The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After the News Summary we go first to Wall Street's down day, is the bottom in sight? Then Correspondent Spencer Michels reports on the impact of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and from South Africa, Charlayne Hunter-Gault looks at the political confrontation that threatens the upcoming election. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: It was another down day on Wall Street. Stocks plunged right from the opening bell, dropping about 80 points within the first hour. Sellers continued to swamp the market, but there were buyers too, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average bounced back somewhat, closing down about 43 points. Trading was heavy. Most stock indexes have fallen eight to ten percent since last January, and most of the decline has come in the past week. Much of the selling has been driven by a fear of rising interest rates. President Clinton today advised Americans not to overreact. He said rates were too high and predicted they would come down again. This afternoon, Labor Sec. Reich also tried to reassure nervous investors. He had this to say.

ROBERT REICH, Secretary of Labor: No one knows why the market reacts the way it does. The market is -- in a sense a lot of investors are anticipating what other investors are going to do. What you need to do is look beyond the gyrations of the market and look for the long-term, where the market's going to be. We feel that the underlying fundamentals are exactly where they should be.

MR. MAC NEIL: We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: North Korea today appeared to rebuff the U.N. Security Council's call last week for complete inspections of its nuclear sites. The Foreign Ministry statement accused the United States of engineering the U.N. action and said that would lead the North Koreans to "normalize their nuclear activities." The statement didn't say what it meant by normalize. Weekend reports said international inspectors now believe that North Korea is only a few months away from doubling its capacity to produce plutonium. At the State Department today, Spokesman Mike McCurry was asked about those reports.

MIKE McCURRY, State Department Spokesman: Obviously, that's a disturbing development. It underscores the danger posed by North Korea's nuclear program, which is why we have been addressing it so carefully and aggressively with others in the international community. It's important that we have not seen any evidence at this point that North Korea has separated any plutonium over the last three years. That would indicate a change of status in their program, that would be alarming, and it would lead us to suspend any possible dialogue with North Korea.

MS. WARNER: Defense Sec. William Perry said yesterday the U.S. was prepared to exert considerable pressure on North Korea to roll back its nuclear program. Mexican authorities now believe at least seven people were involved in plotting last month's assassination of leading presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio. The Mexican attorney general's office said today police have arrested four men who were part of Colosio's security detail for their part in the conspiracy. Colosio was gunned down at a campaign rally in Tijuana. The gunman was arrested at the scene. He told police he belonged to an unidentified political group with thousands of members, but he gave no motive for the shooting. Two other unidentified men are still being sought.

MR. MAC NEIL: Israeli and Palestinian negotiators pressed ahead with talks in Egypt on implementing their peace agreement. The matings came as Israeli soldiers and police began moving equipment from posts in the occupied territories. Palestinian police will take over security in Jericho and Gaza under the Israeli-PLO peace agreement. Despite the moves towards peace, clashes continued. Israeli troops shot and wounded 27 Palestinians. Most of the violence took place in the West Bank town of Hebron. Serbs in Bosnian reportedly broke through Muslim front lines around the town of Gorazde today. Sarajevo Radio said a number of outlying villages have been overrun, and Serb artillery fire had intensified. Sixty- five thousand people are trapped in the besieged town, which had been designated a U.N. safe haven. U.S. Defense Sec. Perry said yesterday U.S. forces would not intervene to save the enclave. And maybe in Croatia, a cease-fire took effect this morning between Serbs and Croats. The Serbs moved tanks and other heavy weapons out of the disputed region. Most fighting ended in Croatia more than a year ago, but the two sides signed a formal truce last week.

MS. WARNER: Thousands of children scurried across the White House South Lawn this morning for the annual Easter egg roll. President and Mrs. Clinton hosted the event, and the President blew the whistle to officially begin the festivities. Thirty thousand eggs were used, most decorated with pictures of the White House and signed by the President and First Lady. Mr. Clinton then went to Cleveland to throw out the first ball at opening day ceremonies for the Cleveland Indians game against the Seattle Mariners. His pitch started a bit high but went straight across the plate. Mrs. Clinton was in Chicago at the opening day between the Cubs and the New York Mets. She threw her pitch from the stands. Both Clintons will attend tonight's NCAA basketball championship game in Charlotte, North Carolina. That ends our summary of the day's top news. Still ahead on the NewsHour, Wall Street's fall, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and South Africa's political confrontation. FOCUS - WALL ST. - A BUMPY RIDE

MR. MAC NEIL: First tonight, yet another rough day on the stock market. In fact, from January 31st, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached an all time high, it's been a rough nine weeks, with the biggest slide coming last week. Today, following three days off with the Good Friday holiday, the plunge continued. Down more than 80 points early on, the market slowly made up some of its losses, then fell again sharply. At closing, it was down nearly 43 points for the day. Our analysis tonight comes from two journalists. James Stewart is an editor at large at Smart Money Magazine and a writer for the New Yorker Magazine. Louis Uchitelle is an economics writer with the New York Times. So you, gentlemen, starting with you, Mr. Uchitelle, what's driving the market today, do you think?

MR. UCHITELLE: Well, simply, the market is being driven more by the bond market. The stock market is being driven more by the bond market than anything else. And what's driving the bond market is that a lot of people have purchased bonds with borrowed money, i.e., they had purchased a $100 bond by putting up $10 of their own money and borrowing $90. And as the value of those bonds has declined --

MR. MAC NEIL: Because interest rates were coming down.

