The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, the price of the dollar rose again on foreign currency markets. The Pennsylvania oil spill threatened more local water supplies. And there was more violence between Israeli troops and Arab demonstrators on the Gaza strip. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary we talk to state and federal officials about the spreading problems from the Pennsylvania oil spill. We have a documentary report on the campaign for slow burning cigarettes to reduce fire risk. Next, the effect of money on this presidential campaign with political analysts Norman Ornstein, David Gergen and Mark Shields. We close with a documentary update on the chemical disaster at Bhopal, India.News Summary LEHRER: A second straight day of bank intervention brought a second straight day of price rise to the dollar. It was up on the Tokyo and European currency markets today. There were reports the action was stimulated by large dollar purchases, by the U. S. Federal Reserve and by the central banks of Japan, West Germany and other western nations. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater declined to talk about the development other than to say stability is what the U. S. wants for the dollar. On Wall Street, the reaction to the dollar's rise was upbeat. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 16 points and followed yesterday's 76 point gain. Robin? MacNEIL: The drinking water shortage caused by a huge Pennsylvania oil spill threatened to spread as diesel oil floated farther down the Ohio River and began mixing with river water. Thousands of people inPittsburgh suburbs bought bottled water today or collected it in buckets from tank trucks. Wheeling, West Virginia braced for a possible water cutoff. The spilled oil came from a diesel tank that collapsed on Saturday at a facility owned by the Ashland Oil Company. The company chairman had this to say today. JOHN HALL: Chairman, Ashland Oil Company: On behalf of Ashland Oil, its officers and directors, we want to apologize to the people of the Pittsburgh area for the inconvenience they've experienced as a result of this incident. The company is working with all appropriate government agencies in an effort to clean up the damage as rapidly as possibly. We also are doing whatever we can to assist the local water companies in their efforts to restore full service. LEHRER: This was a cold day for most of the northern, middle and eastern part of the United States and more is coming. Below zero temperatures were recorded in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The mid Atlantic states in the Northeast were expected to have similar frigid temperatures tonight and tomorrow. A national weather forecaster in Kansas City said it could turn into the coldest winter in the East since 1978. MacNEIL: The White House said today that President Reagan would propose a 1989 budget with a deficit falling at or below the $136 billion prescribed by the Gramm Rudman law. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said this as the President met budget officials for a review of the figures to be submitted to Congress next month. The New York Times reported that the Health and Human Services department is seeking a 20% increase for AIDS spending over this year. The department said the figure is still under consideration by budget officials. LEHRER: Democratic presidential candidate Jesse Jackson qualified today for federal matching funds. The Federal Election Commission voted the designation unanimously. The decision makes $227,000 available to Jackson's campaign immediately, with other payments to come. Jackson was the last of the 13 Democratic and Republican candidates to qualify for the federal funds. To qualify, candidates must prove to the FEC that they have raised $100,000 from 20 states with at least $5,000 from each state in contributions of $250 or less. MacNEIL: On the occupied Gaza Strip, Israeli troops killed one Palestinian and wounded eight today when they opened fire to disperse rioters. The Israeli army said a violent crowd of Palestinians in Khan Younis refugee camp stoned troops and could not be dispersed with rubber bullets, tear gas or water cannon. The death brought to 24 the number of Palestinians killed by army gunfire since unrest began December 8th. There were also demonstrations on the West Bank. Several hundred Palestinians burned tires and blocked a street but they dispersed when soldiers fired tear gas. In Arab East Jerusalem, a fire bomb was thrown at an Israeli bus carrying tourists, but it exploded without harm. Meanwhile, in Cairo, Egypt there were organized protests against Israel's actions in the occupied areas. Hundreds of demonstrators chanted anti American and anti Israeli slogans and burned a paper Israeli flag. In Pakistan, five Palestinians admitted hijacking a Pan Am jetliner in September 1986, but they blamed Pakistani commandos for killing 21 passengers. The Palestinians are on trial for the hijack -- for hijacking the flight from Bombay to New York and holding 400 passengers hostage for 17 hours. LEHRER: And finally in the news today, Pistol Pete Maravich died this morning in Pasadena, California. Maravich was the former super ball handling basketball player from Louisiana who set college and professional scoring records. He suffered a heart attack while playing a pickup basketball game at a college gymnasium. He was only 40 years old. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now more on the Pennsylvania oil spill, fireproof cigarettes, the politics of money and a Bhopal update. Oil and Water MacNEIL: First tonight we look at the problems created by the massive oil spill spreading down the Ohio River system. We'll talk to state and federal officials in a moment. First a report on the spill and its impact from Ron Jay of station WPXI in Pittsburgh.

RON JAY: About two million gallons of the contaminant found its way into the Monongahela River. The oil has now moved as far as 70 miles down the Ohio River and is expected to affect the water supply in communities in at least three states. The city of Pittsburgh, drawing its supply from the Allegheny River, has an overabundance and by Monday morning it made emergency connections, using four hydrants, to pump its excess into the affected areas. But still, by today, three suburban communities have run out and others are expected to run dry at any time. Water buffalos and tankers have been set up in strategic spots and Governor Casey of Pennsylvania has declared conservation the law. Cleanup crews have set up booms across the rivers to catch the surface oil, but locks and dams on the rivers are frustrating the cleanup by churning the oil to a depth of 17 feet. That means water cannot be drawn without fear of contaminating the lives. Wildlife is also being affected. Birds that live on the rivers are an oily mess. Dozens of birds have been caught from the river and the Audubon Society has set up cleaning sites for the birds. EPA experts fear the crisis could last as long as three weeks, affecting hundreds of communities. MacNEIL: With us now to tell us more about the spill and cleanup are two