PBS NewsHour - 1996-02-29

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:06] Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the

[0:07] NewsHour tonight, media violence day in

[0:10] Washington. Elizabeth Farnsworth

[0:12] explores the fallouts and meanings. The

[0:15] four leading Republican presidential

[0:17] candidates have a debate. We have

[0:19] excerpts. Money. Margaret Warner and two

[0:21] experts look at what it means to

[0:23] presidential politics. The Senate has a

[0:26] life ordeath debate about the Whitewater

[0:28] investigation.

[0:29] H Homeman reports and our second round

[0:31] of candidate stump speeches continues

[0:33] with one by Pat Buchanan. It all follows

[0:36] our summary of the news this Thursday.

[0:39] >> Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[0:41] Ler has been provided by the Archer

[0:43] Daniels Midland Company ADM Supermarket

[0:46] to the world

[0:49] and by New York Life. Yet another

[0:52] example of New York Life's wise

[0:54] investment philosophy

[0:58] and by the Corporation for Public

[1:00] Broadcasting and by the annual financial

[1:02] support from viewers like you. The US

[1:06] Coast Guard will protect a Saturday

[1:08] protest off the coast of Cuba. White

[1:10] House spokesman Mike Mccur made the

[1:12] announcement today. Cuban exiles plan to

[1:14] send a flotillaa of boats and planes to

[1:16] the site of last week's shootown of two

[1:19] civilian planes by Cuban military jets.

[1:21] The four Cuban Americans aboard the

[1:23] private planes were killed. US officials

[1:26] claim the shootown occurred in

[1:27] international waters. Cuban authorities

[1:29] say it happened over their territory.

[1:32] Mccuri warned Havana not to interfere

[1:34] with the Saturday demonstration.

[1:36] >> We will not tolerate further any

[1:38] unlawful actions by the Cuban

[1:40] government. We believe that efforts to

[1:42] honor the lives of the victims of Cuba's

[1:46] brutality deserve the support of all

[1:48] Americans and we will strongly enforce

[1:51] our laws to prevent incursion into Cuban

[1:53] airspace and territorial waters that

[1:56] potentially endanger the lives of

[1:58] Americans. A Cuban government spokesman

[2:01] had asked the United States to stop the

[2:03] flotillaa. He said Cuba would use all

[2:06] means necessary to counter violations of

[2:08] its territory. At a congressional

[2:10] hearing in Washington today,

[2:12] Representative Dan Burton of Indiana

[2:14] said he received information the US Air

[2:16] Force was aware Cuban jets were about to

[2:19] attack the civilian planes Saturday, but

[2:21] he said the Air Force did nothing to

[2:23] stop the encounter. A Defense Department

[2:25] spokesman denied that report. He said

[2:27] the Cuban fighters were not challenged

[2:29] because they did not threaten the United

[2:31] States. At the White House today, 30

[2:33] television executives agreed to create a

[2:36] rating system to help parents screen out

[2:38] sex and violence on television. The new

[2:40] telecommunications law requires new TV

[2:43] sets to be equipped with a Vchip to

[2:45] block programs. Without a rating system,

[2:48] the Vchip cannot be utilized. President

[2:50] Clinton praised the broadcasters

[2:52] efforts.

[2:53] >> The media and the entertainment industry

[2:55] has agreed to a voluntary systems of

[2:57] ratings for television programs. These

[3:00] ratings will be put in place by the end

[3:02] of this year or the beginning of next

[3:03] year to help parents decide what

[3:05] programs they want their children to

[3:08] watch. And the Vchip will give parents

[3:10] the power to block those programs they

[3:12] do not want them to watch from their

[3:14] televisions.

[3:16] We're handing the TV remote control back

[3:18] to America's parents so that they can

[3:21] pass on their values and protect their

[3:24] children. Industry spokesman Jack

[3:26] Valenti said broadcasters cannot take

[3:28] the place of parents and teachers who

[3:30] have the ultimate responsibility for a

[3:32] child's character and conduct.

[3:35] >> There must be a national renaissance

[3:38] of individual responsibility so that a

[3:42] child understands clearly what is right

[3:46] and what is plainly wrong. absent that

[3:50] kind of moral regeneration

[3:53] in this home and in the family and in

[3:56] the school and in the church. Frankly,

[3:59] no rating system, however purposeful, no

[4:03] Vchip or electronic device and no

[4:07] government law is going to salvage that

[4:10] child's conduct.

[4:11] >> We'll have more on this story right

[4:13] after the news summary. In South

[4:15] Carolina today, the four leading

[4:16] Republican presidential candidates held

[4:18] a one-hour debate. They did so before a

[4:21] business group in Colombia. Pat

[4:23] Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes,

[4:25] and Bob Dole clashed over negative

[4:28] advertising, balancing the budget, and

[4:30] taxes. The important South Carolina

[4:32] primary is Saturday. We'll have extended

[4:35] excerpts from the debate later in the

[4:36] program. Senate Democrats today blocked

[4:39] a Republican effort to extend the Senate

[4:41] Whitewater investigation beyond midnight

[4:44] tonight. Republicans will try again next

[4:46] week. Democrats were willing to extend

[4:48] the investigation until April 3rd, but

[4:51] not beyond. Republicans wanted unlimited

[4:54] time. Money was also an issue. We'll

[4:56] have extended excerpts from that debate

[4:58] later in the program. House Speaker N.

[5:00] Gingrich won a victory in federal court

[5:02] today. A judge threw out an elections

[5:04] law complaint filed by the Federal

[5:07] Election Commission against a political

[5:08] action committee run by Genrich. His

[5:11] group called GOPAC argued that it only

[5:13] aided state and local political

[5:15] candidates and did not have to register

[5:17] with the FEC. The judge agreed. And in

[5:20] the House of Representatives today,

[5:22] members approved the so-called Freedom

[5:24] to Farm Bill. The vote was 270 to 155.

[5:28] The measure overhauls federal farm

[5:30] policies dating back to the depression.

[5:33] It phases out price supports for corn,

[5:35] wheat, cotton, and other crops.

[5:37] Subsidies for sugar, dairy products, and

[5:39] peanuts would continue. Farmers would

[5:41] also no longer be paid to keep their

[5:43] land idle to control crop supplies.

[5:46] Today's debate focused on the impact the

[5:48] bill would have on taxpayers.

[5:50] The premise behind this policy is is

[5:53] that over the next seven years, we will

[5:55] obligate the taxpayers of this country

[5:57] to spend 36.5 billion dollars to farmers

[6:02] regardless of what the prices of the

[6:05] commodities will be. This bill

[6:07] establishes hopefully a market

[6:09] transition

[6:11] from the command and control style of

[6:14] government support to the free market

[6:15] through a series of fixed and declining

[6:17] payments.

[6:19] declining payments.

[6:21] >> The House Farm Bill must now be

[6:23] reconciled with a version that has

[6:24] already passed the Senate. In Bosnia

[6:27] today, the Bosnian government declared

[6:29] the siege of Sieo officially over. The

[6:33] announcement came as the Muslim Croat

[6:35] Federation assumed control of the former

[6:37] Serb suburb of Ilijaz and an adjoining

[6:40] road. Most Serb residents evacuated the

[6:43] area before the transfer. In New York

[6:46] federal court today, the Daiwa bank

[6:48] plead guilty to 16 counts of fraud,

[6:50] deception, and other charges. The large

[6:52] Japanese bank was accused of hiding more

[6:55] than $1 billion in losses. The bank will

[6:57] also pay a $340 million fine, the

[7:01] largest ever levied in a US criminal

[7:03] case. And that's it for the news summary

[7:05] tonight. Now it's on to media violence,

[7:08] a debate in South Carolina, the politics

[7:11] of money, a Senate Whitewater debate,

[7:15] and a Pat Buchanan stump speech.

[7:26] Today's big Washington spotlight on

[7:28] media violence is our lead story

[7:30] tonight. Elizabeth Farnsworth is in

[7:32] charge. The White House meeting with the

[7:35] telecommunications chieftains came after

[7:37] several years of pressure from parents

[7:39] and politicians. Last spring, Senate

[7:42] majority leader and presidential hopeful

[7:44] Robert Dole specifically targeted Time

[7:47] Warner.

