and he said, it's not the fish I'm frying in terms of what happens to the spectrum space but actually it is a fish he's frying and a fish that everyone who's related to the television industry and the studio industry and, as you know, two studios already own two of the networks, so Mr. Valenti's involvement, as Kay Koplovitz, who reports the two studios, her company, and they have a real interest in whether they have to bid the networks for this extra spectrum space or it's made as a gift in return for certain things that they give back maybe.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Back on the agreement today, do you think this will lessen some of the criticism, or will there just be as, as Mr. Valenti and Ms. Koplovitz said, a whole new round of criticism of the agreement and of the rating system they come up with?

MR. AULETTA: Well, I mean, there will be, there will be less criticism, I would guess, after this agreement. I think they've gone a long way to de-fuse for now the criticism. In the long run, when they actually devise a system, and it is very complicated, what they're setting out to do, when they actually come up with a system, then there probably will be more criticism, depending upon the nature of that system.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And do you think it's quite risky? Do we discuss that? It seems like a risky business they're about to begin.

MR. AULETTA: It is very risky. If you're a creator of a show and you would have real worries certainly on free television, which is supported by advertising, that if you have a violence rating on your show, let's say NYPD Blue, this happened with a show that Ms. Koplovitz mentioned, it got that rating, and, in fact, the advertisers stayed away. So the worry would be that the network programmers will go back to the old days of seeking to homogenize a mass audience and will stay away from shows and programs that push the envelope, that are creative, that are thought-provoking, and that is a danger with this system, but it seems to me that the argument that outweighs it is that, you know, you have to try something new because presently the public and the Congress is not happy with the current system.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you think that more could be asked? There, for example, people have talked about having family viewing hours when, when more children are watching than adults, there would have to be certain programming. Do you think that kind of thing will start to be pushed now?

MR. AULETTA: Well, I think one of the things that's going to happen here, one of--those executives who met with the President and Vice President and before that with the leaders of the Congress, they have some things they want on their agenda from the government, but the government has some things they want back from that industry. They would like to get back, as Sen. Hollings is pushing and other members of Congress, the family hours, so that from 8 to 9 each night you will not have shows that are not friendly to younger children, as currently exists. That family hour was rolled back quietly over the last two years. It may be they want more children's programming as the Clinton administration has talked about. It may be that in return for giving them free spectrum space, or extra channels, that in return, they get back something, like free airtime for political speeches or for candidates in campaigns. So there are lots of things that both parties to this negotiation want. And that's the sub-plot that I think went on today that people have been talking about.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. I have to interrupt you, Ken. That's all the time we have. Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a campaign debate, money in presidential politics, a Whitewater debate, and a Buchanan stump speech. UPDATE - CAMPAIGN DEBATE

MR. LEHRER: Now, a debate in South Carolina. This afternoon, four Republican contenders went at it at a candidates' forum in Columbia. A major focus was their own advertising. Here are extended excerpts.

MODERATOR: Do you think negative ads are hurting the political process, and do you regret having run such ads, Mr. Forbes?

STEVE FORBES, Republican Presidential Candidate: I regret having spent so much time discussing my opponents, when they made promises before an election and then routinely broke those promises after the election; however, in the last two weeks I've concentrated simply on getting my message of growth, hope, and opportunity across to the American people, particularly in Delaware and in Arizona.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: Well, I think Steve has been very effective with these negative ads. I saw my favorable ratings go from 80 percent in Iowa down to 50, and he spent about $12 million, I think, just on Bob Dole. He's the king of negative advertising. He gets the title without any contest.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: I think, Steve, you're right, you overdid it with those negative ads, and I think, Bob, you overdid it up in New Hampshire. And I think there was a reaction against both of you.

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Republican Presidential Candidate: Sen. Dole in New Hampshire for his last four days took all of his ads off and ran negative ads against me, just me. CNN said they were untruthful, they were misleading, and they were distorted. Now, that's going on, Bob. That needs to stop. We need to be positive.

MODERATOR: We're going to take a look at some of the negative ads throughout the next 45 minutes or so. The first one is an ad that has been run by the Dole Campaign.