officials responsible for controlling the situation. On the federal level, James Seif, regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. On the state level, Arthur Davis, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Environmental Resources. They both join us from Pittsburgh. Mr. Davis, what progress are you making the cleanup? Yesterday I heard that -- or read that only 30,000 of the one million gallons had been recovered from the river. What is it today? ARTHUR DAVIS, Pennsylvania State Official: I just left Governor Casey. We made an inspection of the river and checked into the cleanup situation. And you're right, the amount that's actually been recovered from the river itself is something like 30,000 gallons. MacNEIL: I see. Mr. DAVIS: It's going to be a slow process. There's almost a million gallons still in the river that needs to be contained and then recovered and then finally full cleanup operations have to be pursued. In the meantime, its our principal concern that the communities in the Pittsburgh area, in Allegheny County in particular, are not left high and dry literally. It's -- it's just vital that the water conservation measures which the Governor has made mandatory are followed, and I'm glad to report that we've had just wonderful response from the citizenry. They have exceeded our expectations. The city officials and Allegheny County officials have done a really great professional job of meeting the emergency. Some of the interconnections that we've attempted are working quite well.I understand that the largest water company, the West Penn Water Company, is going to be able to come back on line in some limited way, perhaps later on tonight. That's the good news. The bad news is that we do have a lot of emulsified oil, as you say, to a depth of nearly 16 feet. It does make it impossible now to use that water for our community purposes, and its put in a very tight bind timewise and quantity wise. MacNEIL: Emulsified oil means that the oil is sinking and mixing with the water. Mr. DAVIS: Yes, yes. MacNEIL: Now -- now how do you get the oil out of the river if it is sinking and mixing with the water? You can't just skim it off the surface like you were doing. Mr. DAVIS: You -- you surely cannot, and that's the -- that's the basic problem that we face. There really isn't any good answer to your question. We're hopeful that some of this breakup, some of the oil will be dissolved, it will float back to the surface as oil should behave. We're hopeful also that as the spill moves on downstream, we're going to see changes in the densities and amounts of oil, and gradually we're going to be able to get back to some kind of a normal situation. MacNEIL: Is it -- is it true that the extremely cold weather is also causing the oil to sink when normally it would float? Mr. DAVIS: Yes, we're concerned about the effects of temperature. It also makes it very hard to conduct testing and sampling operations and rig booms and do the things that need to be done to begin the cleanup operation. MacNEIL: Well, let's turn to Mr. Seif, the federal EPA official. Do you now regard this as a regional disaster, as some of you described it? JAMES SEIF, EPA: It's a very serious disaster indeed, and there -- and if by region you mean more than one state, it is. MacNEIL: I see. What do you have to say about the difficulty of getting this oil out of the river if it's now a river systems, if it's now mixing with the water and presumably continually being carried further down the Ohio River? Mr. SEIF: I have to say that Art is right. The classical thing you think of is that oil floats on water. And if you rig booms and vacuum it off, you have it. In this case, you don't because of the mixing action, principally of the dams, and because of the nature of this particular number two diesel oil. MacNEIL: I see. We have a map we could show to give people a clearer idea of what -- now you see the Ohio River there. How far down has the oil gone so far as you can tell? Mr. DAVIS: Between 53 and 63 miles. MacNEIL: Has it already reached West Virginia or is it -- Mr. DAVIS: Yes, it has. It's reached where in Ohio? Mr. SEIF: Liverpool. Mr. DAVIS: East Liverpool, Ohio. MacNEIL: East Liverpool. Now do you calculate, Mr. Seif, that it is also now going to touch -- to touch Kentucky and other -- and Illinois and Missouri along the river there? Mr. SEIF: I expect it might. The ''it'' is hard to put your finger on. We know that about a million went in and less than a hundred thousand, and maybe less than 50 were able to be captured before the emulsification occurred. We don't know how long, we call it a slug, is, but there's nothing that's going to stop it. MacNEIL: A slug means that presumably the oil is all together in one long lump, is that right? Mr. SEIF: Yeah, and at some point it won't be. I would expect it would break up. For example, the action of tributaries on both the Ohio River and the Allegheny as it joins the Monongahela to make the Ohio may tend to break -- break up a single slug. MacNEIL: Now the way the fed -- you federal officials look at it at the moment, let's have the map again, could it actually reach the Mississippi River? Is that unlikely or is that likely? Mr. SEIF: I expect that it could. MacNEIL: It could. Mr. SEIF: I make no scientific predictions on its speed or how much of it will get there. MacNEIL: Now with the oil emulsified as if moves down the Ohio perhaps down into the Mississippi, does that mean that communities that take their water from those rivers are not going to be able to take it and they will have water shortages too? Mr. SEIF: It depends on what quantity. A very small quantity of oil into an intake can be treated by conventional treatment techniques. The big slug that originally came out had to be guarded against. That was done simply by closing the intakes based upon the warning that the tank had burst. It may not be necessary to close intakes much further down the Ohio because of the dilution action, but I understand a number of communities, you mentioned Wheeling, West Virginia, are taking precautions, and I think that's probably a good idea. MacNEIL: Mr. Davis, yesterday your governor asked the federal authorities to declare this a federal disaster. They haven't done so so far. What is the urgency to do that from Pennsylvania's point of view? Mr. DAVIS: Oh, I think there are several things to take into account. First, this is an oil spill of unprecedented proportions. We never had one close to this size in an inland waterway in the United States. Second, we're really looking at the opening gambit, if you will, on this -- on this problem. We're now trying to recover as much oil as we can. We're trying to contain the material and the product. That's just damage control. The cleanup is going to be massive. It's going to take a long time. It's going to taken an enormous amount of resources. We're not quite sure whether ground water is affected yet or how much. We know that the banks on both sides of the river are contaminated with oil. A lot of that material will have to be excavated and moved and treated as hazardous waste. So you're looking at a -- at a great deal