[7:48] >> Must you debase our nation and threaten

[7:50] our children for the sake of corporate

[7:51] profits? The corporate executives who

[7:55] dismiss criticism

[7:57] should not misunderstand.

[8:00] I'm not objecting some little tiny group

[8:02] of zealots

[8:04] or an ideological fringe. From inner

[8:07] city mothers to suburban mothers to

[8:09] families in rural America of parents

[8:12] parents are afraid and parents are

[8:13] growing angry.

[8:14] >> The drum beatat of criticism continued

[8:16] from across the political spectrum. Tell

[8:19] all talk TV was the target for a group

[8:22] headed by moderate Democrat Joseph

[8:24] Lieberman and conservative Republican

[8:26] Bill Bennett. No to this cultural rot.

[8:29] No to the exploitation of personal

[8:31] tragedies and embarrassments. No to the

[8:34] peddling of perversion to 8 million

[8:37] children watching talk TV every day.

[8:40] Does anybody doubt that these shows

[8:42] degrade the people who are on them? Uh

[8:45] that these shows degrade human

[8:46] personality. Do the sponsors think not?

[8:49] If not, uh why not? In January, in his

[8:52] State of the Union, President Clinton

[8:54] upped the ante.

[8:55] >> To the media, I say you should create

[8:58] movies and CDs and television shows

[9:00] you'd want your own children and

[9:02] grandchildren to enjoy.

[9:06] I call on Congress to pass the

[9:08] requirement for a Vchip and TV set so

[9:11] that parents can screen out programs

[9:13] they believe are inappropriate for their

[9:15] children.

[9:17] >> President Clinton got what he wanted.

[9:19] Earlier this month, Congress passed and

[9:21] President Clinton signed a

[9:23] telecommunications act which requires TV

[9:26] manufacturers to begin installing the

[9:28] Vchip with the V standing for violence.

[9:31] The act also urges the creation of a

[9:33] rating system and today President

[9:36] Clinton praised the industry executives

[9:38] for having voluntarily come up with one.

[9:41] As a result of our discussions, the

[9:43] media and the entertainment industry has

[9:45] agreed to a voluntary systems of ratings

[9:48] for television programs. These ratings

[9:50] will be put in place by the end of this

[9:52] year or the beginning of next year to

[9:54] help parents decide what programs they

[9:56] want their children to watch.

[9:59] >> A worse alternative from the industry's

[10:01] point of view would have been having a

[10:03] governmentappointed group do the

[10:04] ratings. When we looked at how the vote

[10:07] went, over 95% of our members of

[10:11] Congress voted for this speech bill. I

[10:13] mean, both it was overwhelming majority

[10:16] of both Democrats and Republic,

[10:18] conservatives and liberals. And uh we

[10:21] got the message and and we really don't

[10:23] really have any choice anyway. We're

[10:25] either going to do it or it was going to

[10:27] be done for us.

[10:28] >> It won't be easy to come up with a

[10:29] system that can cover over 600,000 hours

[10:32] a year of programming. And already

[10:35] critics say the current plan doesn't go

[10:37] far enough. Joining us to explain this

[10:40] historic agreement are Jack Valente, the

[10:42] president of the Motion Picture

[10:43] Association of America, and K. Coplitz,

[10:46] founder and CEO of USA Network, a

[10:49] national cable network. Thank you both

[10:51] for being with us. Mr. Valente, what

[10:53] does the agreement What is the

[10:55] agreement?

[10:56] >> Well, first, it's a historic agreement.

[10:58] As you said, it's the first time that

[11:01] all of the disperate elements of of the

[11:04] world of television, networks, movie

[11:06] studios, cable, PBS, creative gills all

[11:10] got together in common cause. Now,

[11:13] unlike uh what was said earlier, uh the

[11:16] industry did not have to do this. The

[11:18] law does not require us to do it. The

[11:21] law says there will be a V chip, but it

[11:24] does not require and cannot require.

[11:26] Although didn't the law say that if the

[11:28] industry doesn't do it that a government

[11:30] appointed body

[11:31] >> said the FCC would then appoint a

[11:33] commission but there are many first

[11:35] amendment lawyers in this country who

[11:38] believe that that is unconstitutional.

[11:41] However, I and others believe that it

[11:44] was in the long range interests of the

[11:46] parents of this country that we come

[11:49] together in a voluntary, and I stress

[11:51] voluntary agreement to rate TV programs

[11:54] and to encode them so that this

[11:57] so-called Vchip or electronic device

[11:59] will allow parents a choice or not to

[12:02] blank out certain programs that their

[12:04] very young children they might deem to

[12:06] be unsuitable. This is uh what we did 27

[12:11] years ago with movie ratings which have

[12:14] persistently won high approval from

[12:16] parents because we give additional

[12:19] information to parents so that parents

[12:21] and not a government or a congress or

[12:23] anybody else can make choices uh for the

[12:26] parents of this country and we're doing

[12:28] this and I think it's a wonderful thing

[12:29] we're doing because it's right to do but

[12:32] not because we were required to do it. I

[12:34] know that much has to be worked out, but

[12:36] do you think it will end up the system

[12:38] will look a little like the movie rating

[12:39] systems with the the G, the PG and and

[12:43] uh NC17 and that kind of thing? No kids

[12:45] under 17. And

[12:46] >> I the answer is I don't know. Uh it's

[12:50] taken all of our strength and energy and

[12:52] passion and commitment to to bring

[12:54] ourselves together and under a common

[12:57] tent, under a common canopy uh to do

[13:00] this work. And uh I applaud people like

[13:02] K. Copitz and others in the cable

[13:04] industry networks and everybody else who

[13:06] came together on this. We've got a lot

[13:08] of work to do to sort out the difficult,

[13:11] tormenting, even terrorizing questions

[13:14] that have to be asked and have to be

[13:16] solved before we can finally put this

[13:18] into operation.

[13:19] >> Okay, we'll get into some of those

[13:20] questions in a minute. Miss Copitz, why

[13:22] did this happen now? For years, the

[13:24] industry has not wanted to do something

[13:25] like this. Has said that it was against

[13:27] free speech.

[13:29] I think you have the confluence of a

[13:30] number of factors right now. Um, and not

[13:34] the least of which is the fact that

[13:35] there is a law that has been passed and

[13:38] part of the telco bill does require the

[13:39] Vchip does not require us to do this uh

[13:43] rating system. But I do think there is a

[13:46] resonance in our communities and across

[13:48] the country for parents who want to have

[13:52] some guidance. And I think that we in

[13:55] the industry agree that information is

[13:58] important for parents to have. I think

[14:01] we have a different situation today than

[14:02] we had 20 years ago. 20 years ago, we

[14:05] had three broadcast networks, a few

[14:08] stations in a community. Today, 70% of

[14:10] the homes of the country see multiple

[14:13] stations, maybe as many as 70 different

[14:16] stations uh and networks coming into

[14:18] their home. And I think that the

[14:20] industry is beginning to realize that

[14:22] there is a plethora of programming and

[14:26] that some guidance in uh giving

[14:28] information would be helpful to parents.

[14:31] And I think that's the resonance we hear

[14:33] and the what we are responding to in

[14:36] this industry.

[14:36] >> And Mr. Valente, some critics have said

[14:38] that this will just open the way to to

[14:40] more violence and sex and programming

[14:41] because a broadcaster can label it, but

[14:44] there it is. They can do as much as they

[14:46] want of it as long as it's labeled. Do

[14:47] you think that's true? Well, the answer

[14:49] is I liken this to the television

[14:51] equivalent of the Louiswis and Clark

[14:54] expedition. Like them, we don't know

[14:56] what's on the other side of the

[14:58] mountain. There are a lot of things we

[14:59] don't know. What I do believe, and Kay

[15:03] and others share with me, is that

[15:06] parents ought to have more information

[15:08] to help them monitor and supervise the

[15:10] TV viewing of their young children.

[15:12] Whether this is a, as we say, the law of

[15:15] unintended consequences will take over,

[15:17] I don't know. All I know is that we're

[15:20] going to try to do this to do it right,

[15:22] to do it with integrity and with

[15:24] honorable purpose, and that is our aim,

[15:26] and this is what we're going to do.