AD SPOKESPERSON: [Dole Ad] President Pat Buchanan? He says, "Women are simply not endowed by nature with the measure of single- minded ambition and the will to succeed." And he advocates arming South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan with nuclear weapons. He's too extreme, and he can't beat Bill Clinton.

MODERATOR: Mr. Buchanan.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Bob, it is a sign of the vapidity and the hollowness of your campaign that in your 72nd year as Majority Leader that you're running these kinds of ads--

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Eleventh year.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Thirty-fifth year in Congress, that--

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: You've been in Washington 35 years, so--

PATRICK BUCHANAN: --you're running ads of these kinds of--about an old friend, that you know are not true, and that you went through in New Hampshire yourself.

MODERATOR: Time up, Mr. Buchanan. Sen. Dole, do you stand by that ad?

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Well, I just took it out of his columns, and maybe they're not accurate. I always thought they were.

MODERATOR: This is an ad run by the Alexander campaign.

AD SPOKESMAN: [Alexander Ad] Bob Dole voted to raise taxes by $320 billion. Alexander supports term limits. Dole opposes term limits. Alexander has fresh, conservative ideas. After 35 years in Washington, Bob Dole is out of ideas.

MODERATOR: Senator Dole?

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Well, I knew he was running negative ads. I didn't want to bring it up. I didn't want to embarrass him here in front of all these people, but here's a guy that wanted to be the boy scout up in New Hampshire and said none of us should run these kind of ads, then he comes right down here and picks one out which is not true. I support term limits. I've said I support term limits. In fact, there's an ad watch analysis of that ad today that shows that it's completely wrong.

MODERATOR: Gov. Alexander, do you stand by your ad?

LAMAR ALEXANDER: I absolutely stand by the ad. Bob, the only reason that's on the air is because in six states, including the last five days in New Hampshire, you ran ads about my record that weren't true. You said I had, I had an income tax in Tennessee, when I rejected an income tax.

MODERATOR: This is an ad being run by the Buchanan campaign.

AD SPOKESMAN: [Buchanan Ad] Dole, Alexander, and Forbes supported a new trade deal with Mexico. They promised it would create jobs. It didn't. Said it would improve our trade balance; it hasn't. They claimed American wages would grow; they haven't.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: [in ad] I will rewrite these unfair trade deals that destroy our jobs.

MODERATOR: And gentlemen, Mr. Forbes, would you respond to that, please?

STEVE FORBES: The problem with that is not the desire to reduce trade barriers. When trade barriers are reduced, America does genuinely well. We're the most competitive nation in the world. If we reduce barriers here at home on Americans getting ahead, we'll continue to be by far the most competitive nation in the world.

MODERATOR: Mr. Buchanan, do you stand by your ad?

PATRICK BUCHANAN: Well, I certainly do. The problem with NAFTA, Steve, it was a lousy deal to begin with, and we knew it. Your $1 billion trade surplus is gone. We've got a $15 billion trade deficit with Mexico, 300,000 lost American jobs, many of them in South Carolina. If NAFTA is a success, I would hate to see a failure.

MODERATOR: We're going to take another look at another ad that's been run in this campaign. You will not see the actual ad, itself, but this is a transcript, and we'll have the words that the ad used and you'll hear those words. This is from the Forbes campaign.

FORBES AD BEING READ BY PERSON: Lamar Alexander brags he balanced budgets as governor, but he doesn't tell you he raised taxes four times to do it, while doubling state spending. Running for President, Lamar Alexander collects 295,000 dollars a year from his law firm that lobbies for special interests in Washington.

MODERATOR: And, Gov. Alexander, is that ad accurate?

LAMAR ALEXANDER: Well, I think Steve was right to stop running ads like that. I've never lobbied. I do work for a law firm. I actually have a job outside government. I have resigned that job now that I am running for President. As far as taxes, after eight years, Steve could have pointed out, if he'd been generous, that I balanced eight budgets, reduced the state debt, had a AAA bond rating, no personal income tax, and the fifth lowest taxes. Three of the four tax increases he talks about were fee increases to build the best road system in the country. Ronald Reagan did that. We all want better roads. The other one was, I'd do it again. I told the teachers and the people of Tennessee that we would--if we would become the first state to pay teachers more for teaching well, merit pay, that I would pay for it, and we did that.