of work and a great deal of time. The need for a lot of resources, a lot of skills. And it was the Governor's view, we share it very strongly, I think the -- just the dimension of this disaster calls for some federal support in carrying out to a successful conclusion the kind of an operation that we -- MacNEIL: Let's go back to Mr. Seif. Why isn't it yet a federal disaster, or don't you -- doesn't it qualify for federal disaster, Mr. Seif? Mr. SEIF: Well, Art's right about the dimension of this, it is a huge spill, and about the complexities of it. But under our law, I am obliged to go to the responsible party, that's Ashland Oil, and demand their cleanup. When they don't or if they don't, I may go in. I've activated a fund whereby I might do that. We have dozens of people on site. But so far, I've said this publicly, I think Art agrees, the company has done a first rate job of responding. They've used all the same contractors we would use if we called them in, they've done all the same things we would do. As big as the spill is, it's an oil spill and we know what to do about oil spills. The technology is available, the company has preexisting contracts with cleanup people, as do we if necessary. And it's big. Art's right to be concerned and so am I. But the -- as much is being done as can be done. The minute that company does not do what we think it ought to be doing in any small or large respect, I'll go in, I'll do it and we'll send them a bill. They know that, I spoke to the chief executive officer today, renewed my -- the same kind of concern as the governor -- MacNEIL: I see. Mr. SEIF: -- made and we're going to do it if we have to. MacNEIL: All right. Well, Mr. Seif and Mr. Davis, thank you both for joining us from Pittsburgh. Jim? LEHRER: Still to come on the News Hour tonight, fireproof cigarettes, the politics of money and a Bhopal update. Slow Burn LEHRER: There is a serious move afoot to make cigarettes that do not start fires. Congressional hearings will be held soon on a bill that would force cigarette companies to develop and market such things. We have a report from Spencer Michels of public station KQED San Francisco.

SPENCER MICHELS: Fifty million Americans smoke cigarettes, nearly one out of every four. The risks of cancer and heart disease are well known. Less familiar are disasters like this resulting from cigarette caused fires. But according to the National Bureau of Standards, many such fires are preventable, along with the thousands of deaths and injuries that result. Now with congressional hearings on fire safe cigarettes due to take place in 1988, the $32 billion a year tobacco industry will be pitted against crusaders pushing hard to eliminate the kind of fire that nearly killed 42 year old Oakland resident Tim Peranni. TIM PERANNI, Burn Victim: Well, it was fairly early evening and I just happened to decide I had to have one more cigarette before I went to sleep, right? I was reclined in a chair, fell asleep, the cigarette fell on my chest, caught my shirt on fire and burned the holy living stuff out of me. MICHELS: What kind of a shirt was this? Mr. PERANNI: It was -- it was a tank top made of some polyester or one of those things. It burned and melted like plastic. It just stuck right to my body. MICHELS: How'd you get the thing out? Mr. PERANNI: Well, I pulled most of the shirt off of my body. I yelled at my wife, ''Listen, I'm on fire. '' And she came and threw some water and, you know, we got it put out and I went into shock almost immediately after that. MICHELS: Peranni spent several weeks in the burn center at Alta Dena Hospital in Berkeley and underwent several operations, a very painful and expensive experience. His doctor was burn specialist Gerald Kaplan. Dr. GERALD KAPLAN, Burn Surgeon: An average bill around here is about $1800 a day. MICHELS: $1800 -- Dr. KAPLAN: Eighteen hundred a day with an average stay of about 18 days, so it's a very major burn, frequently a fatal burn. Sometimes it's the smoker themselves, a lot of times unfortunately it's innocent victims, people that are asleep in the house, particularly children. MICHELS: The human and economic toll from cigarette caused fires is what prompted Andrew McGuire to launch a crusade for fire safe cigarettes. McGuire runs the Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital and he is demanding that the tobacco industry produce only cigarettes that will not start fires. Three years ago, he testified before Congress in favor of a bill he helped write that would force the government to study whether such a cigarette could be made or if another approach might work. ANDREW McGUIRE, San Francisco Trauma Foundation: There's a couple of ways to solve the problem of cigarette fires. One is to try to teach people to not smoke in bed. That doesn't work. A second way is to try and flame retard, cigarette retard all furniture and mattresses. That won't work. It's too costly and you can't cigarette proof the world. The third way is to change the cigarette. MICHELS: Not all cigarettes would need changing. Some, including many foreign brands and these American made specialty cigarettes, already self extinguish, but the vast majority of American cigarettes burn hot so Congress ordered an exhaustive three year study to determine if a fire safe cigarette was feasible on a mass level. The study was released last fall, prepared by a panel of experts including McGuire and four representatives of the tobacco industry. Richard Gann of the National Bureau of Standards was the chairman. Dr. RICHARD GANN, National Bureau of Standards: What we found is that it is in fact technically possible, you can make a cigarette that just won't cause as many fires as the ones that are being sold today. MICHELS: The cigarette companies provided Gann and his staff with 41 specially made experimental cigarettes, most of which were not self extinguishing. In the laboratory, technicians set up experiments to see how the special cigarettes would affect upholstery. Here, this cigarette performed well while this one would have started a fire. Dr. GANN: The kinds of things we found worked, first of all you put less tobacco in the cigarette. That kind of puffed up tobacco helps the cigarette not cause fires by just generating less heat. And after all, heat is what we're talking about. When you make the cigarette thinner, not as fat, it also causes fewer ignitions. Again, less tobacco and a poor contact of the hot cigarette with the upholstery fabric. MICHELS: As the experimental cigarettes burned, the one with the properties Gann described did not ignite the fabric while the other one, fatter and more compact, started to char the cloth. Dr. GANN: The third thing we found is that when you close down the pores of the paper, make the oxygen work harder to get from the air in the room into where the tobacco's burning, you don't get as much heat and you don't get as many ignitions. Last, we found that one of the additives that's put into the paper to make it burn cleanly, sometimes that additive also helps the ignition process. You remove that, when you do all these other things and yeah, fewer ignitions result. MICHELS: Another experiment