[15:28] >> What are the risks in this? For example,

[15:30] I was thinking about this. Researchers

[15:32] from four universities recently

[15:34] announced the results of a study on

[15:35] television violence. I think the cable

[15:37] industry helped pay for this study.

[15:38] >> Yes. And it showed that in the premium

[15:41] cable channels had violence in 85% of

[15:43] their programming. What are the risks to

[15:46] those networks to those those programs

[15:48] or those those those uh companies? Uh an

[15:52] an advertiser might say I'm just not

[15:54] going to advertise if you have to label

[15:56] it some kind of a label not suitable for

[15:58] children.

[15:58] >> Let me clarify something for you. Um

[16:00] they didn't the study does not say that

[16:02] the violence occurs in 85% of the

[16:04] programming or 57% of the programming on

[16:06] other channels or whatever. It was of

[16:08] those ch of those programs that were

[16:10] viewed by the researchers. They did not

[16:12] view all programming. They viewed

[16:14] programs chosen at random. Um so they

[16:17] were talking about the programs that

[16:18] they viewed. It was not a complete

[16:20] survey of all programs. Let me make that

[16:22] clear first of all.

[16:23] >> Secondly, um there are risks. This is

[16:25] risky, isn't it?

[16:26] >> There are definitely risks. I mean we as

[16:29] far as an industry that is supported

[16:30] largely by advertising uh and for those

[16:33] of us on the cable side uh to some

[16:35] degree by subscription fees. Um there is

[16:38] a big risk and for broadcasters even a

[16:40] larger risk that advertisers will be

[16:42] intimidated from advertising and

[16:44] programming that they feel is really

[16:46] worthwhile seeing. Not all programming

[16:49] is created for children. You can take a

[16:52] series like NYPD Blue, which has been

[16:54] highly acclaimed

[16:56] >> uh for its creative content, yet some

[16:59] people would find some of the language

[17:01] or some of the scenes object

[17:02] objectionable and certainly perhaps

[17:04] objectionable to children. That doesn't

[17:06] mean that advertisers shouldn't be in

[17:08] that show because very important social

[17:11] issues and challenges that we live every

[17:14] day in our lives are seen on that show.

[17:17] It's extremely worthy of being on the

[17:19] air. yet it could carry a rating that

[17:22] would intimidate some advertisers from

[17:24] being in it. And I think these are the

[17:26] types of issues that we've got to walk

[17:28] through. We should embrace comments from

[17:32] the advertising community uh as to what

[17:35] their concerns are. We should try to

[17:36] take them into consideration informing

[17:39] uh our rating system. Um I think this

[17:42] would be appropriate. So yes, we're

[17:43] risking we have financial risk. We have

[17:45] I think we have the risk of being overly

[17:48] criticized for no matter what we do. Uh

[17:51] it's a dead certainty that everybody's

[17:53] not going to be pleased with what we

[17:55] come up with. I mean that's a certainty.

[17:57] We know that no matter what we do, we

[17:59] will be roundly criticized by the left

[18:02] or the right or self-appointed people

[18:04] who feel that they should be the

[18:06] purveyors of our morals in the society.

[18:08] And and it's a heavy burden that we

[18:09] bear, I think, but we're willing to take

[18:11] it up voluntarily. It is a huge

[18:13] challenge to us. I hope people don't

[18:15] underestimate it or over anticipate what

[18:18] the results will be because this will

[18:20] not necessarily change violence in our

[18:23] society. This is just one aspect of it.

[18:25] Television.

[18:26] >> Well, and I I would imagine one of the

[18:27] main topics of discussion or worries

[18:29] would be that everything will become too

[18:31] bland.

[18:32] >> Well, I I I don't believe that we can

[18:35] make all television programs at the

[18:37] intellectual level of a seven-year-old.

[18:40] What we're trying to do is to sort out

[18:42] through our ratings what is in some of

[18:45] these programs so parents can make

[18:47] judgments about young children. We're

[18:48] talking about 6 7 8 9 10 year old

[18:50] children and those are the ones that

[18:53] need to be protected and that's the

[18:55] information that parents should have and

[18:57] that's what we're going to do. But I do

[18:59] believe that in the long run uh we're

[19:02] going to be criticized heavily as Kay

[19:04] says. But in spite of that we're going

[19:06] to continue on and to make this project

[19:08] work. I think it can be done and it

[19:11] ought to be done.

[19:12] >> You know, some some journalists have

[19:13] written that what you really needed to

[19:15] do was to get this out of the way so

[19:17] that you all could deal with a a much

[19:19] more difficult issue or at least an

[19:20] equally difficult issue coming up, which

[19:22] is the question of whether the the

[19:24] digital parts of the airwaves will be

[19:26] given away or auctioned off as Senator

[19:28] Dole and others have called for.

[19:29] >> Well, and so far as I'm concerned

[19:31] though, that's that's that's not that's

[19:33] that's on not on my turf. uh and I I

[19:37] think some of the broadcasters are

[19:38] dealing with that. What we were trying

[19:40] to do is to try to bring together all

[19:42] elements of this industry that

[19:44] previously were unallied with each other

[19:47] >> and have them join in this cause of

[19:49] trying to give more information to

[19:51] parents so that parents can monitor

[19:53] their children's TV viewing. But there

[19:55] will be tomorrow and the day after

[19:57] people are saying that's not enough.

[19:59] Because some of these people actually

[20:00] want certain shows off the air because

[20:03] they don't like those shows. Every time

[20:07] that I encounter someone who believes

[20:09] that they are the repository of all

[20:12] wisdom, I always want to utter that old

[20:14] Texas prayer that says, "Dear Lord, let

[20:17] me seek the truth, but spare me the

[20:19] company of those who have found it."

[20:22] >> Well, thank you both for being with us.

[20:24] And now some thoughts on today's

[20:26] developments from one of our regular

[20:27] media watchers, Ken Alleta of the New

[20:29] Yorker magazine. Ken, thank you for

[20:31] being with us.

[20:32] >> You just heard all of that. What do you

[20:34] make of it? Do you have anything to any

[20:36] comments?

[20:37] >> Uh, well, actually, I have several. Uh,

[20:39] one is that if you go back almost 30

[20:41] years to when the the movie studios put

[20:43] in their rating system, that was not

[20:45] exactly voluntary. In fact, it was very

[20:47] parallel to what's happening today in

[20:50] that the government put pressure on the

[20:52] movie companies to come up with some

[20:54] kind of a rating system to protect

[20:55] parents just as the government has put

[20:57] pressure today on the television

[20:58] industry to come up with some kind of

[21:00] rating system.

[21:01] >> What do you think of the agreement?

[21:03] >> Well, I mean, as they say, God is in the

[21:06] details and we don't know the details

[21:07] yet. I mean I think it is a uh an

[21:09] attempt on the part of the television

[21:12] industry to to respond to not just the

[21:16] Congress but who the Congress is

[21:17] responding to which is the public and a

[21:19] feeling they have that there is too much

[21:21] sex and violence and that as parents

[21:24] particularly in a two parent home which

[21:25] majority of Americans now have they need

[21:28] some help as parents um in terms of what

[21:31] gets on the air hopefully it will affect

[21:32] what is programmed not just what is

[21:34] rated on the air but how to do that it

[21:37] is much more complicated to rate

[21:39] television shows and it is movies for

[21:41] two reasons. One, you have many more.

[21:43] You have roughly 800 movies a year that

[21:45] are rated uh versus, as Ted Turner said

[21:47] today, roughly 600,000 hours of

[21:51] television time. So, you've got a lot of

[21:53] of decisions to make. Do you rate news

[21:55] shows, talk shows, daytime television,

[21:58] um or just prime time shows, Saturday

[22:00] morning shows, children's shows? That's

[22:03] one set of questions. And the other set

[22:04] of questions is that the other reason

[22:06] that it's more difficult in a movie

[22:08] theater, you have someone who polices

[22:10] the ticket seller or the person who

[22:13] takes your ticket who polices the

[22:15] entrance to that movie theater. We don't

[22:17] have that kind of a system obviously in

[22:19] our homes.