MODERATOR: Time, Governor.

LAMAR ALEXANDER: And it's helped us grow jobs and have a much stronger state economy.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Mr. Forbes, do you stand by your ad?

STEVE FORBES: I'd absolutely stand by it. As governor, he did raise taxes. As governor, he did double state spending, and when he became education secretary, he increased the size of that department too, increased the spending there, so he talks like a conservative but he seems to act like a liberal. He also did work for a lobbying firm that paid him $295,000 a year. All that is true. Moreover--

LAMAR ALEXANDER: Steve, you haven't learned a single thing in your whole campaign. The negative ads come right out of your mouth. You know that's not true.

STEVE FORBES: It is true.

LAMAR ALEXANDER: You spent most of this year changing our Republican Party--

STEVE FORBES: And, Lamar, as governor, as governor--

LAMAR ALEXANDER: --into a negative ad side show, starting with Bob Dole, next to me, and you should be ashamed of yourself for continuing that kind of tact.

STEVE FORBES: Lamar, as governor, with that ad, that was a charitable ad. That ad did not talk about some of those cozy business deals you did as governor, investing one dollar, getting- -

LAMAR ALEXANDER: There you go again, Steve.

STEVE FORBES: --getting six hundred and twenty thousand dollars in return.

MODERATOR: Time up, Mr. Forbes. Time up, sir. Thank you very much.

LAMAR ALEXANDER: Steve, you should go practice your dirty business on a race for the school board before you try for thePresidency of the United States of America.

MODERATOR: Governor, thank you.

STEVE FORBES: Governor, your cozy business deals are not capitalistic. They're reminders of--

LAMAR ALEXANDER: My ethics have never been questioned.

MODERATOR: Thank you both, gentlemen, very much.

LAMAR ALEXANDER: Could you wait just a minute? My ethics have never been questioned, never been questioned.

MODERATOR: Mr. Buchanan--

LAMAR ALEXANDER: The United States Senate, a democratic majority with Sen. Dole there, examined everything I've done in my life and not one single Senator voted against that. You come into this campaign never having run for any office--

MODERATOR: Thank you, Governor.

LAMAR ALEXANDER: --smearing Bob Dole--smearing me--

MODERATOR: Thank you, Governor. Let's give the other candidates a chance to talk here. Mr. Buchanan--

STEVE FORBES: --turned $1 into $625,000.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Time out.

PATRICK BUCHANAN: It's my turn, I think. Bob, can you get 'em to yield to me, Bob?

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: I like what they're doing, but--

PATRICK BUCHANAN: I'm enjoying this! We'll yield you guys some more time. No, let me say this. Let me say this. Look, you know, let me--excuse me, let me side with Lamar on this, really, and let me side with Steve Forbes on the issue of I don't care how much Steve Forbes makes. Steve Forbes inherited four hundred--whatever it was--he inherited the money. So what? Who cares what's in his tax return? Who cares about this nonsense? Why don't we focus this on the issues, focus on what we're going to do for the country, when we criticize an opponent, let's do it. If they stood with NAFTA and GATT, and I don't believe in those, I stood against 'em, let's argue it on that basis and get away from this personal nonsense that they're doing to Steve, and Steve, I think you're doing to Lamar.

MODERATOR: Sen. Dole. It's your opportunity.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Well, I'm running for President. I don't know what these other guys are running for.

MR. LEHRER: The South Carolina primary is this Saturday. FOCUS - MONEY MATTERS

MR. LEHRER: Now, money and Presidential politics. Margaret Warner has that story.

MS. WARNER: Money has always played a major role in Presidential campaigns. But there are some new wrinkles this year. One is the sheer magnitude of the spending. To explore the consequences of this and other new twists and quirks in the campaign money picture this year we're joined by two seasoned political hands, Republican consultant Roger Stone, a veteran of Ronald Reagan's Presidential campaigns, managed Sen. Arlen Specter's bid this time around; Colby College Professor Anthony Corrado managed the money for Democrat Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign, among others. Welcome, gentlemen. Roger Stone, let's look at the sheer magnitude of this. To date, Bob Dole and Steve Forbes each have spent more than all 11 1992 Presidential contenders had spent at this point last time. Why?