pitted a special cigarette made to burn cooler against a regular commercial cigarette. Dr. GANN: As it starts to burn down its length, it does generate enough heat to ignite the fabric underneath into a smoldering combustion. That is, no flames but it just chars. Eventually, an hour later, two hours later, flames erupt, you have a disastrous fire, and if there are people in that house, perhaps even a fatal fire. MICHELS: That videotape was played at 43 press conferences around the world, at which McGuire and others told the results of the study and announced the introduction of bills in Congress and in several states to mandate fire safe cigarettes within two years. The federal bill would be enforced by the Food and Drug Administration. Mr. McGUIRE: The question will be, is it politically feasible to regulate the cigarette industry to make them produce fire safe cigarettes and will FDA be successful in doing that? I can tell you that the strategy that we're going to use is that every time a child is burned and killed in a cigarette fire, burn surgeons or fire fighters or fire chiefs or others around the country are goingto bring that information to their local media and we're going to get a bill introduced in a different state every one or two months until we have enough state pressure to force a federal solution. MICHELS: Until recently, the industry has resisted attempts to force it to market fire safe cigarettes. Advocates of such products predicted more obstruction and delay but now the Tobacco Institute claims it supports the findings and recommendations of the study. BRENNAN MORAN, Tobacco Institute: If we had congressional mandate to implement the recommendations of the technical study group, I think that would be the best thing that could happen. MICHELS: But spokesperson Brennan Moran also raised some objections to the experiments, objections that convinced crusaders that the industry is not sincere in its support. For example, the fire safe test cigarettes, Moran told reporter Jeff Goldman, are very unlike today's popular brands. Ms. MORAN: The test cigarettes that were tested are very, very difficult to draw on because of the way they're manufactured. It would be the equivalent of lining five cigarettes up, taping them together and then trying to draw on them. You really have to go to something very different that -- that is -- is not -- may not be commercially feasible and in fact may not be technically feasible when you get to the commercial feasibility of it. MICHELS: McGuire says such doubts and reservations are in reality delaying tactics. Mr. McGUIRE: Within the next year, a bill will be passed in Congress that will mandate fire safe cigarettes. The battle then becomes, how long do the cigarette companies have before they have to comply? Will it be one year after passage, three years, five years? I know that the cigarette companies will probably want 10 years to comply. I'm going to be pushing aggressively to make it one year. MICHELS: One reason McGuire and his colleagues think the companies are reluctant to develop and market a fire safe cigarette is they fear being held liable for previous fires started by smokers. Every year cigarette caused fires in buildings like this kill 1500 to 2000 Americans and injure another 7,000. Yet the tobacco companies have always successfully defeated lawsuits that would hold them liable for the damages from such fires. MELVIN BELLI, Attorney: All of them have gone done the drain. MICHELS: All of them? Mr. BELLI: Yeah, none have been won. MICHELS: Prominent San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli has sued the tobacco companies several times, representing clients who have been injured or have lost relatives in cigarette caused fires. He has lost every case. Mr. BELLI: They have some damn good lawyers who have arguments written out that have been tuned and finely honed by their psychiatrists and psychologists, and every word that they speak in the courtroom has been tested to a group of people in a room. Every word is a buzz word or rings a bell, and it has principally to do with your freedom of choice. MICHELS: The Tobacco Institute refuses to comment on the issue of liability. Neither did they nor anyone else speak to the taste of the experimental fire safe cigarettes. No one has actually smoked them. The cigarette companies of course are concerned about the possible economic impact. The three year congressional study says that if less tobacco is used in each cigarette, that could reduce grower income and slightly decrease production. But advocates of the fire safe cigarettes say that is a small price to pay for a substantial reduction in the 15,000 deaths and $2. 6 billion in property damage from cigarette started fires over the next decade. Run For The Money LEHRER: Now we're going to talk about political money for a while, big political money, the kind it takes to run for President of the United States in 1988. An important milestone was passed today when Jesse Jackson became the last of the 13 presidential candidates to qualify for federal matching funds. The other 12 major party candidates received their first checks yesterday. First comes Norman Ornstein to sort through the dollars as collected and counted thus far by the 13 candidates. Norm is a political scientist, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a regular analyst for us. Okay Norm, how much federal matching money has been given out this week? NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: We're going to see checks totalling about $29 million this week, Jim, with as we can see a little more than two to one ratio going to Republicans as opposed to Democrats, almost 20 million going to the Republican candidates here. LEHRER: Okay, how much money has been raised thus far? Mr. ORNSTEIN: That is out of a total now, or added to the total -- LEHRER: Added to the total. Mr. ORNSTEIN: -- I should say, of 88. 7 million that's been raised so far by the candidates with the ratio being just about the same. It doesn't have to be because the matching funds are not exactly equal to the total amounts raised, the ratio isn't the same but it's just about the same right now. So we're going to see as of this stage then well over a hundred million dollars into the presidential race out of what we will expect to be by the time this race is over about $400 million spent. LEHRER: Four times what has been raised thus far. Mr. ORNSTEIN: Yeah, yes. LEHRER: Okay, let's break them down by candidates as far as how much money they have raised so far. Mr. ORNSTEIN: Okay. We can see right now that these are the top three fundraisers among the Republicans. The top figures in blue here are the total amounts raised to this point. George Bush has broken all records for presidential fundraising for this campaign or for any others, raising $18. 7 million to this date as of the end of the year. He will receive checks totalling 5. 8 million in matching funds through the Federal Election Commission. Bob Dole would be the champion if it weren't for George Bush. He's now raised 14. 