MR. UCHITELLE: Well, as interest rates rose --

MR. MAC NEIL: Right.

MR. UCHITELLE: -- the value of the bonds declined. And the banks came in and said they'd give us our money back.

MR. MAC NEIL: I told you I didn't understand bonds when we went in. So --

MR. UCHITELLE: Do you want me to explain it a little more to you?

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah. Explain it in a little more detail.

MR. UCHITELLE: All right. Suppose you go out one day and you buy a $100 bond. You put up only $10 of your own money.

MR. MAC NEIL: Right.

MR. UCHITELLE: You go to a bank and you borrow $90. The bond pays, let's say, $6 a year in interest, 6 percent. You then are happy. You're making -- you probably borrowed the money at 3 percent, which is what people are doing, and you're making 6 percent on your 30-year bond. But then one day, something happens. All of a sudden people get upset about the economy. There is pressure to raise interest rates. Interest rates start to go up a bit. You have -- and the next thing you know, the bonds, the new bonds, the new $100 bonds are paying 10 percent interest. So you go out and you say, I would like to sell my bond to you, sir, and the guy says, why should I buy your bond? For the same $100, I can get $10 of interest, 10 percent, why should I buy your bond that pays only $6? So you say, well, you're right, so I'll lower my price a bit. I'll charge you only $90, and then that $6 that you get each year from the Treasury Department for my bond will now be worth say 10 percent. I don't have those percentages right. And the reason you're selling, you're rushing to sell, is the bank says, my God, Mister, I loaned you $90, and your bond is only worth $80, I want my money back, at least I want some money back, and so you're rushing to sell.

MR. MAC NEIL: And so that must have been done on a very big scale to be having an effect on, on -- such a big effect on the market.

MR. UCHITELLE: Well, it's been done on a huge scale, because apparently -- and I must say that the press has not -- did not catch it early -- they're catching it now, after the fact -- there has been a great deal of money in the system, i.e., banks have simply a lot of money that no one's borrowing, except these guys who go out and purchase bonds. George Soros, the financier, is one of these people. And it's not just banks, but it's also people with extra money. And it was probably because the Federal Reserve realized there was so much of this going on, and it was such an unstable situation that probably contributed to their decision on February 4th to begin to try to send a signal by raising interest rates that this should unwind.

MR. MAC NEIL: So why would all that bond activity on borrowed money, why would that have an effect on the stock market?

MR. UCHITELLE: Well, that's a good question. Nobody quite knows all the languages, but people get very upset when something like that happens with bonds, and it spills over into the stock market. That would be one explanation. A second explanation is that there was some purchasing of stock also on borrowed money, what they call margin loans that go into about 66 billion from 44 billion, or something around there a year ago. So there was some of that. But it was mostly the nervousness, the spill-over that is now having an effect on the stock market. It's hard to explain what moves the stock market, but --

MR. MAC NEIL: All right. We're going to give somebody else a chance. James Stewart, what do you think is driving the market downward?

MR. STEWART: Well, I certainly agree that higher interest rates have been the main catalyst here, not only because of the margin he talked about, but stock investors are trying to anticipate the future. They don't care what happened yesterday; everyone knows that. It's what's going to happen six months from now, a year from now. And higher interest rates generally mean that people will be able to borrow less, invest less, invest in higher productivity. Higher rates tend to slow down the economy. So they've noticed that a year from now the economy will not look so good, and as a result, corporate earnings will be down. Another factor is that investors can now invest in bonds and earn a sure today 7 1/2 percent on the long bond. Now, why not just settle for that, rather than risk on stocks? If you'd only earn 6 percent, you were more tempted to buy stocks. So bonds are more attractive, and as a result, people pull money out of the stocks to invest elsewhere.

MR. MAC NEIL: When you say investors, who are you talking about right now?

MR. STEWART: The people really driving the market are the big investors, the big mutual fund people, the big money managers, the pension fund managers, the California Retiree Association investors. These are the people with the big money. It tends not to be, you know, the small investor like you or me or most people, you know, watching your show, who tend to be rather slow to react in these things. But many of these big investors, and particularly the program traders, have computer programs, and in some cases program to interest rates move that kick in and sell automatically. There's no human mind that is brought to bear on this.

MR. MAC NEIL: So large quantities?

MR. STEWART: Large blocks of stock, yes, and that's why you see these cascading prices, the sudden volatility, today for example, with very big swings of 80 points not uncommon.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, they would -- the computers are programmed to kick in, you said, on interest rate changes.

MR. STEWART: That's part of the formula in some of these computers. You can do a computer program that says if interest rates go up two basis points, or whatever, I want 10 percent of the portfolio liquidated immediately.

MR. MAC NEIL: Across-the-board?

MR. STEWART: Across-the-board. It will be indiscriminate selling, which is why you see it today, for example, 2100 stocks down.

MR. MAC NEIL: Uh huh. Now, at least once today, the stock market's new rules to protect the investors from the 1987 crash or sudden fall clicked in to stop this kind of computer trading. Just explain how that works.

MR. UCHITELLE: That's not one of my great --

MR. MAC NEIL: I'll ask you then. Do you -- how does it work?

MR. UCHITELLE: I can give a brief explanation.