ROGER STONE, Republican Campaign Consultant: Well, I think there was perhaps a miscalculation by everyone in the Republican Party that because all the primaries were so front-loaded and because 75 percent of the delegates will be selected by the end of March that you had to spend your load of money early to score early and try to score an early knockout. Of course, that hasn't happened, and now each one of these four remaining candidates is in a completely financial strait.

MS. WARNER: Tony Corrado, do you have anything to add to that, what has been driving this spending?

ANTHONY CORRADO, Democratic Finance Consultant:[Auburn, Maine] Well, one of the things I would say is that none of these candidates expected that they would be going against a contender like Steven Forbes who could spend virtually unlimited amounts of money and therefore really contest the race from out of nowhere. As a result, Forbes has really served to fuel the spending in this race. While we all knew that it would be expensive because of the compressed schedule of primaries, Steven Forbes forced candidates to spend more money earlier than they wanted to, particularly in December, where a number of candidates, particularly Gramm and Alexander, had to spend a lot more than they wanted on television to prevent Forbes from breaking away, and then more recently Bob Dole has had to significantly increase his spending in order to keep pace with Forbes and to overcome the challenge he now faces in these primaries.

MS. WARNER: And so, Roger Stone, Bob Dole is now in a position where this could backfire on him?

MR. STONE: Well, the irony is that I think just as he's about to begin a pretty significant winning streak, because I think Sen. Dole will win in South Carolina on Saturday, I think he's very likely to win the junior Tuesday primary in New England, in Georgia, and Colorado on Tuesday. I think he would then be poised to do well in Super Tuesday, just as he is poised for takeoff, he's also going to bump into the limits, in my view, sometime here in late March. So as he--

MS. WARNER: And explain that. There's a national cap.

MR. STONE: We have a national cap in which each Presidential candidate can spend. Bob Dole's problem is not the inability to raise more money. It's the inability to spend more money. That contrasted with say Lamar Alexander, who if he does not get 10 percent of the vote in the South Carolina primary on Saturday by federal law he would lose his eligibility for federal matching funds. In order to get it back, he would have to get 20 percent of the vote in the very next primary, which is the following Tuesday, both in my opinion highly probable, over the first one highly unprobable--highly probable and the second one unlikely. So he may be the first candidate financially to flame out here.

MS. WARNER: Well, I want to get back to Alexander, but let's just finish up with Dole and Forbes. Tony Corrado, what is your estimate of how much more actually Bob Dole can spend? What can he actually spend in the month of March before he basically taps out against this $37 million limit?

MR. CORRADO: Well, Bob Dole had already spent about $25 million by the end of February, and he's now--

MS. WARNER: Isn't that the end of January?

MR. CORRADO: Oh, that's the end of January, and then I estimate that he has spent another $4 million to $5 million in the month of February. So he's right up around $30 million now, and he's facing a series of primaries here in the next 14 days that are very expensive. Even minimal television buys are going to cost him another million to a million five. And I expect that he is going to be in a position where he will only have 3 or 4 million dollars left to spend in the second half of March, and, therefore, he is going to be the first Presidential candidate who is going to face a very serious limit problem because even if he does well, as Roger just noted, and wraps this up by the third week of March or so and finishes those off in California, he's going to be sitting there at the first week of April with essentially no more room to spend money. And he has to go all the way to August to his convention before he can refuel, and he's going to be facing a Bill Clinton, who will still have at least $10 million to spend through the last couple of months of the primaries, and that will be a significant advantage.

MS. WARNER: I read today, Roger Stone, that Forbes said he's going to spend a million dollars on TV just next week just in New York. Is there anything Dole can do to try to match Forbes' spending, or is he absolutely hamstrung by these limits?