2 million, part -- thanks in part, I should say, to a magnificent fourth quarter. The last quarter of 1987 was terrific for Bob Dole. He raised nearly half of his money then. He gets 4. 4 million in matching funds. Pat Robertson gets -- has 14 million raised so far, a lot of it from direct mail contributions. He gets 4. 5 million in matching funds if he decides to take it, and that's one of the questions we have yet remaining. Now, the other three Republican candidates go down quite a bit. Jack Kemp has a total of 7. 5 million raised, three million in matching funds. Pete DuPont has 4. 6 million raised and 1. 9 million in matching funds. He's in very good shape however. He has no debt and a good deal of cash on hand. And Alexander Haig trails very far behind the pack with just a million and a half raised and he gets only $275,000 in matching funds. LEHRER: Okay, break down the Democrats. Mr. ORNSTEIN: Okay, we have much less money raised here. The top Democrat who's far above the rest of the pack could contest with some of those top Republicans. That's Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis at 10. 6 million. He gets 3. 5 million in matching funds. Far behind, we see a group of Democrats, clustered almost. Richard Gephardt has had some substantial success, 4. 4 million total, 1. 7 million in matching funds. Albert Gore, with 3. 8 million total, a good deal of it from Tennessee but spread out pretty widely now, with 1. 6 million coming in matching funds. LEHRER: But Dukakis has twice as much as anybody below him, right? Mr. ORNSTEIN: Dukakis has had magnificent success. When Joe Biden was a candidate in the race, before he dropped out, he was up there with Dukakis in terms of fundraising prowess, trailing just a little bit behind. Since he's dropped out, nobody else has come close to contesting Dukakis, and Dukakis has been making even greater strides in raising money at least. LEHRER: All right, let's see the rest of the Democrats. Mr. ORNSTEIN: Trailing just behind Albert Gore, we have Paul Simon, who has come on tremendously strong, raising more than half of his money in the last three months of 1987 as he attained a little bit of prominence; 3. 7 million in all and 1. 4 million due to him in matching funds. Gary Hart had raised 2. 2 million before he dropped out of the race. Coming back in now, he gets a check for $100,000. That's what has been certified for him from contributions he has -- LEHRER: Before he dropped out. Mr. ORNSTEIN: He is likely to get -- before he dropped out. LEHRER: Before he dropped out, I see. Mr. ORNSTEIN: He -- he may be able to get a total of a million dollars or so in matching funds. This isn't all the money that's going to be going out. It's what has come in in contributions of $250 or less, once you get past that threshold, as you mentioned in the news summary, that -- the FEC has gotten and has audited and has seen as acceptable. That's what gets matched. He'll have more to be audited and he'll get more probably as time goes by. And then Bruce Babbitt, who has raised a total of 1. 8 million, gets $719,000 in matching funds. But remember, it isn't just the money they've got coming in, it's how much they've spent. Bruce Babbitt has some difficulty now because he is in debt. He has already borrowed against a good portion of his matching funds. He may have to spend all of that just simply to repay debt and end up back to square one. LEHRER: What -- and then Jesse -- Mr. ORNSTEIN: Jesse Jackson, whom you mentioned -- LEHRER: Right. Mr. ORNSTEIN: -- was the last one certified, has raised 1. 7 million in all, gets $227,000 and may also be eligible for more, as you suggested, but also is a candidate who has gone into debt and is not going to have very much cash on hand. LEHRER: Eligible for more, Norm, what -- what -- does the same formula apply from -- all the way through from this point on for matching? Mr. ORNSTEIN: The same -- the same formula applies through the conventions. This is for candidates for nominations, Jim. Once we have candidates for president chosen by the parties then we switch to a different formula. Then there is a dollar amount given to each party's candidate which is going to be a little over $40 million this year, that does not have to be matched. The matching fund system works through the nomination process. You have to get past this threshold, $100,000 raised from 20 states in contributions of $5,000 at least each from each of 20 states of $250 or less. Then from that point on, each contribution up to $250 gets matched with these federal funds. LEHRER: So it roughly works that -- is there any rough -- so for every thousand dollars you raise, a candidate can get matched roughly one fourth of that, right? Mr. ORNSTEIN: Well, no, not necessarily. For every one thousand dollars raised, if you raise it from four people -- LEHRER: Right. Mr. ORNSTEIN: -- you'll get the thousand matched. This puts a premium on getting somewhat smaller contributions, but it also means that if you can raise large sums of money from people who can afford to give the maximum contribution, all you're allowed to give is a thousand dollars to a presidential campaign, you're still going to get a windfall here. George Bush has raised a great deal of money by having parties where a thousand people come and give a thousand dollars each. And in one evening you've raised a million dollars, maybe netted 800 or 850,000. In addition to that, he'll get maybe 200,000, 250,000 in matching funds. That's not bad, even though it's not equal to the total that you've raised. LEHRER: Got you. Now into our mix come our two resident 1988 political analysts, David Gergen and Mark Shields. David Gergen is a former Reagan White House communications director and the current editor of U. S. News & World Report. Mark Shields is a political columnist for The Washington Post. He joins us tonight from Nashville. David Gergen, how do Norman's numbers sound to you? Any over -- overview reaction? DAVID GERGEN, U. S. News & World Report: Well, there's a lot of money switching around. I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there in the country who wonder why should we be giving all this money to these candidates. LEHRER: Yeah, well. Mr. GERGEN: But the fact is, I think Norm is right on the button on the numbers. I think the real question is in the impact on this race and what it does to candidates. I think that there -- we have erected a system that effectively screens out some candidates that don't want to get into all of this money raising because it takes so much time. And the second thing that we learned is it's an enormous diversion of time and energy on the part of a candidate now to raise money to get this matching funds, and I think we've got a system that needs some reform. Today we had -- Mike Kramer of our staff was out with Bruce Babbitt. Bruce Babbitt went to -- went off the campaign trail for five hours to get on the phone, what they call ''dialing for dollars,'' and called potential contributors. But -- LEHRER: You think that's a bad thing. Mr. GERGEN: Well, I think it's a bad thing that the candidates have to spend enormous amounts of time now talking to potential donors as opposed to talking to voters. I think they don't focus on the issues