PBS NewsHour - 1996-02-20 (New Hampshire primary)

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

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

[0:08] NewsHour tonight, decision day in New

[0:10] Hampshire. Mark Shields and Paulig Go

[0:12] take a final look. The governor's way to

[0:15] reform welfare.Wami Homeman reports.

[0:17] Charlene Hunter Gaul talks to two

[0:19] governors and two critics. And the

[0:21] sentences in the Rodney King case go

[0:23] before the US Supreme Court. Jeffrey Kay

[0:26] reports. Elizabeth Farnsworth debriefs

[0:28] Steuart Taylor. It all follows our

[0:30] summary of the news this Tuesday. Major

[0:33] funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lara

[0:35] has been provided by the Archer Daniels

[0:37] Midland Company, ADM, Supermarket to the

[0:40] World,

[0:42] and by New York Life, yet another

[0:45] example of New York Life's wise

[0:48] investment philosophy,

[0:51] and by the Corporation for Public

[0:53] Broadcasting, and by the annual

[0:55] financial support from viewers like you.

[0:59] >> Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire

[1:00] primary tonight. All four television

[1:02] networks declared the former news comp

[1:05] commentator the victor. Here are the

[1:07] latest returns with 40% of the precincts

[1:09] reporting. Buchanan won at least 28% of

[1:12] the vote. Senator Bob Dole, the presumed

[1:14] front runner for the Republican

[1:15] nomination, came in second with 26%.

[1:18] Lamar Alexander ran third. Steve Forbes

[1:21] was fourth. President Clinton won the

[1:23] Democratic primary. He had no

[1:25] opposition. Today's turnout was a

[1:27] record. According to state election

[1:28] officials, they projected 192,000

[1:31] registered voters participated in the

[1:34] Republican primary. That breaks all

[1:36] previous records. Long lines at polling

[1:38] places for some of them to remain open

[1:40] after the scheduled 8:00 p.m. closing

[1:42] time. We'll have more about the primary

[1:44] right after the news summary and later

[1:46] tonight on a NewsHour special at 10:00

[1:49] Eastern time. In economic news today,

[1:52] the index of leading economic indicators

[1:54] was up for the first time in three

[1:55] months. The conference board, a business

[1:58] research group, reported the increase

[1:59] was2% in December. And Federal Reserve

[2:02] Chairman Alan Greenspan said 1996 will

[2:05] be a good year for growth and low

[2:07] inflation. In his semiannual report to

[2:09] Congress, Greenspan said the economy's

[2:11] recent weakness should prove only

[2:13] temporary. Also in Washington today, a

[2:16] House committee held the first hearing

[2:17] on a welfare reform proposal of the

[2:19] nation's governors. The bipartisan plan

[2:22] was adopted two weeks ago at the

[2:23] governor's annual winter meeting. They

[2:25] said it could resolve the long-running

[2:27] budget dispute between the president and

[2:29] the Republican Congress. At today's

[2:31] hearing, they drew reactions from both

[2:33] sides. Republicans said it was time for

[2:36] significant change.

[2:38] I want to offer a message to my Democrat

[2:40] colleagues and to President Clinton.

[2:43] To those who have defended the state

[2:45] status quo, you created today's welfare

[2:48] system. believe in it. It was in the

[2:50] best interest of our nation and it was

[2:54] best interest to the poor and our needy.

[2:56] You had your chance. You fought your

[2:58] fight. The fight has been lost. You

[3:00] meant well, but today's Washington run

[3:03] federally controlled welfare system is a

[3:05] disaster. I say to you, let it go.

[3:09] >> Democrats said the welfare system needs

[3:12] to be restructured, but without

[3:13] stripping protection from people who

[3:15] need it most.

[3:17] We need to rebalance the partnership

[3:20] between the federal and state

[3:21] governments in this area. That's clear.

[3:24] The states must have larger

[3:26] responsibility.

[3:28] But that responsibility must also be

[3:31] blended with a reasonable measure of

[3:33] accountability

[3:34] because the national interest is also

[3:37] clear to break the cycle of dependency

[3:40] and births out of wedlock and to help

[3:41] the children in the welfare system. not

[3:44] by punishing them, but moving their

[3:46] parents from welfare to work.

[3:49] >> We'll have more on this story later in

[3:50] the program. The new leader of the

[3:53] National Association for the Advancement

[3:55] of Colored People, the NAACP, was sworn

[3:57] in this morning. Former Congressman

[3:59] Quaume, became president of the nation's

[4:02] oldest civil rights group. President

[4:04] Clinton attended the ceremony in the

[4:06] great hall of the Justice Department in

[4:08] Washington. At the White House,

[4:10] Transportation Secretary Federico Pena

[4:13] issued new railroad safety rules. They

[4:15] restrict the speed at which a passenger

[4:17] train may leave a station among other

[4:19] things. The new regulations followed by

[4:22] 4 days a rail crash and fire that killed

[4:24] eight passengers and three crew members

[4:27] in Silver Spring, Maryland. A commuter

[4:29] train collided with Amtrak's Capital

[4:31] Limited at a speed twice as fast as it

[4:34] should have been going. Pena said the

[4:36] rules go into effect at midnight

[4:38] tonight. You will see four things done.