MR. STONE: I don't think there's anything Forbes can do--pardon me--Dole--

MS. WARNER: Dole

MR. STONE: --can do. But I think there are things that can be done for Dole. For example, when Forbes surged in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, the realtors, the home builders, others who recognized that the flat tax plan would be very threatening to their livelihood, stepped forward and educated voters about those plans with radio, with television, with mailings. Now, New York State has the highest income taxes in the United States. Under the Forbes flat tax plan, those taxes would not be deductible on the federal return. I believe a number of the tax groups, the realtors, the home builders, are going to step forward and they're going to educate the voters. Now, Dole will be the beneficiary to that. It's not done with his direction or his coordination, but others will step forward to fill this void, in my opinion.

MS. WARNER: Do you think that can be enough, Tony Corrado?

MR. CORRADO: Well, it may be enough, but we also have to remember that Pat Buchanan is still in this race, and Buchanan is finally in the best financial position that he has ever been in in his two Presidential races. He has a very strong direct mail fund-raising base, and has been raising significant amounts of money, especially from conservative activists, Christian evangelicals, and gun owners who give small contributions that are matched with matching funds, so that he's in a position now where he can still outspend Bob Dole by 10 to 15 million dollars, and I think he's capable of raising that money, and that is going to stretch Dole even further because Dole is going to have to be fending off the Pat Buchanan attacks. He is in a situation where he's not just running against Steve Forbes. He's still running against a multi-candidate field, and that's the biggest financial predicament he faces now.

MS. WARNER: And what is your assessment, Roger Stone, of Buchanan's financial picture? Do you agree with Tony?

MR. STONE: Partially. Pat Buchanan's got a broad financial base of about 125,000 donors nationally, and they will continue to give as long as Pat continues to provide success; however, if he does not win in South Carolina, if he does not win in Colorado or Georgia or some of the New England states, if he does not win on Super Tuesday in the South, you'll start to see diminishing returns. He will still raise money but not at the clip that he has been raising it, because it's all been based on his surprise success in New Hampshire. So I think that Buchanan has sort of a Catch-22 situation. He can spend 15 million more dollars if he can raise them but he can only raise them if he provides political success, and that means victory in some of these primaries.

MS. WARNER: And Tony Corrado, finally, let's go back to the point that Roger made earlier about Lamar Alexander, who has to get at least 10 percent in South Carolina to even continue qualifying for matching funds. What is your assessment of Alexander's financial picture right now?

MR. CORRADO: Well, by far, Lamar Alexander is in the weakest financial position of all of these candidates. In fact, he is the one who is suffering most from this unforgiving process that he is involved in. He cannot capitalize on the early victories, or not really victories, but at least moral victories that he received in Iowa and New Hampshire because the time is so tight. Even though he's raising $100,000 to $200,000 a day by his own campaign estimates, he's in a process that is much more expensive than that. So he has had to pick and choose the states he can campaign in, and he has not been able to really take advantage of that early push that he got from the Iowa and New Hampshire races, and, therefore, he is really living hand to mouth. He is in what I call a cash flow nightmare, where his campaign is looking at how much money cleared the bank today and how much can we spend. And if he does not win soon, and I mean by Georgia, he is probably going to see most of his resources dry up, and he'll be forced to leave the race.

MS. WARNER: Well, gentlemen, both of you, thanks very much. We have to leave it there. UPDATE - WHITEWATER REVISITED

MR. LEHRER: Now, Whitewater and the debate in the Senate over whether to end its special investigation. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Recently, the Senate Whitewater hearings have been marked by the sudden discovery of long-missing White House documents that had been subpoenaed by the Committee.

SEN. ALFONSE D'AMATO, Chairman, Senate Whitewater Committee: This packet of information from Mr. Gearan, January 29th. Here's another packet of information we get again from Mr. Gearan, February 7th.

MR. HOLMAN: It happened against last week, angering Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato, who demanded a top Clinton aide explain why those documents had been missing for so long.

HAROLD ICKES, White House Deputy Chief of Staff: [February 22] We have turned over fourteen some thousand pages of documents, I'm told, to this committee alone. We have turned over fifty to sixty thousand documents in total to various committees and the independent counsel. We are not hiding anything.