MR. STEWART: Well, to oversimplify it, you can only -- when this program kicks in at 50 points, they put a break on the market, which means you can only sell on what is called an up tick. An up tick means a price bid that has caused the stock to go up slightly. That prevents a total freefall. You can't just pile sell order on sell order. It's intended to stabilize the market, let people think a little bit, and give some time for some buy orders to come into.

MR. MAC NEIL: And is it working?

MR. STEWART: It has been working very well.

MR. MAC NEIL: Would be in a much, much lower situation as a result of this last seven or eight days if that hadn't been working?

MR. UCHITELLE: In October of '87, that didn't -- these collars did not exist, and of course, the slide was much greater, it didn't stop. These collars are designed to halt the trading for a while and until the market sort of re-establishes itself. And they have worked quite well. One of the great statements of the, of the government right now is well, we're in a sort of a controlled crash, they don't use the word "crash," but we're in a controlled downturn in the markets, and it is unwinding in an orderly fashion. These 40 points drops or 60 point drops in the stock market, and these sharp rises each day in interest rates and declines in bond prices are going slowly rather than having some one-day crash. And they're rather proud of that.

MR. MAC NEIL: As this process you described of the changes in interest rates and the bond trading, has that exhausted itself? Has that worked through yet?

MR. UCHITELLE: I don't think it has. The government -- the administration is hoping that it will soon work through before rates get so high that they begin to prevent you and me from buying cars or purchasing houses, because mortgage rates sort of move in tandem with what's happening to the rates on the bond markets. But no one knows quite when this will end, because no one quite knows how much debt is how there, how much, how much people have borrowed, and how many, how many lenders are calling in these loans right now as to how much force selling there is. In addition, there's other things happening. There are people --

MR. MAC NEIL: In other words, if I get this right, the higher interest rates go, the more those people you described earlier have an incentive to sell quickly?

MR. UCHITELLE: Right. Exactly. If somebody has some extra money, he says, I'd better get rid of this anyway, because the value of my bonds are going to go down so much, it's going to go down so much that I'm going to be wiped out. And so they continue to sell. And then other people who don't buy on with debt, they buy just regularly, say, well, why should I bother to buy bonds, I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, so there's a whole audience, there's a whole group of people who buy normally who simply have stepped out of the market.

MR. MAC NEIL: James Stewart, what other factors do you see here? The administration has been saying all weekend, and the President said it today, Robert Reich said it, the underlying factors are all sound, the underlying health of the economy is all sound, what other things do you see making the investors you describe nervous about the prospects for six months from now or a year from now?

MR. STEWART: There is a psychological element to all of this. I've seen it on Wall Street many times. You know, one day you wake up and it's all sunny. The next day there's nothing but storm clouds on the horizon. And this has been a storm cloud period. First of all, last week, in particular, the intensive press coverage of the Whitewater scandal, suddenly on Wall Street it was if there was a paralyzed presidency, and there was concern about that. Traders who hardly knew where North Korea was were suddenly talking about the fact that oh, North Korea must have an atomic bomb and the capacity to deliver it. There was an assassination in Mexico. There was suddenly panic about the future of the Free Trade Agreement. We kind of go around the world, and suddenly everyone was thinking anything bad that could happen would, indeed, happen.

MR. MAC NEIL: What gets them looking positively at the world again?

MR. STEWART: They will exhaust those fears, but nothing will particularly happen to confirm them in the next week or two, and as sure as the pendulum swung too far in that direction, there will be rosy optimism being reborn on Wall Street.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is there, is there some -- do you think it's possible, Lou, that the Fed, having started some of this process way back in February, might now think it's all going too far, and the Fed might do something so that the interest rates didn't continue to get pushed up further than they intended and do what the administration fears, which is to slow down the economic recovery?

MR. UCHITELLE: Well, there's a problem in there. The Fed really doesn't know quite what to do. It can perhaps shove up interest rates very high, a half a point instead of a quarter of a point, and try in that fashion to tell people, look, we're really going to try to slow the economy, so you shouldn't try to push up interest rates, we're going to push down these long-term rates, or can continue, which would be very disastrous for the economy, or it can continue acting as it is with these very small rate increases which might not -- which might take a long time -- several months to convince bond holders that -- that they should stop selling so rapidly. So the Federal Reserve is in a very difficult situation. I think, as the administration says, both the Fed and the administration must sit there with their fingers crossed and sort of hope, as Jim says, that this thing sort of unwinds sooner rather than later.

MR. MAC NEIL: Does a point get reached very soon where people see the prices going down so far and say, hey, there are a lot of bargains there, it's time to come in and pick some of them up?

MR. STEWART: Some of that, obviously, has begun to happen. The market both last Thursday and today got down to about 3550 and then began to bounce up. It seems to be the point right now where some bargain hunters are coming in. After all, you know, if some people thought the market looked good a week ago, you'd think they would think it looked even better today. I might also just add, these slightly higher interest rates are not necessarily any cause for panic or concern across America. I think the Fed, for example, probably thinks thatit did the right thing. In the '60s, for example, interest rates went up almost continuously from 1962 to '69, and yet, the market at some point went down but then really gained tremendously in that same period.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Thank you for making us wiser about what happened today.

MS. WARNER: Ahead on the NewsHour, the impact of the Disabilities Act, and political strife in South Africa. FOCUS - AT WHAT COST?