[22:20] >> But after writing about this and

[22:22] watching this for for many years and and

[22:24] knowing the the heated debate that's

[22:26] gone into this, do you think this was

[22:27] the right first step to take?

[22:30] >> I do. Yes. Uh I think it's the right

[22:32] step to take for the industry not just

[22:34] because it is substantively correct uh

[22:38] and politically correct in the short

[22:40] term but in the long term for the

[22:41] television industry. They've got some

[22:43] other fish to fry and Mr. Valente was

[22:45] asked that question and he said it's not

[22:48] a fish I'm frying in terms of what

[22:49] happens to the spectrum space but

[22:51] actually it is a fish he's frying and a

[22:53] fish that everyone who's related to the

[22:55] television industry and the studio

[22:57] industry and as you know two studios

[23:00] already own two of the networks. Um so

[23:02] Mr. Valente is involved in that as is K.

[23:04] Coplowitz who who reports to two studios

[23:07] her company and they have a real

[23:10] interest in whether in whether they have

[23:12] to bid the networks for this extra

[23:16] spectrum space or it's made as a gift in

[23:18] return for certain things that they give

[23:20] back maybe

[23:21] >> back on the agreement today. Do you

[23:23] think this will lessen some of the

[23:25] criticism or will there just be as as

[23:27] Mr. Valentia and Miss Coplovit said a

[23:29] whole new round of criticism and of the

[23:31] of the agreement and of the rating

[23:33] system they come up with.

[23:34] >> Well, I mean there will be there will be

[23:36] less criticism I would guess uh after

[23:39] this agreement. I think they've gone a

[23:41] long way to diffuse for now the

[23:43] criticism in the long run when they

[23:46] actually devise a system and it is very

[23:48] complicated what they're setting out to

[23:50] do. When they actually come up with the

[23:52] system then there probably will be more

[23:54] criticism depending on the nature of

[23:56] that system. And do you think it's quite

[23:58] risky? We we discussed that. It seems

[23:59] like a risky business there under there

[24:01] and about to begin.

[24:03] >> It is very risky if you're a creator of

[24:05] a show and you would have real worry

[24:07] certainly on free television which is

[24:09] supported by advertising that if you

[24:11] have a violence rating on your show,

[24:13] let's say NYPD Blue, this happened with

[24:14] the show that Miss Kppowitz mentioned.

[24:17] It got that rating and in fact the

[24:18] advertisers stayed away. So the worry

[24:20] would be that the network programmers

[24:23] will go back to the old days of seeking

[24:25] to homogenize a mass audience and will

[24:28] stay away from shows and programs that

[24:31] push the envelope, that are creative,

[24:33] that are thoughtprovoking. And that is a

[24:35] danger uh with this system. But it seems

[24:38] to me that the argument that outweighs

[24:40] it is that you know you have to try

[24:42] something new because presently uh the

[24:45] public and the Congress is not happy

[24:46] with the current system. Do you think

[24:48] that more could be asked there? For

[24:50] example, people have talked about having

[24:52] uh family viewing hours when when more

[24:55] children are watching than than adults.

[24:57] There would have to be certain

[24:58] programming. Do you think that kind of

[25:00] thing will start to be pushed now?

[25:01] >> Well, I think one of the things that's

[25:03] going to happen here u one of those

[25:06] executives who met with the president

[25:07] and the vice president and before that

[25:10] with the leaders of the Congress, they

[25:12] have some things they want on their

[25:13] agenda from the government. But the

[25:15] government has some things they want

[25:17] back from that industry. They would like

[25:19] to get back, Senator Holland is pushing

[25:21] and other members of Congress, the

[25:23] family hour so that from 8 to 9 each

[25:25] night, you will not have shows that are

[25:27] that are not friendly to younger

[25:28] children as as currently exists. That

[25:30] family hour was rolled back quietly over

[25:33] the last two years. It may be they want

[25:35] more children's programming as the

[25:36] Clinton administration has talked about.

[25:38] It may be that in return for giving them

[25:40] free spectrum space or extra channels

[25:43] that in return they get back something

[25:44] like free airtime for political speeches

[25:46] or for candidates in campaign. So there

[25:49] are lots of things that both parties to

[25:51] this negotiation want and that's the

[25:54] subplot that I think went on today.

[25:57] >> I have to interrupt you Ken. That's all

[25:58] the time we have. Thank you.

[26:00] Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a

[26:02] campaign debate, money in presidential

[26:05] politics,

[26:07] a Whitewater debate, and a Buchanan

[26:10] stump speech.

[26:21] Now, a debate in South Carolina. This

[26:23] afternoon, four Republican contenders

[26:25] went at it at a candidates's forum in

[26:27] Colombia. A major focus was their own

[26:29] advertising. Here are extended excerpts.

[26:33] >> Do you think negative ads are hurting

[26:35] the political process? And do you regret

[26:38] having run such ads? Mr. Forbes,

[26:41] >> I regret having spent so much time

[26:43] discussing my opponents when they made

[26:46] promises before an election and then

[26:47] routinely broke those promises after the

[26:49] election. However, in the last two

[26:51] weeks, I've concentrated simply on

[26:53] getting my message of growth, hope, and

[26:55] opportunity across to the American

[26:56] people, particularly in Delaware and in

[26:59] Arizona. Well, I think Steve's been very

[27:01] effective these negative ads. I saw my

[27:03] favorable ratings go from 80% in Iowa

[27:05] down to 50. And uh he spent about $12

[27:09] million, I think, just on just on Bob

[27:11] Dole. He's the king of negative

[27:13] advertising. He gets a title without any

[27:15] contest.

[27:16] >> I think Steve, you're right. You overdid

[27:18] it with those negative ads. And I think

[27:19] Bob, you overdid it up in New Hampshire.

[27:21] And I think there was reaction against

[27:23] both of you.

[27:23] >> Senator Dole in in New Hampshire for his

[27:26] last four days took all of his ads off

[27:28] and ran negative ads against me. Just

[27:30] me. CNN said they were untruthful. They

[27:33] were misleading and they were distorted.

[27:35] Now that's going on, Bob. That needs to

[27:37] stop. We need to be positive. We're

[27:39] going to take a look at some of the

[27:40] negative ads throughout the next 45

[27:42] minutes or so. Uh the first one is an ad

[27:44] that has been run by the Dole campaign.

[27:48] President Pat Buchanan. He says women

[27:51] are simply not endowed by nature with

[27:53] the measure of single-minded ambition

[27:55] and the will to succeed. And he

[27:57] advocates arming South Korea, Japan, and

[27:59] Taiwan with nuclear weapons. He's too

[28:02] extreme and he can't beat Bill Clinton.

[28:05] >> Mr. Buchanan.

[28:06] >> Bob, it is a sign of the rapidity and

[28:09] the hollowess of your campaign that in

[28:12] your 72nd year as majority leader that

[28:14] you're running these kinds of ads. 11th

[28:16] year,

[28:17] >> 35th year in Congress that you're

[28:18] running to ads of these kinds about

[28:20] >> about an old friend that you know are

[28:22] not true and that you went through in

[28:23] New Hampshire.

[28:24] >> Time up, Mr. Buchanan. Senator Dol, do

[28:26] you stand by that ad?

[28:27] >> Well, I just took it out of his columns,

[28:28] but maybe they're not accurate. I always

[28:30] thought they were.

[28:31] >> This is an ad run by the Alexander

[28:33] campaign.

[28:35] >> Bob Dole voted to raise taxes by $320

[28:38] billion. Alexander supports term limits.

[28:41] Dole opposes term limits. Alexander has

[28:44] fresh conservative ideas. After 35 years

[28:47] in Washington, Bob Dole is out of ideas.

[28:51] >> Senator Dole.

[28:53] >> Well, I knew he was running negative

[28:55] ads. I didn't want to bring it up. I

[28:56] didn't want to embarrass him here in

[28:57] front of all these people. But, uh,

[28:59] here's a guy who wanted to be the boy

[29:00] scout up New Hampshire and said none of

[29:02] us should run these kind of ads. And he

[29:03] comes right down here and picks one out,

[29:05] which is not true. I support term

[29:07] limits. I've said I support term limits.