MR. HOLMAN: But D'Amato said the delay in getting documents left him not choice but to ask that the life of the Whitewater Committee be extended.

SEN. ALFONSE D'AMATO: By gosh, you just can't withhold things, tell us that we're wasting time, that we're spending taxpayers' money inappropriately.

MR. HOLMAN: And with the committee's authorization set to expire at midnight tonight, Chairman D'Amato went to the Senate floor this afternoon to urge his colleagues to support an open-ended extension of the committee's work.

SEN. ALFONSE D'AMATO: That if we don't set a time line, it will occasion those who may be attempting to hold back, to get past that date, to be more forthcoming because they're going to know that these matters, whatever they are, whatever the testimony, whatever the documents, are going to come out, better to let the chips fall where they may now, as opposed to later. I suggest to you that we'll probably have a chance, a better chance of winding this up sooner, rather than later.

MR. HOLMAN: But Minority Leader Tom Daschle stood to say enough is enough.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Senate Minority Leader: There has never in the history, to our knowledge, of the United States Senate been a request of this kind, never. It's unprecedented. No one has ever said we want a fishing license to allow us to go on for whatever length of time it takes. That's never been made before. We have never found ourselves in a situation like this in a Presidential year. Is it coincidental? Given all the problems we see nowin the Republican Party, they conveniently need another six or seven months to take this into the Republican and Democratic Conventions? Is that what it's all about? This is unprecedented, and it's wrong.

MR. HOLMAN: And Democrats say Sen. D'Amato's case was not helped by the disclosure today of a report to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation saying there's no basis to take legal action against the Rose Law Firm for Mrs. Clinton's Whitewater-related work.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: And I might point out and ask the Minority Leader whether or not he's aware of this, but the earlier report which this latest report supplements concludes that on page 78 of the report, "Therefore, pending the results of the criminal case, it is recommended that no further resources be expended on the Whitewater part of the investigation." Is the Minority Leader aware of that conclusion?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I'd respond to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut that I was not aware until today that the report had been completed and made available and that it has such a resounding exoneration of the Clintons.

MR. HOLMAN: Democrats say they would settle for giving the committee limited funding and extending hearings only through April 3rd.

SEN. PAUL SARBANES, [D] Maryland: Five weeks of additional hearings should be more than adequate to complete the so-called Arkansas phase of this investigation.

MR. HOLMAN: But committee Republicans say that's unacceptable.

SEN. LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, [R] North Carolina: The other side of this aisle is saying, is that we should put a price on the integrity of the White House, and it's costing too much to establish whether there is integrity in the White House or not, and that we should cut off and let it go. We simply cannot afford to establish the integrity of the White House. But as to the length of the hearing, it's the length of a bull fight. It's who's ox is being gored. And right now, the way it is going, I don't see why anyone would not want the hearings to continue. In fact, to clear her pristine name, I would have thought the First Lady would have been down here saying, please go on with the hearings, I want this cloud removed from my law practice and what I have done in my life prior to being in Washington.

MR. HOLMAN: Sen. D'Amato says he will try against next week to extend the life of the committee and the Republicans do have the votes to do so, but Democrats have the votes to keep debating and prevent the issue from coming up for a vote. Meanwhile, the special Whitewater Committee hearings have been discontinued. SERIES - ON THE STUMP