MS. WARNER: The Americans With Disabilities Act took effect nearly two years ago amid fears that complying with its provisions would be too expensive for business and too difficult to enforce. From San Francisco, Correspondent Spencer Michels has a report on what the law has and has not achieved.

MR. MICHELS: For 11 years following an auto accident, Paul Church has been a quadriplegic. He works in San Francisco for the Independent Living Resource Center trying to solve problems faced by people with disabilities, problems as simple as finding an elevator, or getting through a door in a wheelchair.

PAUL CHURCH, Disabled Activist: Some of the stuff is just downright stupid; there's no reason for it. There's really no telling whether it's the architect or the construction people or who's ultimately responsible for it.

MR. MICHELS: Church's main ally in his quest is the Americans With Disabilities Act, a civil rights law for the disabled. Passed in 1990 and implemented two years later, it prohibits employment discrimination against persons with disabilities, and it mandates easy access to most buildings, calling for the removal of physical barriers for the disabled when that is readily achievable.

PAUL CHURCH: I had a meeting in here. I wanted to talk to an employer in here, actually, and I noticed I couldn't get in. So the whole meeting was cancelled just because I can't get into the building.

MR. MICHELS: As Church roams through the city, he finds widespread lack of compliance, despite the new law. Chairs at this plaza eating area are bolted so that a person in a wheelchair can't move them aside and get close to the table.

PAUL CHURCH: They've got the chairs anchored to the ground. I realize that they don't want to get them stolen, but there must be a better way than having them anchored, you know. Why can't they put a chain around them, or bring them in?

MR. MICHELS: Before filing formal complaints with the government or considering a private lawsuit, he usually contacts business owners and asks for changes.

PAUL CHURCH: I think most of the companies are willing. A lot of them don't know what needs to be done. A lot of them don't have the money because of the economic times we're in. But a lot of them are still not willing to do what needs to be done. That's where the heavy hand, as you call it, needs to come in.

PAT WRIGHT, Lobbyist for Disabled: We still have businesses saying, hah, you know, if I don't get caught, I don't get caught, I'll see how far I can go.

MR. MICHELS: For years, Pat Wright fought for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA. As lobbyist for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, she had great expectations for the new law.

PAT WRIGHT: I tell you, when the final vote came on the Senate floor, I was incredibly stunned. I never thought I'd see my civil rights in my lifetime.

MR. MICHELS: Since then, Wright has seen progress for people with disabilities on many fronts, but a continuing need to enforce the law.

PAT WRIGHT: The burden of enforcement falls on the individual. It falls on us to step forward and say this building, you know, is inaccessible, this employer discriminated against me. That's no different than race or gender. And we are going to create an army of barrier busters across this country.

MR. MICHELS: Wright's organization has zeroed in on San Francisco's Candlestick Park, where attorneys have filed a formal complaint under the Disabilities Act charging lack of access. They say other ballparks have the same problems. One of the complainant is Francie Moeller, an avid San Francisco 49ers' and Giants' fan who became disabled just about the same time the ADA went into effect. Candlestick Park turned into a nightmare for her.

FRANCIE MOELLER: Imagine yourself, you've always been able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, all of a sudden you're regulated to only going here, and somebody tells you, you're not equal because you're on a scooter, you can't do anything normal anymore. I left here, and I cried and cried for three days, because nobody ever discriminated against me before.

MR. MAC NEIL: Moeller complains that getting in the stadium by wheelchair was tortuous, that the few accessible bathrooms were used as closets, that snack bars were out of her reach, but worst of all, she says Candlestick restricts persons in wheelchairs to cold, windy platforms far back in the stands.

FRANCIE MOELLER: You are segregated to a section of seating that is restricted only for the disabled. You are not allowed to sit with your family. I came on Mother's Day, and they said that I couldn't sit with my son and my husband.

MR. MICHELS: This winter, San Francisco is spending $5 million to bring the stadium into ADA compliance. Workers are putting in new accessible seating throughout, reconstructing bathrooms, lowering the height of refreshment stands, and adding an elevator that accommodates wheelchairs. Jack Immendorf heads the city's Park & Recreation Commission.

JACK IMMENDORF, San Francisco Commissioner: We now have a federal law which requires us to meet these requirements now, not something to plain the future. And I continue to say that's the right thing to do. I only wish that when they passed the law, they had made financial provision, because we're struggling under budgetary concerns, et cetera. But we'll get there, and we're going to be 100 percent accessible.

MR. MICHELS: The city also faces a possible ADA lawsuit over its bus system, known as the Municipal Railway or Muni. Harry Cordellos, a frequent bus user who is blind, has joined in a class action complaint charging that Muni operators fail to call out stops as required by the law. On this ride, the drive complained. But Cordellos says that's rare.

HARRY CORDELLOS; They don't call out anything. They don't call out orientation stops. They don't call out transfer points. And if you don't remind them or sit right in that front seat, they forget to call the stop that you asked for. A visually impaired person can't ride the bus the same as anyone else can. We couldn't get any help at all from the Muni for years. I mean, we've got their office bulging with complaints, but now that we have the Americans With Disabilities Act, there's a federal law backing us up.

MR. MICHELS: Is it working?

HARRY CORDELLOS: I haven't seen any real improvement basically.