[29:09] In fact, there's an ad watch analysis

[29:11] that ad today that shows that it's

[29:13] completely wrong.

[29:14] >> Governor Alexander, you stand by your

[29:15] ad?

[29:15] >> I absolutely stand by the ad. Bob, the

[29:17] only reason that's on the air is because

[29:19] in six states, including the last five

[29:21] days in New Hampshire, you ran ads about

[29:23] my record that weren't true. You said I

[29:25] had I had a a an income tax in Tennessee

[29:29] when I rejected an income tax.

[29:31] >> This is an ad being run by the Buchanan

[29:33] campaign.

[29:34] >> Dole, Alexander, and Forbes supported a

[29:37] new trade deal with Mexico. They

[29:39] promised it would create jobs. It

[29:40] didn't. Said it would improve our trade

[29:42] balance. It hasn't. They claimed

[29:45] American wages would grow. They haven't.

[29:48] I will rewrite these unfair trade deals

[29:50] that destroy our jobs.

[29:53] >> And gentlemen, Mr. Forbes, would you

[29:55] respond to that, please?

[29:56] >> The problem with NAFTA is not the desire

[29:59] to reduce trade barriers. When trade

[30:01] barriers are reduced, America does

[30:03] genuinely well. We're the most

[30:04] competitive nation in the world. If we

[30:07] reduce barriers here at home on

[30:08] Americans getting ahead, we will

[30:10] continue to be by by far the most

[30:12] competitive nation in the world.

[30:14] >> Mr. Buchanan, you stand by your ad?

[30:15] >> Oh, I certainly do. The problem with

[30:17] NAFTA, Steve, it was a lousy deal to

[30:19] begin with, and we knew it. Your $1

[30:20] billion trade surplus is gone. We got a

[30:22] $15 billion trade deficit with Mexico.

[30:25] 300,000 lost American jobs, many of them

[30:27] in South Carolina. If NAFTA is a

[30:30] success, I would hate to see a failure.

[30:32] We're

[30:32] >> going to take another look at another ad

[30:34] that's been run in this campaign. You

[30:35] will not see the actual ad itself, but

[30:38] this is a transcript and we'll have the

[30:40] words that the ad used and you'll hear

[30:42] those words. This is from the Forbes

[30:44] campaign.

[30:46] Lamar Alexander brags he balanced

[30:48] budgets as governor, but he doesn't tell

[30:50] you he raised taxes four times to do it

[30:53] while doubling state spending. Running

[30:56] for president, Lamar Alexander collects

[30:58] $295,000

[31:00] a year from his law firm that lobbies

[31:02] for special interest in Washington.

[31:05] And Governor Alexander, is that ad

[31:07] accurate?

[31:08] >> Well, I think Steve was right to stop

[31:10] running ads like that. I've never

[31:13] lobbied. I do work for a law firm. I

[31:16] actually have a job outside government.

[31:18] I've resigned that job now that I'm

[31:20] running for president. As far as taxes,

[31:23] after eight years, Steve could have

[31:25] pointed out if he'd been generous that I

[31:28] balanced eight budgets, reduced the

[31:30] state debt, had a AAA bond rating, no

[31:33] personal income tax, and the fifth

[31:34] lowest taxes. Three of the four tax

[31:37] increases he talks about were fee

[31:39] increases to build the best road system

[31:41] in the country. Ronald Reagan did that.

[31:43] We all want better roads. The other one

[31:45] was, I'd do it again. I told the

[31:47] teachers and the people of Tennessee

[31:49] that we would if we would become the

[31:51] first state to pay teachers more for

[31:52] teaching well merit pay that I would pay

[31:55] for it and we did that and it's helped

[31:58] us grow jobs and have a much stronger

[32:01] state economy.

[32:02] >> Thank you. Mr. Forbes, do you stand by

[32:03] your ad?

[32:04] >> I absolutely stand by it. As governor,

[32:06] he did raise taxes. As governor, he did

[32:09] double state spending. And when he

[32:11] became education secretary, he increased

[32:13] the size of that department, too.

[32:15] increase the spending there. So, he

[32:17] talks like a conservative, but he seems

[32:18] to act like a liberal. He also did work

[32:21] for a lobbying firm that paid him

[32:22] $295,000

[32:24] a year. All that is true. Moreover,

[32:26] >> Steve, you haven't learned a single

[32:28] thing in your whole campaign. The

[32:30] negative ads come right out of your

[32:31] mouth. You know that's not true. You

[32:34] spent most of this year changing our

[32:35] Republican party into a negative ad

[32:38] side, starting with Bob Doe next to me,

[32:40] and you should be ashamed of yourself,

[32:42] but continuing that kind of attack.

[32:44] Absolutely wrong,

[32:45] >> Lamar as governor. But that ad, that was

[32:48] a charitable ad. That ad did not talk

[32:50] about some of those cozy business deals

[32:52] you did as governor, investing $1,

[32:55] getting 620,00

[32:57] time up, sir. Thank you very much.

[32:59] >> You should go practice your dirty

[33:01] business on a race for the school board

[33:03] before you try for the president. Your

[33:05] business cozy business deals are not

[33:07] capitalistic. They're reminders.

[33:09] >> My ethics have never been. Would you

[33:11] wait just a minute? My ethics have never

[33:13] been questioned. Never been questioned.

[33:15] Sir, Mr. the United States Senate, a

[33:18] Democratic majority with Senator Dole

[33:20] there examined everything I've done in

[33:22] my life and not one single senator voted

[33:24] against that. You come into this

[33:26] campaign never having run for any

[33:27] office.

[33:30] Let's give the other candidates a chance

[33:31] to talk to

[33:34] how you turn $1 into

[33:38] my turn. I think Bob, can you get them

[33:40] to yield to me? Bob,

[33:41] >> I like what they're doing, BUT I

[33:43] >> I'M ENJOYING THIS. WE'LL YIELD YOU GUYS

[33:45] SOME MORE TIME. NO, let me say this. Let

[33:48] me say this. Look, I you know, let me

[33:51] excuse me. Let me side with Lamar on

[33:53] this. Really? And let me side with Steve

[33:55] Forbes on the issue of I don't care how

[33:57] much Steve Forbes Steve Forbes inherited

[33:59] 400 whatever it was. He inherited the

[34:01] money. So what? Who cares what's in his

[34:04] tax return? Who cares about this

[34:06] nonsense? Why don't we focus this on

[34:08] issues? Focus on what we're going to do

[34:10] for the country. And when we when we

[34:12] criticize an opponent, let's do it. if

[34:13] they stood with NAFTA and GAP and I

[34:15] don't believe in those. I stood against

[34:17] them. Let's argue it on that basis and

[34:19] get away from this personal nonsense

[34:21] that they're doing to Steve. And Steve,

[34:22] I think you're doing to Lamar.

[34:24] >> Mr. Senator Do

[34:27] your opportunity.

[34:28] >> Well, I'm running for president. I don't

[34:30] know what these other guys are running

[34:31] for.

[34:32] >> The South Carolina primary is this

[34:34] Saturday.

[34:44] Now, money in presidential politics.

[34:46] Margaret Warner has that story.

[34:48] >> Money has always played a major role in

[34:50] presidential campaigns, but there are

[34:52] some new wrinkles this year. One is the

[34:54] sheer magnitude of the spending. To

[34:57] explore the consequences of this and

[34:59] other new twists and quirks in the

[35:01] campaign money picture this year, we're

[35:03] joined by two seasoned political hands.

[35:05] Republican consultant Roger Stone, a

[35:07] veteran of Ronald Reagan's presidential

[35:09] campaigns, managed Senator Arlland

[35:11] Spectre's bib this time around. KBY

[35:13] College professor Anthony Curado,

[35:15] managed the money for Democrat Walter

[35:17] Manddale's 1984 campaign, among others.

[35:20] Welcome, gentlemen. Roger Stone, let's

[35:22] look at the sheer magnitude of this. To

[35:25] date, Bob Dole and Steve Forbes each has

[35:27] spent more than all 11 1992 presidential

[35:31] contenders had spent at this point last

[35:34] time. Well,

[35:34] >> why?