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, our second round of Republican candidate stump speeches continues with a Pat Buchanan speech this week in Marietta, Georgia. The Georgia primary is next Tuesday.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: [Marietta, Georgia - Tuesday] It is our country, my friends. We are the true sons and daughters of the founding fathers and we are coming to take repossession of our father's house! [cheers and applause] You know, they ask me, what is the objective of your campaign, Pat, and I say, we're going to restore the constitutional republic the Founding Fathers dreamed of! What have they done? What are they doing to this monstrous Department of Education? I mean, 35, what, 35 billion dollars a year, they got these characters up there in sandals and beads trying to tell us how to educate America's children! I'll tell you--you know, Ronald Reagan, when he came into that office, he said he was going to shut down the Department of Education. He didn't do it. But you tell the gipper, I'm going to finish the job for him. [cheers and applause] Mr. President, Ronald Reagan is 85 years old, Mr. President, when we get there, no more Goals 2000, no more outcome-based education, shut down the- -[applause and cheers]--U.S. Department of Education! Give the money back to the people! [cheers] My friends, we have a great movement and a great cause here and larger than any man. It is larger than me. It is what you are about. It is what our country is about. People want to take back America! We know they've gotten too--both parties up there have gotten away from them, both parties have been selling out the workers of this country, both parties have been hauling, hauling water for Wall Street, hauling water for those big corporations that shut down factories here, ship the jobs overseas. We've got to become one nation, one people under God again. [cheers] And we're going to do it, I tell you. And we're winning. We're winning. You know, Bob Dole, they all think--they are, they are all going, they are having a hissy-fit up there in Washington. They are unhappy in Washington tonight! They heard, they heard the noise in Alaska, and they said, well, what happened up there, and they said, Buchanan won up there, and then we came out of Louisiana and the Bayou, and they were stunned! Then we got three points from Bob Dole up there in Iowa. They said Buchanan's--then we won New Hampshire, and they are going wild up there in Washington right now. They're unsettled. Bob Dole said he's nervous. He said, I think Pat's an extremist, and I said, listen, Bob, how can I be an extremist, when you're stealing all my ideas and parroting my rhetoric? [applause] Bob Dole gave a speech, Bob gave a speech the other day, he said, listen to this, I don't like this garbage that's in the movies. You know, Bob hasn't seen a movie in 30 years. [laughter] The last one he went to was the "Sound of Music." But he's all talk about the cultural war for the soul of America. I told him, if he keeps it up, I'm going to get him for copyright violation. And how about Bill Clinton? You know, look at--somebody heard that State of the Union- -that fellow, Imus in the morning fellow, he said, that was a great State of the Union, I think Pat Buchanan wrote that. It was Clinton. Here's a guy trying to grab the entire health care system with the help of Hillary, and he's there in the State of the Union, the era of big government is over. 1996, Clinton's running against the guy that's President in 1994. A year later--we're going to do something about illegal immigration, Clinton says. Clinton, the guy's shameless. We got prayer back in the public schools. Let me tell you, you all wait, you wait, two or three weeks, Clinton will come sauntering in to one of those National Rifle Association meetings. [applause] He'll be all--he'll be dressed up in those camouflage, combat camouflage outfit and fatigue hats and you know holding up an AK-47, saying, don't try to take my firearms away from me. This guy is shameless! Bill Clinton, you know what he says, he says the White House says and Mr. Clinton says there's nobody I'd like to run better against that Pat Buchanan. Let me tell you something, Mr. President. There's nobody I'd enjoy better running against than you, sir! [cheers and applause] You know how --

CROWD SHOUTING: Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go!

PATRICK BUCHANAN: You know how--let me tell you something.

CROWD STILL CHANTING: Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go! Go, Pat, go!

PATRICK BUCHANAN: You know how Bill Clinton will look at some fellow in an audience and get that hurt look on his face and say, I feel your pain. You give me the Republican nomination and he will feel the pain. [crowd cheering and applauding] Thank you, my friends. What a magnificent reception down here. This country's on fire. Georgia's on fire. This country's on fire! You know, four years ago we came down here out of New Hampshire, out in the snow, we didn't know what to expect. And the wonderful people of Georgia took us to their hearts. We campaigned up and down this state. We took that great bus tour all the way down nine cities to Fitzgerald and back up to Atlanta and Marietta right here, and I'll tell you, we did as good as we could and we got 37 percent of the vote. I look at this crowd, I think we can do a little better than that. I think we're going to carry Georgia! [crowd cheering]

MR. LEHRER: Pat Buchanan in Marietta, Georgia. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton warned Cuba not to interfere with a memorial flotilla honoring four Cuban-Americans shot down last Saturday. The Senate debated a Republican proposal to extend the Whitewater hearings indefinitely. Democrats blocked a vote on that measure. The House passed a bill to overhaul government farm programs, and television executives said they would go along with a program rating system being urged by the Clinton administration. We'll see you tomorrow night with Shields & Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.