[MUNI TRAINING TAPE]

MR. MICHELS: San Francisco's Muni management and the Drivers' Union say things are better. They've made this partly humorous tape advising drivers to follow the law.

MAN ON FILM: The ADA requires that stops be called out not only for the blind or low-vision people but for everyone.

MR. MICHELS: Annette Williams is manager of accessible services for the Muni. She says drivers have been trained.

ANNETTE WILLIAMS, Muni Disability Coordinator: A lot more effort has been put into discipline in the recent months, and it will continue to be in the time ahead. We're really pleased with our work force, but all those people need to be reminded that this is absolutely important, it's a civil rights legislation, it's not just something that you're doing to help people out, it's something that they have a right to.

MR. MICHELS: While cities like San Francisco struggle to comply, the ADA seems to pose little hardship for many big businesses like Wells Fargo Bank, less hardship, in fact, than they predicted before its passage. Jean Nandi has a progressive type of muscular dystrophy and must work in a reclining position. She arrives every day after a long commute for work as a computer programmer at Wells.

JEAN NANDI: I started out with a degree in zoology at U.C. Berkeley, and then as my disability progressed, it was difficult to work outside of my home at that time. So I started a career as a harpsichordist and harpsichord teacher. Then, after I couldn't sit up any longer, I had to skip again, and I got into computers.

MR. MICHELS: Passage of the ADA has encouraged Wells Fargo Bank to go out of its way to employ and keep people like Nandi. The bank hired a specialist to work with disabled employees and to provide them with the right equipment.

JEAN NANDI: [talking to specialist] I don't have to reach. It minimizes the reach. You know there's another way around it.

MR. MICHELS: Such special accommodations usually cost Wells Fargo less than $450 a person, though Nandi's equipment was more expensive.

JEAN NANDI: I believe it's beneficial for the company, and I don't think they'd do it if it weren't, but I, I think that one of the things we have going for us is that we're problem solvers. If you can see me coming out here applying for a job in this kind of a chair and bring all of this equipment with me, I know how to solve problems. And that's what they're looking for in a computer programmer.

MR. MICHELS: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice share federal responsibility for enforcing the Disability Act. Wells Fargo, eager to avoid legal action from any quarter, has made efforts to comply on several fronts. The bank brought some injured workers, including this man, back to work in new jobs, rather than just handing them disability for not working. This has actually saved the bank money. Banks had to spend millions to lower the height of their automatic teller machines and make them accessible to people with disabilities. Wells Fargo's Chairman and CEO, Carl Reichardt, says it all was money well spent.

CARL REICHARDT, CEO, Wells Fargo Bank: No. 1, it's the law of the land, and our instructions around here are going to comply with the letter and also the spirit. Was it worth it? I think it's probably more than worth it. As I understand it, 10, 10 percent of the population in California qualify as disabled. That's a lot of customers. And that's probably a lot of our employees also. I think the bottom line, it wasn't nearly as bad as anyone thought in terms of cost, so, again, big business is going to cry wolf and then once the event takes place, they live with it, and in this case, I think it was a non-event.

MR. MICHELS: While big business usually can afford to comply with the disability laws, small business owners often say they can't. Leon McHenry, for example, was told he needed bathrooms for the disabled at his barbecue restaurant.

LEON McHENRY, Owner of Leon's Bar-B-Q: The problem is I had to put in these huge bathrooms for handicaps, and we don't get that many handicapped people a year. And it took up all my storage.

MR. MICHELS: McHenry spent $20,000 on the bathrooms.

LEON McHENRY: I think it's a great idea to help the handicapped people if you get a lot of handicapped people, but the handicapped people also have to understand that it's very expensive for a small businessman to have to go through all this.

MR. MICHELS: Under the federal disability law, small businesses must provide accessibility only when it is readily achievable or when remodeling. Disabled activists say that while they understand the plight of small business, they need to press for tough enforcement of the ADA. Paul Church is critical of the Department of Justice, which is responsible for access provisions of the law.

PAUL CHURCH: The Department of Justice seems to be after the high profile big businesses. They don't seem to be going after the medium or smaller size ones.

MR. MICHELS: But basically you don't think they've been aggressive enough?

PAUL CHURCH: No, I don't. There's a backlog of thousands of cases from what I'm hearing. But I think a letter from the Department of Justice to a business owner saying, we're looking at your business, would have a large impact. But that doesn't even seem to happen.

MR. MICHELS: Attorneys at the Department of Justice say they do send at least one letter, usually more, to businesses or cities after a complaint has been filed. John Wodatch heads the ADA enforcement effort, part of the civil rights division. He talked with reporter Mary Jo Brooks.

JOHN WODATCH, Department of Justice: I think we tend to look at the size of the complaint. We get a lot of complaints that you wouldn't want to make a federal case out of. We really try to get a very wide range of complaints investigated.

MR. MICHELS: For years, people with disabilities demonstrated and lobbied for their civil rights. They fought in the streets as well as the courts and in Congress for access and equal treatment. Now with the ADA a reality, they are using the law. So far they have registered more than 4,000 complaints with the Department of Justice and even more with the EEOC. Wodatch says his section has filed just 15 lawsuits but points out that 200 investigations have ended in voluntary settlements.