[35:35] >> Well, I think there was a perhaps a

[35:37] miscalculation by everyone in the

[35:38] Republican party that because all the

[35:40] primaries were so front-loaded and

[35:41] because 75% of the delegates will be

[35:43] selected by the end of March that you

[35:46] had to spend your load of money early to

[35:48] score early and try to score an early

[35:50] knockout. Of course, that hasn't

[35:51] happened and now each one of these four

[35:53] remaining candidates is in a completely

[35:55] different financial straight.

[35:57] >> Tony Curado, do you have anything to add

[35:59] to that? What has been driving this

[36:00] spending? Well, one of the things I

[36:03] would say is that none of these

[36:04] candidates expected that they would be

[36:05] going against a contender like Steven

[36:07] Forbes, who could spend virtually

[36:09] unlimited amounts of money and therefore

[36:11] really contest the race from out of

[36:13] nowhere. As a result, Forbes has really

[36:15] served to fuel the spending in this

[36:17] race. While we all knew that it would be

[36:19] expensive because of the compressed

[36:21] schedule of primaries, Steven Forbes

[36:23] forced candidates to spend more money

[36:25] earlier than they wanted to,

[36:27] particularly in December where a number

[36:30] of candidates, particularly Graham and

[36:31] Alexander, had to spend a lot more than

[36:33] they wanted on television to prevent

[36:35] Forbes from breaking away. And then more

[36:38] recently, Bob Dole has had to

[36:39] significantly increase his spending in

[36:41] order to keep pace with Forbes and to

[36:44] overcome the challenge he now faces in

[36:46] these primaries. And so Roger Stone, Bob

[36:48] Dole's now in a position where this

[36:49] could backfire on him.

[36:50] >> Well, the irony is that I think just as

[36:52] he's about to begin a pretty significant

[36:54] winning streak because I think Senator

[36:55] Dole will win in South Carolina on

[36:57] Saturday, I think he's very likely to

[36:59] win the junior Tuesday primary in New

[37:01] England and Georgia and Colorado on

[37:04] Tuesday. Uh I think he would then be

[37:06] poised to do well in Super Tuesday. Just

[37:09] as he is poised for takeoff, he's also

[37:11] going to bump into the limits in my view

[37:13] sometime here in late March. Um so as he

[37:16] >> I explain that that the there's a

[37:18] national cap.

[37:19] >> You have a national cap in which each

[37:21] presidential candidate can spend. Bob

[37:23] Dole's problem is not the inability to

[37:24] raise more money. It's the inability to

[37:26] spend more money. U that contrasted with

[37:30] say Lamar Alexander who if he does not

[37:32] get 10% of the vote in the South

[37:33] Carolina primary on Saturday by federal

[37:36] law he would lose his eligibility for

[37:38] federal matching funds. In order to get

[37:40] it back he would have to get 20% of the

[37:42] vote in the very next primary which is

[37:43] the following Tuesday. both in my

[37:45] opinion highly probable over the first

[37:47] one highly unprobable highly probable

[37:50] and the second one unlikely so he may be

[37:52] the first candidate financially to flame

[37:54] out here

[37:54] >> well I want to get back to Alexander but

[37:56] let's just finish up with Dole and

[37:57] Forbes Tony Curado what is your estimate

[38:00] of how much more actually Bob Dole can

[38:02] spend what can he actually spend in the

[38:04] month of March before he basically taps

[38:07] out against this $37 million limit

[38:09] >> well Bob Dole had already spent about

[38:11] $25 million by the end of February and

[38:14] he's Isn't that the end of January?

[38:16] >> Oh, that's the end of January. And then

[38:17] I I estimate that he has spent another 4

[38:19] million to5 million in the month of

[38:21] February. So that he's right up around

[38:23] $30 million now. And he's facing a

[38:26] series of primaries here in the next 14

[38:28] days that are very expensive. Even

[38:30] minimal television buys are going to

[38:32] cost him another million to a million5.

[38:35] And I expect that he is going to be in a

[38:37] position where he will only have three

[38:38] or four million dollars left to spend in

[38:41] the second half of March. And therefore,

[38:43] he is going to be the first presidential

[38:45] candidate who is going to face a very

[38:47] serious limit problem because even if he

[38:50] does well, as Roger just noted, and

[38:52] wraps this up by the third week of March

[38:54] or so, and finishes us off in

[38:56] California, he's going to be sitting

[38:58] there at the first week of April with

[39:00] essentially no more room to spend money.

[39:02] And he has to go all the way to August

[39:04] to his convention before he can refuel.

[39:07] and he's going to be facing a Bill

[39:08] Clinton who will still have at least $10

[39:10] million to spend through the last couple

[39:13] of months of the primaries and that will

[39:15] be a significant advantage.

[39:16] >> I read today, Roger Stone, that Forb

[39:18] said he's going to spend a million

[39:20] dollars on TV just next week just in New

[39:22] York. Is there anything Dole can do to

[39:26] try to match Forb spending or is he

[39:28] absolutely hamstrung by these limits?

[39:30] >> I don't think there's anything Forbes

[39:31] can do, pardon me, Dole can do, but I

[39:33] think there are things that can be done

[39:34] for Dole. For example, when Forbes

[39:36] surged in the Iowa and New Hampshire

[39:38] contests, the realtors, the

[39:40] homebuilders, others who recognized that

[39:43] the flat tax plan would be very

[39:44] threatening to their livelihood stepped

[39:46] forward and educated voters about those

[39:48] plans with radio, with television, with

[39:50] mailings. Now, New York State has the

[39:52] highest income taxes in the United

[39:54] States. Under the Forbes flat tax plan,

[39:57] those taxes would not be deductible on

[39:59] the federal return. Um, I believe a

[40:01] number of the tax groups, uh, the

[40:02] realtors, the home builders are going to

[40:04] step forward and they're going to

[40:06] educate the voters. Now, Dole will be

[40:07] the beneficiary of that. It's not done

[40:09] with his direction or his coordination,

[40:11] but others will step forward to fill

[40:12] this void in my opinion.

[40:14] >> Do you think that can be enough, Tony

[40:15] Curado?

[40:16] >> Well, it may be enough, but we also have

[40:18] to remember that Pat Buchanan is still

[40:20] in this race. And Buchanan is finally in

[40:22] the best financial position that he has

[40:24] ever been in in his two presidential

[40:26] races. He has a very strong direct mail

[40:29] fundraising base and has been raising

[40:31] significant amounts of money, especially

[40:33] from conservative activists, Christian

[40:35] evangelicals, and gun owners who give

[40:38] small contributions that are matched

[40:40] with matching funds. So that he's in a

[40:42] position now where he can still outspend

[40:44] Bob Dole by 10 to 15 million. And I

[40:47] think he's capable of raising that

[40:48] money. And that is going to stretch Dole

[40:50] even further because Dole is going to

[40:52] have to be fending off the Pap Buchanan

[40:54] attacks. He's in a situation where he's

[40:56] not just running against Steve Forbes,

[40:58] he's still running against a

[40:59] multicandidate field and that's the

[41:01] biggest financial predicament he faces

[41:03] now.

[41:04] >> And what is your assessment, Roger

[41:05] Stone, of Buchanan's financial picture?

[41:07] >> Well, you agree with Tony

[41:08] >> partially. Pat Buchkin's got a broad

[41:10] financial base of about 125,000 donors

[41:13] nationally. Um, and they will continue

[41:15] to give as long as Pat continues to

[41:17] provide success. However, if he does not

[41:20] win in South Carolina, if he does not

[41:23] win in Colorado or Georgia or some of

[41:25] the New England states, if he does not

[41:27] win on Super Tuesday in the South,

[41:29] you'll start to see diminishing returns.

[41:31] He will still raise money, but not at

[41:32] the clip that he has been raising it

[41:34] because it's all been based on his

[41:36] surprise success in New Hampshire. So, I

[41:38] I think that the Buchanan has sort of

[41:40] catch22 situation. He can ra he can

[41:42] spend 15 million more dollars if he can

[41:44] raise them, but he can only raise them

[41:46] if if he provides political success and

[41:48] that means victory in some of these

[41:49] primaries.