as a result of that as much they might. I don't think they meet the voters in a regular way. LEHRER: Even if they're raising $250 slots, pops? Mr. GERGEN: Well, because the pops are so small, you have to spend so much time at it. You -- and I think it's an enormous amount of energy drained away from the regular campaign. I don't think we elect people because of great fundraisers and they ought to spend all this time -- LEHRER: Mark, do you share David's concern? MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: I honestly don't, Jim. I think it's -- I think the law has worked very, very well. This is the fourth election we've had under it. The very fact that we did have the bad old days prior to that when people were twisted, their arms held behind their backs, their faces pushed into pails of water to make contributions in the bad old days of 1972. I happen to think that the law is working very, very well. We have had, unlike the congressional system, where there is a tremendous advantage to incumbents, there isn't. We've had three incumbents run in this system and two of them have lost, Gerald Ford in 1976 and Jimmy Carter in 1980. So there's a parity, a political parity I think that the law's encouraged. LEHRER: Well, what about David's point that these candidates become -- become mainly fundraisers as much as they are candidates talking about the great issues of our time? Mr. SHIELDS: Well, I think that an argument could be made that the amount of an individual contribution could be raised at the presidential level. In other words, the federal law is that a thousand dollars is the maximum any individual can give to any candidate for federal office, whether that candidate be a candidate for the House of Representatives, the United States Senate or for President. I think there is a case that could be made in that way that for President it could be $5,000. But the fact of the matter is, I don't know anybody who has not run for President because it -- the daunting sums of money that have to be raised. The reality is that the candidate raises three or four million dollars, which -- and I would point that in 1986 Republican Senate candidates spent five million, more than five million, to win Senate and -- Senate races in Missouri and Oregon, and more than five million to lose them in North Carolina and Louisiana. So five million dollars is not a daunting sum. But if they -- they raise that and do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, then the money follows. Money does follow victory. LEHRER: David? Mr. GERGEN: Well, I -- we do disagree. Don Rumsfeld is not in this race today because of the amount of money that he would have to raise and because of the kind of debts that so many people carry out of these races. There are 19 people in this country today who are former candidates who still owe money for running for president. LEHRER: They owe it to creditors. Mr. GERGEN: They owe it to creditors, that's right. LEHRER: Yeah. Mr. GERGEN: And there are a lot of folks like Don, who would have been a good candidate, and to look at this and say, I'm not getting in this because of the amount of money and time I've got to spend at things which I don't feel that are presidential, and also at the end of this process you can carry away a personal debt. John Glenn carried away an enormous debt and people like Rumsfeld looked at that and said, I'm not going to carry away a three million dollar debt and go to bed every night owing three million dollars. LEHRER: Yeah, what about -- yes, Norm? Mr. ORNSTEIN: I was just going to say, Jim, that I agree with Mark that some relatively modest adjustments could make the system work a lot better. David is right, we need to make some changes. It's getting to be too difficult to raise money. It's too much time spent away from other things. But relatively modest changes could make the difference. It's also the case that while money is important, and looking at these figures can matter -- telling us what kind of breadth of support people have to a degree, you don't just get nominated for president because you can raise the most money. We can go back to old John Connolly as a good example of that. You know, the man raised $13 million and got one delegate. We can also look at candidates, including John Glenn, who had we been looking at him four years ago we would have said, boy he's in great shape, he's done terrifically well, he's number two among all the candidates in raising money. He ended up floundering and dropping out and going very deeply into debt, so at this point it doesn't mean everything. LEHRER: All right. But, gentlemen, at this point, going through the numbers and -- that you just went through, Norm, it's the front runner all the way through. You could take -- you could take the polls, could you not, Mark Shields, and lay them right over the amount of money they raised and wouldn't they match almost one for one right down the list from top to bottom? Mr. SHIELDS: Oh, I think -- I think they do certainly on the Republican side. It is -- it is essentially, it has been a two way, two man race in most analyses and certainly in most public opinion polls. And in both cases you have people who have run for president before in Bob Dole and George Bush, and George Bush for eight years has had that wonderful opportunity or obligation of being a party leader, of being the cheerleader and the principal speaker at party banquets. It's given him a leg up. But I would underline and reaffirm what Norm said, and that is that John Connolly went through the Fortune 500 corporate officers in 1980 -- '79 and '80 like an Electrolux vacuum cleaner. I mean he -- there wasn't a stone unturned, there wasn't a corporate dining room left untouched. And he raised $12 million, and Mrs. Ida Mae Mills of Arkansas was his only delegate, and she ended up voting for George Bush. So money doesn't really convert into political support. Mr. GERGEN: But Mark, really, isn't it true though that if you have money that's no guarantee of success, but if you don't have money that's almost a guarantee of failure? Mr. SHIELDS: Well -- Mr. GERGEN: Certainly the candidates today on the Democratic side, Mike Dukakis has enough money to go into Super Tuesday pretty well funded if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, as expected. The candidates below Dukakis don't have much money, particularly say a Bruce Babbitt, he's not going to make it out of Iowa and New Hampshire unless he scores really well in those states. Mr. SHIELDS: If Michael Dukakis -- LEHRER: Cause he just can't raise money. Mr. GERGEN: Yeah, sure. He'll be out of money. And as you go up -- when we front load the primaries the way we've done this so that there are 20 states coming so quickly after New Hampshire, the person who can buy media in those states is going to have an enormous leg up. Of course, this will be free media for the person who does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nonetheless if you're in a second -- if you're second or third in one of those states, you're almost noncompetitive and -- when you go into the south. Mr. SHIELDS: In 1984, Jim, I would point out to David, that