JOHN WODATCH: I think we're committed to showing the people of this country that we are committed to this law, and if that means bringing lawsuits, we will do that. I don't think you can measure compliance just in terms of the number of lawsuits that we bring, although I think that's a part of it.

PAT WRIGHT: There has to be a positive sign that comes out to say we are serious about the enforcement of this Act. And if you don't have that sign, and I'm sorry that that sign has to be litigation, but it is a sign that is needed.

MR. MICHELS: Even though the number of government and private lawsuits filed under the ADA is relatively small thus far, the law appears to have made a major impact. Local governments and businesses are increasingly aware of their obligation, even if it's expensive, to provide equal treatment for people with disabilities. FOCUS - CONFRONTATION

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, an update from South Africa. As elections approach, there's growing violence between supporters of the African National Congress and the Zulu leadership of Natal Province, where most of the country's Zulus live. Between forty and sixty people have been killed since the state of emergency was declared in Natal on Thursday, and more than one thousand South African troops have been sent to Natal to restore order. South Africa's first multi-racial national elections are scheduled for later this month, but there is speculation that the balloting may be postponed in Natal, where many Zulus represented by the Inkatha Party are demanding autonomy and threatening to boycott the election. President DeKlerk, Zulu and ANC leaders are supposed to hold a summit on Friday to deal with the violence. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in South Africa and has more on this story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Joining me now are three people who are intimately involved in the developing South African election story. They are Sydney Mufamadi, who is on the national executive committee of the African National Congress, he also sits on the transitional executive council's sub-council on law, order, and stability; next is Mr. Sipo Mzimela who is the Inkatha Freedom Party's representative in the United States; and Daniel Scutte, who is South Africa's minister of home affairs, he is also a member of parliament representing Natal. And, Mr. Minister, I'd like to start with you. Violence continued over the weekend at a very high pace. I think it was something like 12 people a day died in fighting in the Natal area. The state of emergency was implemented to prevent just that kind of violence. What went wrong?

DANIEL SCHUTTE, Minister of Home Affairs: Charlayne, I think it must take some time, but the fact is that the regulations have to be implemented. There has to be further movement of troops within the area. So I think the full impact of the emergency situation has not yet been implemented, but in the final analysis -- you can send in as many troops as you want -- in the final analysis it is a political settlement, it is a question of the, of the intimidation that has to stop, that the levels of instability is too high, and that is a question of relationships that will have to be resolved.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what powers do the South African defense force people have, and why did they -- why weren't they sufficient to at least make a dent in the violence this weekend? Because it seems that the violence continued to escalate at the same pace that it was before the state of the emergency.

DANIEL SCHUTTE: The fact is this, that it is a very difficult area to police. It's very difficult to go into areas which are more or less inaccessible and at such short notice. So I think we will see a turning down of the, of the situation, but it's too early to expect it within such short notice.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Mzimela, what is your reading of why the violence continued, in spite of the imposition of the state of emergency?

SIPO MZIMELA, Inkatha Freedom Party: Well, I'm sitting in an unfortunate position. I'm in-between two governments, Mr. Schutte representing the South African government, and Mr. Mufamadi here representing the ANC South African Communist Party Government. And these two governments, both of them, believe in totalitarian methods of governing, and they are the ones who imposed this state of emergency.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But why didn't it work?

SIPO MZIMELA: It can't work, because states of emergency simply don't work. It's the third time in the history of this country that we've had a state of emergency, and it has never worked. You use force against people who are defenseless and people who resist. One would have thought that the national party government especially, one that talks so much about change, will have learned from the past that if you force people and you force them by dictating and not accepting their justifiable political rights, then you are going to cause -- you're going to simply cause more resistance and more violence. Mr. Schutte is correct in saying that what we need is a political solution. But they say that with their lips and are not prepared to take the steps which will actually lead to a political solution.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me just -- let me get back you on that in just a minute, Mr. Minister. But Mr. Mufamadi, why do you think the state of emergency didn't have any impact on the escalating violence in the area?

SYDNEY MUFAMADI, African National Congress: I think it is not correct to say that the state of emergency did not have impact in the area. People have been dying in that province. The level of violence has been internally high. You have in addition to the South African government the Inkatha Freedom Party which is a party in government in KwaZulu. Both of them have not been able to stem the tide of this violence for so many years. Of course, the state of emergency was imposed last week on Thursday on the eve of the beginning of an Easter weekend. Historically, this country has witnesses very high levels of violence in that province during holy days such as the Easter Weekend, because big numbers of migrant workers who come from these hostels that are presently being used as military bases to harbor people who are going out into the streets, into the trains to kill people, those people are back in their province, in the province of Natal during periods such as the Easter Weekend. And I think taking that into account, it will, therefore, be incorrect to say that the state of emergency has not made any impact at all. I think the situation could have been worse.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how could it have been worse? I mean, Mr. Mzimela, let me go back to you. Among the victims was a five-month- old infant, two women and children, and a woman at prayer. They were supposed to be pro ANC, as I gather from the newspapers, that whichever side they were on. How do you explain the viciousness of this violence? Five-month-old infant hacked to death with a machete.