[41:49] >> And Tony Crow, finally, let's go back to

[41:51] the point that Roger made earlier about

[41:53] Lamar Alexander who has to get at least

[41:56] 10% in South Carolina to even continue

[41:58] qualifying for matching funds. What is

[42:00] your assessment of Alexander's financial

[42:02] picture right now?

[42:03] >> Well, by far Lamar Alexander is in the

[42:05] weakest financial position of all of

[42:07] these candidates. In fact, he is the one

[42:09] who is suffering most from this

[42:10] unforgiving process that he is involved

[42:12] in. He cannot capitalize on the early

[42:16] victories or not really victories but at

[42:17] least moral victories that he received

[42:20] in Iowa and New Hampshire because the

[42:22] time is so tight. Even though he's

[42:24] raising a h 100,000 to $200,000 a day by

[42:27] his own campaign estimates, he's in a

[42:30] process that is much more expensive than

[42:32] that. So, he has had to pick and choose

[42:34] the states he can campaign in. and he

[42:36] has not been able to really take

[42:37] advantage of that early uh push that he

[42:40] got from the Iowa and New Hampshire

[42:42] races and therefore he is really living

[42:44] hand-tomouth. He is in what I call a

[42:46] cash flow nightmare where his campaign

[42:49] is looking at how much money cleared the

[42:50] bank today and how much can we spend and

[42:53] if he does not win soon and I mean by

[42:56] Georgia he is probably going to see most

[42:58] of his resources dry up and he'll be

[43:00] forced to leave the race.

[43:01] >> Well, gentlemen, both of you thanks very

[43:03] much. We have to leave it there.

[43:14] Now, Whitewater and the debate in the

[43:16] Senate over whether to end its special

[43:18] investigation.Wami Hullman reports.

[43:21] >> Recently, the Senate Whitewater hearings

[43:23] have been marked by the sudden discovery

[43:25] of long missing White House documents

[43:27] that had been subpoenaed by the

[43:29] committee.

[43:29] >> This packet of information from Mr.

[43:31] Garin, January 29th.

[43:35] Here's another packet of information.

[43:40] We get again from Mr. Garing.

[43:43] >> February 7th.

[43:45] >> It happened again last week, angering

[43:47] committee chairman Alon Stamato, who

[43:49] demanded a top Clinton aid explain why

[43:52] those documents had been missing for so

[43:54] long.

[43:54] >> We have turned over 14 some thousand

[43:57] pages of documents, I'm told, to this

[43:59] committee alone. Uh we've turned over 50

[44:02] to 60,000 documents in total to various

[44:04] committees in the independent council.

[44:06] We are not hiding anything.

[44:08] >> But Damato said the delay in getting

[44:11] documents left him no choice but to ask

[44:13] that the life of the Whitewater

[44:15] committee be extended.

[44:16] >> By gosh, you just can't withhold things.

[44:19] Tell us let this that we're wasting

[44:21] time, that we're spending taxpayers

[44:23] money inappropriately. And with the

[44:25] committee's authorization set to expire

[44:27] at midnight tonight, Chairman Damato

[44:29] went to the Senate floor this afternoon

[44:31] to urge his colleagues to support an

[44:33] open-ended extension of the committee's

[44:36] work.

[44:36] >> That if we don't set a timeline, it will

[44:38] occasion those who may be attempting

[44:42] to hold back to get past that day to be

[44:44] more forthcoming

[44:46] because they're going to know that these

[44:48] matters, whatever they are, whatever the

[44:49] testimony, whatever the documents are

[44:51] going to come out. Better to let the

[44:53] chips fall where they may now as opposed

[44:57] to later. I suggest to you that we'll

[44:59] probably have a chance a better chance

[45:00] of winding this up sooner rather than

[45:02] later.

[45:03] >> But minority leader Tom Dashel stood to

[45:06] say enough is enough.

[45:07] >> There has never in the history to our

[45:09] knowledge of the United States Senate

[45:12] been a request of this kind. Never. It's

[45:15] unprecedented.

[45:17] No one has ever said, "We want a fishing

[45:19] license to allow us to go on for

[45:21] whatever length of time it takes."

[45:24] That's never been made before. We have

[45:26] never found ourselves in a situation

[45:28] like this in a presidential year.

[45:32] Is it coincidental

[45:34] that given all the problems we see now

[45:36] in the Republican party, they

[45:38] conveniently need another six or seven

[45:40] months to take this into the Republican

[45:42] and Democratic conventions?

[45:44] >> Is that what it's all about?

[45:46] This is unprecedented and it's wrong.

[45:50] >> And Democrats say Senator Damato's case

[45:52] was not helped by the disclosure today

[45:54] of a report to the Federal Deposit

[45:56] Insurance Corporation saying there's no

[45:59] basis to take legal action against the

[46:01] Rose Law Firm for Mrs. Clinton's

[46:03] Whitewater related work. And I might

[46:05] point out and ask the minority leader

[46:07] whether or not he's aware of this, but

[46:08] the earlier report, which this l latest

[46:11] report supplements, concludes, and on

[46:14] page 78 of the report, therefore,

[46:17] pending the results

[46:19] of the criminal case, it is recommended

[46:22] that no further resources be expended on

[46:25] the whitewater part of the

[46:26] investigation. Was the minority leader

[46:28] aware of that conclusion? Well, I'd

[46:30] respond to the distinguished senator

[46:31] from Connecticut that I was not aware

[46:33] until today that the report had been

[46:35] completed and made available and that it

[46:38] had such a resounding exoneration of the

[46:41] Clintons.

[46:42] >> Democrats say they would settle for

[46:43] giving the committee limited funding and

[46:45] extending hearings only through April

[46:48] 3rd.

[46:48] >> Five weeks of additional hearings should

[46:50] be more than adequate to complete the

[46:53] so-called Arkansas phase of this

[46:55] investigation. But committee Republicans

[46:58] say that's unacceptable.

[46:59] >> The other side of this aisle is saying

[47:01] is that we should put a price on the

[47:04] integrity of the White House and it's

[47:06] costing too much to establish whether

[47:10] there is integrity in the White House or

[47:12] not and that we should cut off we and

[47:15] let it go. We we simply cannot afford to

[47:18] establish the integrity of the White

[47:19] House. But as to the length of a

[47:23] hearing,

[47:26] it's the length of a bull fight. It's

[47:29] whose ox is being gored. And right now,

[47:33] the way it is going, I don't see why

[47:36] anyone would not want the hearings to

[47:39] continue. In fact, to clear her pristine

[47:42] name, I would have thought the first

[47:44] lady would have been down here saying,

[47:46] "Please go on with the hearings. I want

[47:49] this cloud removed from my law practice

[47:54] and what I have done in my life prior to

[47:56] being in Washington.

[47:57] >> Senator Damato says he will try again

[47:59] next week to extend the life of the

[48:01] committee and the Republicans do have

[48:03] the votes to do so, but Democrats have

[48:05] the votes to keep debating and prevent

[48:07] the issue from coming up for a vote.

[48:10] Meanwhile, the special whitewater

[48:11] committee hearings have been

[48:13] discontinued.

[48:22] Finally tonight, our second round of

[48:24] Republican candidate stump speeches

[48:26] continues with a Pat Buchanan speech

[48:28] this week in Marietta, Georgia. The

[48:30] Georgia primary is next Tuesday. This

[48:33] >> is our country, my friends. We are the

[48:35] true sons and daughters of the founding

[48:38] fathers, and we are coming to take

[48:40] REPOSSESSION OF OUR FATHER'S HOUSE.

[48:49] They asked me, "What is the objective of

[48:51] your campaign, Pat?" And I said, "We're

[48:54] going TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL

[48:56] REPUBLIC THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS

[48:58] DREAMED OF.

[49:00] What are they doing?

[49:04] What are they DOING WITH THIS MONSTROUS

[49:06] DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?

[49:08] I

[49:09] >> mean, 35 WHAT? $35 BILLION A YEAR. THEY

[49:13] GOT THESE CHARACTERS UP THERE IN SANDALS

[49:14] AND BEADS trying to tell us how to

[49:17] educate America's children.