Gary Hart was fifth among Democrats in fundraising funds. He finished second in Iowa. He won New Hampshire still in that fifth position, behind Fritz Hollings, behind John Glenn, behind Fritz Mondale, behind who else, Alan Cranston, that year -- Mr. ORNSTEIN: And in 1988, he's running fifth and raising money so -- Mr. GERGEN: But the point -- but the point -- [cross talk] -- but the point is, Mark -- but the point is, Mark, that if you do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, yes you can come out of those states if you're fifth and -- and remain competitive, in fact become more competitive, but if you're -- if you -- if you come out third and you don't have much money, you're finished. It weeds them out, so it puts it all -- it allows Iowa and New Hampshire to determine everything for some of these candidates. Mr. SHIELDS: Well, Iowa and New Hampshire -- Iowa and New Hampshire determined everything long before we had this system. The last nine presidential -- presidents elected all had one thing in common, they all won the New Hampshire primary of the year of their election. That was before -- in four, five of those elections were held, six were held before we had public financing. Mr. ORNSTEIN: One of the things that's happened here, Jim, is that early money has become more important. It used to be the axiom that you raised maybe a third of your money in the year before the election and then two thirds of the money in the election year. Now -- LEHRER: Based on how you did in the primaries. Mr. ORNSTEIN: Yeah, and it was what you needed. You -- LEHRER: Yeah. Mr. ORNSTEIN: It was much more of a race of staying power. Now it is the case, in part because of the front loading, as David has suggested, that you've got to get that money early. And I don't think it's as much because you're not going to get the money if you do well in Iowa and New Hampshire if you haven't gotten it already. It's much more that to continue going after Iowa and New Hampshire, you've got to get delegate slates, you've got to get organized in a bunch of states, you've got to have the luxury of having the money out there so that you can concentrate on Iowa and New Hampshire with your own efforts and with your organizing there but also be able to have people working full time getting those delegate slates and getting the rules together -- Mr. GERGEN: But I -- but I want to come back to -- I agree with all of that. I come back to this point too. One of the problems that's going on in this campaign, one of the reasons this campaign is turning out to be so sterile, is I think the people are spending too much time raising money and not enough time thinking about the issues and the future of the country. Mr. SHIELDS: Jim, I -- LEHRER: Yes. Mr. SHIELDS: I'm happy to have David endorse public financing for congressional elections as well, but I would ask one question, and that is, does anybody know if these candidates have checked off on their own personal taxes -- Ronald Reagan, for example, refused to check off on his personal taxes the $1. 00 designated from his tax bill even though he has somehow swallowed that pride and accepted $90,426,000 in public funds for campaigns run. [Cross talk] I haven't asked him a question. He just brought it up anyhow. LEHRER: Does that round it off, Mark, or is that -- Mr. SHIELDS: That's rather -- it's $807. 54. LEHRER: David Gergen, why is it that Republicans at this particular time are able to raise so much more? Is that just a traditional thing, Republicans give more money, or is there something going on this time? Smell of victory, whatever? Mr. GERGEN: Well, I'm not sure there's a smell of victory so much, at least not yet. This -- this -- there's been a certain self imolation going on in the Democratic Party, but I think a couple of things. One, you've got a sitting Vice President. He normally would be a very good fundraiser. And in Bob Dole you've got one of the powerhouses of the Senate. If Bob Dole doesn't win the nomination, he still will remember who gave him money and who helped him when he -- if he goes back to the Senate, so I think -- I think there are obvious reasons. And Pat Robertson, of course, has got his own network. LEHRER: Sure. Mark, what's your reading of why more Republican money, so much more Republican money than Democratic money? Mr. SHIELDS: Well, I think -- I think that for one thing you have a constituency that is used to giving and has been in power, and I think that's always helpful. Basically, there's only a couple of ways that people do raise money, other than once they go through their Christmas card lists and their college yearbooks and hit everybody they know that way, there's an ideological constituency, that's certainly what Pat Robertson has. There's a leader constituency, which George Bush has. I mean, George Bush has been a leader in the polls, he's been certainly competitive in the surveys against all the Democrats, so he's been -- looked like a good investment as well as having been a loyal party leader for eight years. And the third way is essentially, as David pointed out, a Bob Dole who is going to be there and he's going to be a power in the Senate. That's what's working for Michael Dukakis. Michael Dukakis is a governor. Michael Dukakis has done very well in Massachusetts. Asphalt is not ideological and they make contributions. LEHRER: Okay. I've just been told we got to go, so we're going to go. Mark, David, Norm, thank you all three. Update MacNEIL: We close tonight with an update on the Bhopal gas leak tragedy. Three years ago, a cloud of toxic gas escaped from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and caused the worst industrial accident in history. At least 2500 people were killed and 20,000 injured when a poison gas called methylisocyanate leaked from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in the Indian city. We have a report by correspondent Jerry Thompson of the CBC who visited Bhopal recently.

JERRY THOMPSON, CBC Journal: Reminders of death are never far away in Bhopal. Three years after the world's worst industrial accident, nobody knows for sure what happened or why. Was it an accident, was Union Carbide negligent, or was it sabotage? They made a pesticide here, something to kill bugs on cotton plants. It killed a lot more than anyone expected. Directly across the street in the slums of (unintelligible), life has returned to normal, as normal as things can be for people whose lives were miserably poor to begin with. They've heard the explanation that somehow water flushed through a pipe into a tank of chemicals, that the safety valve blew, and the cloud of killer gas drifted across their neighborhood in the dead of night. They've heard the explanations but nothing will ever make life the same again when nearly everyone here has lost someone, when scorched lungs and eyes refuse to heal, even three years later. The morning after that poison gas cloud rolled out of the Union Carbide plant across Bhopal, this city was truly devastated. Twenty five hundred people were killed outright, 30,000 were seriously injured and more than 200,000 were treated in local hospitals. The doctors didn't