SIPO MZIMELA: It's a lack of political will, and we have done everything in our power to get both the ANC and the South African Communist Party on the one hand and the allies, the National Party Government, to sit down at a table and negotiate in such a way that we can find a real political solution. but I must also refer to one other illusion here. There is more violence in the area where we are, in the Transvaal, the Johannesburg area, the black townships, than you have in Natal. To say that you can only put a state of emergency in Natal is because the evidence that we have, the aims of the ANC and the Communists, on the one hand, and the National Party Government is to crush the Zulus at any cost, because --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about that, Mr. Minister?

SIPO MZIMELA: -- we are scared to exercise our democratic right not to participate in the elections. So the aim of the state of emergency is to force us to participate in the elections.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that right?

DANIEL SCHUTTE: Dr. Mzimela has made a number of accusations which I think must be answered; first of all, that we don't have the political will to involve the Inkatha Freedom Party. Let us just look at the facts very briefly. The first is that we had a period of negotiations, multi-party and bi-party, for some nine months. After that, we implemented the,the constitution by way of a parliamentary session. Thereafter, we again had very intense discussions with the Inkatha Freedom Party. We had another session of parliament to introduce a number of amendments which we believe would have resolved their concerns. After that, we extended every deadline for the Inkatha Freedom Party, but they also indicated that they would be prepared to register for the election, and they registered for the election, and the amendment actually was enough to get one of the partners, the Freedom, the Freedom Alliance, involved. So I believe that we have done everything in our power to get the Inkatha Freedom Party involved. To allege that we are in cahoots with the ANC, we are in cahoots with the Communist Party is just not true. We've been fighting them all along. We have been fighting them in this election, and we will continue fighting them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, he's right, isn't it, Mr. Mzimela?

SIPO MZIMELA: Whenever Mr. DeKlerk goes to get a prize, Mr. Mandela is there because they are working hand in hand. But let me just refer to something else. There were no negotiations really. I can understand Mr. Schutte talking about negotiations, because he doesn't understand democracy. South Africa has never had a traditional democracy. They've only had dictatorship. What happened on the 26th of September in 1992, the National Party and the ANC and South African Communist Party went into hiding and behind closed doors, they reached what they called a record of understanding, how the three parties together were going to govern this party. And then they came out and said everybody must come around the table, let us negotiate. But there's nothing more to negotiate. They had made all the decisions, and those decisions have led to this escalating violence.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Mufamadi, let me ask you the question, if this is the intent, to suppress and destroy the Inkatha Freedom Party and the Zulus in particular, just to respond to his charge.

SYDNEY MUFAMADI: It isn't. It isn't, and we believe that the majority of Zulu-speaking people in Natal and elsewhere support the positions of the African National Congress. Of course, there are claims to the contrary, and we are prepared to submit ourselves to the verdict of the people on the 27th of April. As I am saying, there is no intention at all to suppress anybody. The intention, the intention here is to create a climate which will be conducive to free and fair electioneering.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. As I said, we are not going to be able to resolve that one. Let me go back to you, Mr. Minister, and ask you about something that was reported in the Washington Post today, that army troops patrolling in the Natal area had been instructed not to take advantage of their extraordinary powers because President DeKlerk wants a bargaining chip to bring to the summit with Mr. Buthelezi and the Zulu king this weekend in the summit that's supposed to take place on Saturday, the chip being that unless the two instruct their supporters not to obstruct violence, he is going to threaten to impose a state of emergency and round up all of the Inkatha leaders, so that a peaceful election can take place. Is there any truth to that?

DANIEL SCHUTTE: I doubt it very much, because the fact is this, that we have all along said that the fact that we've imposed the emergency is not an indication that we are in any way threatening the, the government of KwaZulu. They have indicated, and they've given an undertaking that they will assist in the election. We have also said that the Inkatha Freedom Party has a free choice, and they can actually promote non-participation in the election, so we have -- I feel -- I believe that we have dealt very even-handedly in the situation. But may I just say this. The underlying cause is the intolerance between the IFP and the ANC, the political intolerance in that province.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what is --

DANIEL SCHUTTE: And I find it very sad.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the prospect of a compromise that will stop this violence? There is going to be a meeting this weekend of the top people involved in this, Mr. Mandela, Mr. Buthelezi, the king of the Zulus in the area. What do you think are the prospects of some action being taken to stem this violence, and what would the compromise have to include, Mr. Mzimela?

SIPO MZIMELA: Well, first of all --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And just briefly --

SIPO MZIMELA: -- I'd like to remind Mr. Schutte that we're in this mess today because of apartheid, so it's no good trying to blame the ANC and the IFP, but what we have been calling for is a real negotiated settlement that will lead to a democratic process. To say that it can simply jump to elections and then have democracy after that is an illusion.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But I'm saying -- let me just say this, because we're about to run out of time -- is any kind of compromise in this meeting on Friday possible that will allow the elections to go forward, in your view?

SIPO MZIMELA: Yes, indeed. We are open to all kinds of compromises. We have made them. They are known to the ANC, the South African Communist Party, and the government. All we want is a constitution now that secures the rights of every South African. And we're not just talking about Inkatha.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Mufamadi, is it possible that at this meeting this Friday with the leadership, a postponement of either the overall election or of the voting in the Natal - KwaZulu region could be on the table and could be, could be a reality?

SYDNEY MUFAMADI: No. There is no possibility at all that we may end up with a situation where we agree to postpone elections.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Even on the regional level?

SYDNEY MUFAMADI: Not even on the regional level, because elections at regional level will also impact on the overall elections at national level.