[49:24] >> I'll tell you, you know, Ronald Reagan

[49:27] when he CAME INTO OFFICE, HE SAID HE WAS

[49:30] GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE Department of

[49:31] Education.

[49:34] >> He didn't do it.

[49:36] But you tell the gipper, I'm going to

[49:37] finish the job for him.

[49:40] When we get there,

[49:46] Mr. President,

[49:48] Ronald Reagan's 85 years old. Mr.

[49:50] President, when we get there, no more

[49:52] goals 2000. No more outcomebased

[49:54] education. Shut down the US Department

[49:56] of Education. Give the money back to the

[49:58] people.

[50:01] My friends,

[50:03] we have a great movement and a great

[50:05] cause here. It is larger than any man.

[50:07] It is larger than me. It is what you are

[50:10] about. But it's what our country's

[50:11] about. People want to take back America.

[50:13] We know they gotten too. Both parties up

[50:16] there are gotten away FROM US. BOTH

[50:17] PARTIES BEEN SELLING OUT the workers IN

[50:19] THIS COUNTRY. BOTH PARTIES BEEN HAULING

[50:21] HAULING WATER FOR WALL STREET. HAULING

[50:23] WATER FOR THOSE BIG CORPORATIONS. THEY

[50:25] SHUT DOWN FACTORIES HERE, ship the jobs

[50:28] overseas. We got to become one nation,

[50:30] one people under God again.

[50:33] >> All of us.

[50:37] >> And we're going to do it. tell you

[50:40] and we're winning. We're winning. You

[50:42] know, Bob, they're all they they are

[50:44] going they're having a hissy fit up

[50:46] there in Washington.

[50:48] They are unhappy in Washington tonight.

[50:51] >> They heard they HEARD THE NOISE FROM

[50:53] ALASKA AND THEY SAID, "WELL, WHAT WHAT

[50:55] HAPPENED UP THERE?" THEY SAID, "SOMEBODY

[50:56] BUCHANAN WON UP THERE."

[50:57] >> And then CAME OUT OF LOUISIANA IN THE

[50:59] BAYOU

[51:00] >> AND they were stunned.

[51:02] >> Then we got THREE POINTS FROM BOB DOLE

[51:04] UP THERE IN IOWA.

[51:05] >> They said Buchanan is made. THEN WE WON

[51:07] NEW HAMPSHIRE and they're going wild up

[51:10] there in Washington right now. THEY'RE

[51:12] UNSETTLED. BOB DOLE SAID HE'S NERVOUS.

[51:13] HE SAID, "I THINK PAT'S an extremist."

[51:16] >> And I said, "Listen, Bob, HOW CAN I BE

[51:18] AN EXTREMIST WHEN YOU'RE STEALING ALL MY

[51:20] IDEAS AND PARODYING my rhetoric?"

[51:24] Bob

[51:26] heard Bob Dole gave a speech

[51:29] Bob gave a SPEECH THE OTHER DAY. HE

[51:31] SAID, "LISTEN, THERE'S I DON'T LIKE this

[51:32] garbage that's in the movies." YOU KNOW,

[51:34] BOB HASN'T seen a movie in 30 years.

[51:38] The last one he WENT TO WAS THE SOUND OF

[51:39] MUSIC,

[51:41] BUT HE'S ALL TALKING ABOUT THE CULTURAL

[51:43] WAR FOR THE SOUL OF AMERICA. I told him

[51:45] we keep it up. I'm going to get him for

[51:46] copyright violation.

[51:49] And how about old Bill Clinton? You

[51:51] know, look at you. Somebody's heard that

[51:52] State of the Union. One of that fellow

[51:55] immish in the morning fella. That was a

[51:57] great state of the union. I think

[51:58] Patrick Cannon wrote that.

[52:00] Here's Clinton. HERE'S A GUY TRYING TO

[52:02] GRAB THE ENTIRE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WITH

[52:03] the help of Hillary

[52:05] >> and he's up there IN THE STATE OF THE

[52:06] UNION. THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS

[52:08] OVER.

[52:10] >> 1996 Clinton's running against a guy who

[52:12] was president 1994.

[52:15] A year later he's going to we're going

[52:16] TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT ILLEGAL

[52:17] IMMIGRATION. CLINTON SAYS CLINTON SAID,

[52:19] "THIS GUY SHAMELESS. WE GOT TO GET

[52:20] PRAYER BACK IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. LET

[52:23] ME TELL YOU, YOU ALL WAIT. YOU WAIT.

[52:26] TWO, three weeks. Clinton will come

[52:28] saing into one of those National Rifle

[52:30] Association meetings.

[52:34] He'll be all he'd be dressed up in those

[52:37] camouflage combat camouflage outfit and

[52:40] the fatigue hats, you know, holding up

[52:43] an AK-47

[52:45] SAYING, "DON'T TRY TO TAKE MY FIREARMS

[52:47] AWAY FROM ME.

[52:50] This guy is shameless."

[52:52] You know,

[52:54] you know, Clint says,

[52:57] >> you know what he says?

[52:59] He says, wait, says, Mr. Clinton says,

[53:02] there's nobody I'd like to run better

[53:03] against and bill than Much Cannon. Let

[53:06] me tell you something, MR. PRESIDENT.

[53:07] THERE'S NOBODY I'D ENJOY BETTER RUNNING

[53:09] AGAINST THAN YOU, SIR.

[53:16] You know how

[53:19] >> you know how

[53:35] you know how let me tell you something.

[53:38] >> You know how Bill Clinton will look at

[53:39] some some fell in audience and get that

[53:41] hurt look on his face?

[53:44] You say, "I feel your pain."

[53:49] >> You give me the Republican nomination

[53:51] and he will feel the pain.

[54:02] >> Listen, my friends,

[54:04] what a magnificent reception down here.

[54:07] This country's on fire. George is on

[54:10] fire. This country's on fire. You know,

[54:12] one week, one, four years ago, we came

[54:15] down here out of New Hampshire, out of

[54:16] the snow. We didn't know what to expect.

[54:18] And the wonderful people of Georgia took

[54:20] us to their hearts. We campaigned up and

[54:22] down this state. We took that great bus

[54:24] tour all the way down nine cities to

[54:25] Fitzgerald and back up to Atlanta and

[54:27] Marietta right here. And I'll tell you,

[54:30] we did as good as we could. We got 37%

[54:32] of the vote.

[54:34] >> I look out this crowd. I think we're

[54:36] going to do a little better than that. I

[54:37] think we're going to carry Georgia.

[54:40] at Buchanan in Marietta, Georgia.

[54:51] Again, the major stories of this

[54:53] Thursday. President Clinton warned Cuba

[54:55] not to interfere with the memorial

[54:56] flotillaa honoring four Cubanameans shot

[54:59] down last Saturday. The Senate debated a

[55:01] Republican proposal to extend the

[55:03] Whitewater hearings indefinitely.

[55:05] Democrats Democrats blocked a vote on

[55:07] that measure. The House passed a bill to

[55:09] overhaul government farm programs and

[55:12] television executives said they would go

[55:13] along with a program rating system being

[55:16] urged by the Clinton administration.

[55:18] We'll see you tomorrow night with

[55:19] Shields and Jig Go among other things.

[55:21] I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night.

[55:25] >> Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[55:27] Lara has been provided by the Archer

[55:29] Daniels Midland Company, ADM,

[55:32] Supermarket to the World,

[55:35] and by New York Life. Yet another

[55:38] example of New York Life's wise

[55:40] investment philosophy

[55:44] and by the Corporation for Public

[55:46] Broadcasting and by the annual financial

[55:49] support from viewers like you.

[56:22] Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim

[56:24] Ler are available from PBS video. Call 1

[56:27] 800328

[56:29] PBS1.

[56:35] This is PBS.

[56:45] Funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lair

[56:47] has been provided by the professional

[56:49] contractors of the NECA and Union

[56:52] Electricians of IBW Local 48. Working

[56:55] together to realize your vision for the

[56:57] future and by Activate Cellular Sales.

[57:00] It's simple. Available at major malls

[57:02] throughout the Northwest.

[57:20] There's a lot of wildlife in this hot,

[57:22] dry part of the state that you won't see

[57:24] by driving through. You have to stop and