know what the gas was, didn't know how to treat it, and three years later they still don't know. Since the accident, two special hospitals have been built, just for victims of the gas cloud. Patients are still suffering. Once burned and scarred by chemicals, their lungs never heal and there's still no way to treat their condition. Every week, another one or two people die. Initially, doctors thought the gas was water soluble and would soon be flushed out of the body. But now, chief surgeon Dr. N. P. Misra has new evidence that the toxins will never go away. Dr. N.P. MISRA, Surgeon: We have definite evidence, irrefutable, that it entered the body and it has caught, lodged itself into the body. We have seen some aberrations in the chromosomes. We know that it has disturbed the genetic pattern. What it is going to produce in next 10 or 20 years will be very difficult to guess now, like what happened after atomic explosion, people started looking variances 10 years later. THOMPSON: Autopsies have failed to solve the mystery of what the gas was. In the scramble to escape, no one had time to take an air sample so they still don't really know the chemical composition of the killer cloud. Dr. MISRA: There are other, about 17 different types of gases that could have come out, but since no sample could be collected, it would always remain in an area of speculation as to what was the percentage of different gases and what came out. THOMPSON: So you never really knew what you were dealing with? Dr. MISRA: Yes. THOMPSON: And you still don't know. Dr. MISRA: Yes, we don't know what was the exact composition of the gas that came out. THOMPSON: Now there's another threat on the horizon. Water in the lake beside Bhopal absorbed part of the gas cloud as it rolled across town. Some officials believe the lake actually saved lives by reducing the amount of chemical in the air. But now, government scientists are worried about the possibility that chemicals dissolved in the lake may destroy the town's only water supply. They're telling people it's safe to drink but they're clearly worried. S. SAYATHAM, Indian Government Commissioner: The disaster, some people say, has not even begun to appear. THOMPSON: The state government commissioner in charge of relief operations in Bhopal is S. Sayatham. Mr. SAYATHAM: The chemical implications of the exposure are such that nothing prevents the water in Bhopal from turning toxic overnight as it were. THOMPSON: Five hundred fifty thousand people in Bhopal have filed claims against Union Carbide. For the first year after the accident, the government of India gave them free food, free milk for the children and unlimited medical aid. The government gave the next of kin 10,000 rupees, about a thousand dollars, for each family member killed. The government is suing Carbide on behalf of the victims, but the victims have to wait for due process of law. On the day we arrived in Bhopal, a crowd gathered outside the courthouse to wait for the lawyers. Victims and next of kin have organized to protest against a possible out of court settlement. The Bhopal rumor mill says the government of India is willing to settle for only $500 million. Government and company lawyers have trooped in and out of courts in the United States and India for three years now, and not a single witness has been called, not a shred of evidence has been heard yet. All they've managed to do is decide which court in which country will try the case. While the lawyers and judges deliberate inside, a young woman proclaims that the desperately poor victims in Bhopal will never get justice because the system is rigged in favor of the company. Others claim the government will settle because it doesn't want to ruin the investment climate in India. People here don't know who to blame more, the politicians or the company. But there was no settlement this day. Bud Holman, lawyer for Union Carbide, says the company is ready to proceed with the case. BUD HOLMAN, Union Carbide Lawyer: We feel that we could persuade any fair minded court that this was the deliberate act of a disgruntled employee, but we also recognize that that doesn't help the victims, it doesn't -- that resolution is superior than litigation. Litigation, I've known for 30 years of practicing, helps the lawyers so much more than the litigants so often. THOMPSON: If there were an out of court settlement for $500 million, the effect would be that a life lost in India would be worth less than a life lost in the United States. Damages awarded in other major industrial accidents -- the Dalkon shield case, Johns Manville asbestos, and in Silkwood versus Kerr McGee, all placed a higher value on human life. That's why the survivors of Bhopal are so angry about an out of court settlement, according to Satee Natserange. SATEE NATSERANGE, Citizens Coalition Spokesman: The (unintelligible) where multinational corporations operate, if Union Carbide gets away with so little then it will be some kind of a precedent for multinational corporations everywhere around. THOMPSON: Consider the case of 16 year old Suneel Vishakarma, who lives in the mud brick shantytown across the street from Union Carbide. Six members of his family were killed by the gas cloud, leading Suneel to care for his younger brother and sister. They live off the interest of the $40 a month from the death benefits paid by the government of India. Because he's only 16 years old, the bulk of the money is locked in a trust account until he legally becomes an adult. He says, ''I have 10,000 rupees in the bank, which I can't get access to. It's of no use to me. '' But as the teen age head of a family, Suneel does still have a few dreams. He'd like to see his sister happily married, he'll hang on to his little brother and try to finish school. For the present, he says, his family is managing but just barely. If there were a settlement in the civil case against Union Carbide, the question of what happened and who did it would not be answered. But it's possible that no conviction, no amount of money will write the final chapter of this story. Doctors here are still worried that scarred lungs, genetic damage and chemicals dissolved in the water may mean the worst is yet to come. MacNEIL: Since that report was filed, an Indian judge ordered the Union Carbide Corporation to pay approximately $270 million in interim relief to the victims of the accident. That decision came after the Indian government filed homicide charges against Union Carbide when talks collapsed on the negotiating settlement of the civil suit against the chemical company. Recap LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday. The Federal Reserve and the central banks of Japan and western Europe intervened again on the foreign currency markets and the result was a gain in the price of the dollar. The Pennsylvania oil spill continued its move down river to threaten water supplies in West Virginia. And Israeli troops shot and killed another Arab protestor in renewed clashes on the occupied Gaza strip. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the News Hour tonight and we will back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.