SIPO MZIMELA: There's no political will. There's no political will.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What then is the prospect of the warning that Mr. Buthelezi has given us, civil war if there is no compromise reached on Friday, Mr. Mzimela?

SIPO MZIMELA: I don't think the chief is, is threatening civil war. He is simply saying that the logical consequence of denying a large section of the population the right to exercise their democratic rights is really going to lead to civil war. I mean, the imposition of a state of emergency is evidence that both the governments of the National Party and the ANC government on the other side have failed. So the only thing they can use now is force to coerce people, to intimidate people, to detain people without trial. It's amazing that the ANC, which always fought against detention without trial, is now in the forefront of saying that Inkatha people must be rounded up, not even given the right to appear in a court of law, but be locked up.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We are out of time. Mr. Schutte, what do you give the chances of a compromise that will avoid further violence on Friday?

DANIEL SCHUTTE: Just, just finally, I believe that it's sad that here the people of KwaZulu, the Zulu people have the first chance of actually votingand experiencing a democratic say, and they are being, they are actually being suggested by their own leaders not to participate. I find that totally beyond me. I believe that there is a chance. The main matter on the table will be the position of the Zulu king and his kingdom, and I believe that that can be resolved at this stage.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll have to leave it there. Mr. Schutte, Mr. Mzimela, and Mr. Mufamadi, thank you for joining us. ESSAY - LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally tonight, essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service has some thoughts about Log Cabin Republicans.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Smith has come to Washington. I am not speaking about Jimmy Stewart but Richard Tafel. Rich Tafel, he calls himself, grew up in Pennsylvanian, an American kid, the boy next door, the straight arrow. He went to college, then to a theological seminary, became an ordained Baptist minister. In Washington now, Tafel is a man in a dark suit, a man with a mission. He heads a group called "Log Cabin Republicans," an organization of lesbian and gay Republicans. After the GOP Convention of 1992, when Republican politicians like Pat Buchanan called for a national politics of family values, it must seem to many people an oxymoron or even a joke, the notion of a gay Republican, the first line of a riddle, "What is a gay Republican?"

RICHARD TAFEL: A gay Republican is someone who is someone who is born with a gay sexual orientation and who supports the principles of the Republican Party, pretty simply. Usually, it's around fiscal issues, smaller government, less government, it's better government, and foreign policy, stronger foreign policy, strong - - pro-military. Those are the sort of issues I think that most people would be Republicans for those reasons. As far as being gay, we're born with that sexual orientation.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Americans used to worry about the threat from without. Now we worry about what we euphemistically call the inner city, kids with guns, kids selling drugs, kids without dads. The malaise we fear is also suburban. The middle class family is in disarray. Mom doesn't want to be a mom anymore. Dad forgot how to talk to the family. Kids at the mall are drunk with despair. And the most famous people in America, our politicians, our rock stars, our movie stars, our sports heroes, are now in various ways moral failures. Many Protestant fundamentalists and conservative Catholics will tell you that at the center of the moral decay is the gay revolution, the red threat has turned lavender. Homosexuals are coming out of the closet and into our classrooms as teachers. Gay couples are demanding legal standing as married couples and the right to adopt. The gay rights movement, to date, has largely been a movement of the political left, insistent on legal constitutional protections. But Rich Tafel, the Republican Baptist minister, insists on the moral stature of gay Americans.

RICHARD TAFEL: I think there's a tendency for people who want to ignore the moral, particularly a lot of gay activists have simply argued, you know, we want to approach this as a political issue, leave us alone, but the reality is if the American public is convinced that homosexuals are inherently evil and dangerous and a threat to the American family, we will never be treated equally.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: There is a great political struggle now in the Republican Party. One the one hand, there is the party of someone like Pat Robertson, his call for moral renaissance in America. On the other hand, there is the GOP of someone like Barry Goldwater, his insistence that the government has no business in anybody's bedroom. The organization calling itself Log Cabin Republicans is a ridiculously small band with 8,000 members. These Republicans did not vote for the re-election of George Bush. But they did support the recent successful election of Republican moderates like Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in New York and New Jersey's Governor, Christine Whitman. Upon his election in Los Angeles, Mayor Richard Reardon acknowledge Log Cabin support as "a significant factor in my victory." In multi-cultural, multi-religious America, moral questions necessarily become political issues. We turn to the state house or the capitol. We lobby Congressmen to settle the great moral questions of our civic life like slavery and the equality of women, or the rights of the unborn. So the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans lobbies a congressman for equal rights and protection for gays in America. But does this Baptist minister want something more from Americans?

RICHARD TAFEL: Absolutely. You really nailed it on the head there. I think that my religious side absolutely does call for the revelation that gay people are good people.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Beyond the political looms the moral. Just what do you make of your lesbian daughter, or your gay nephew, or your uncle who, you know, never got married? Just what do you Americans make of a Baptist minister from Pennsylvania, this Republican in dark suit and tie? What kind of moral stature do you credit the homosexual? Do you acknowledge your moral kinship to them? To him? to me? I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the main story of this Monday was the continuing slide of stocks on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged nearly 80 points in early trading and closed down nearly 43 points on the day. President Clinton said the economy was fundamentally healthy and warned Americans not to overreact to the market's drop. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Robin. That's it for the NewsHour tonight. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Margaret Warner. Good night.