[4:40] Number one, the rule that says that the

[4:44] train will proceed with caution when it

[4:46] comes into a station or slows down under

[4:48] 10 miles an hour applies immediately.

[4:51] The requirement to call signals out from

[4:54] the engineer uh to the conductor is also

[4:57] an immediate application. The

[4:59] requirement to check all the emergency

[5:01] exits and make sure that they are

[5:02] working is an immediate requirement. and

[5:04] their plan to submit a a the proposal to

[5:06] submit a plan to us within 45 days of

[5:08] course takes effect. Now the 45 days are

[5:10] ticking.

[5:11] >> At the Supreme Court today, justices

[5:13] heard arguments in a case stemming from

[5:15] the beating of Rodney King 5 years ago

[5:17] in Los Angeles. At issue are the prison

[5:20] sentences of two LA police officers

[5:22] convicted of violating King civil

[5:25] rights. We'll have more on this story

[5:26] later in the program. The Oklahoma

[5:29] bombing trial was moved to Denver today.

[5:31] A federal judge said the change of venue

[5:33] was necessary to guarantee the

[5:35] defendants a fair trial. He agreed with

[5:37] defense lawyers that intense media

[5:39] coverage made a fair trial impossible in

[5:41] Oklahoma. Timothy McVey and Terry

[5:44] Nichols face federal charges of murder

[5:46] and conspiracy for last April's bombing

[5:48] that killed 169 people, injured more

[5:51] than 500. In Bosnia today, Serbs fled

[5:55] the suburbs of Sievo after their leaders

[5:57] ordered them to evacuate rather than

[6:00] live under a Muslim Croat government.

[6:03] Dozens of trucks and cars began the

[6:05] exodus. There are an estimated 50,000

[6:08] Serbs currently living in the Bosnian

[6:10] capital. The Bosnian peace accords call

[6:12] for Sievo to be unified under the

[6:15] control of the Muslim Croat Federation

[6:17] by next month. That process was already

[6:20] beginning in the city of Mostar today.

[6:23] Free movement was allowed between Croat

[6:25] and Muslim sections of the city for the

[6:27] first time, but it broke down after an

[6:29] hour with the two sides demonstrating

[6:31] against each other. And that's it for

[6:34] the news summary tonight. Now, it's on

[6:35] to some last overview words from Shields

[6:38] and Chico on the New Hampshire primary,

[6:40] welfare reform, and the Rodney King case

[6:44] before the US Supreme Court.

[6:56] The polls are closing in New Hampshire

[6:58] and soon the results and thus the

[6:59] Republican winners and losers will be

[7:01] known in the first primary of the

[7:03] presidential election season. We go to

[7:06] Shields and Chigo now for some closing

[7:08] overview thoughts about it all.

[7:10] Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall

[7:11] Street Journal columnist Paul Shiggo.

[7:14] First, Paul, was this the meanest New

[7:16] Hampshire primary in recent history, as

[7:18] everybody says it was?

[7:19] >> I think that our memory about meanness

[7:22] tends to fade with time, like all bad

[7:24] memories. And I I I think that we

[7:26] overestimate in the current round of any

[7:28] given uh political race. Uh the meanness

[7:32] that goes on now, there's no question

[7:34] that there's been a lot of rough stuff

[7:36] here.

[7:37] >> Rough stuff. Rough stuff beyond the

[7:39] pale. Rough stuff that was not was too

[7:42] much. No, I I I think that where it did

[7:44] go beyond the pale was there were some

[7:45] uh some lies told. Uh I think that Bob

[7:48] Dole in particular, this the ad he ran

[7:50] about Steve Merrill's flat tax, Steve

[7:51] Merrill ran, the governor of New

[7:53] Hampshire ran about the study was based

[7:55] on a study about the flat tax which

[7:57] simply wasn't true. There were some of

[7:58] those excesses taken. Uh but uh I think

[8:02] this is other than the fact that a lot

[8:04] of more of this appeared on television,

[8:07] I think that this was not all that much

[8:09] more unusual than a lot of other uh uh

[8:11] primaries in the past.

[8:12] >> So when we go from this this New

[8:14] Hampshire primary, we will not it will

[8:16] not be remembered. All remember New

[8:18] Hampshire 1996. That was the meanest New

[8:21] Hampshire primary of all time. You don't

[8:23] think that will be remeded?

[8:25] I don't remember William Loe and uh the

[8:27] union leader back playing uh uh uh bean

[8:30] bag and I don't remember I remember when

[8:32] Nelson Rockefeller beat the heck out of

[8:34] Barry Goldwater and uh there was a lot

[8:36] of rough stuff going on before people

[8:38] called Ronald Reagan an extremist.

[8:40] >> Yeah.

[8:40] >> So there was some rough stuff before.

[8:42] >> One of uh Mark Shields is going to join

[8:44] us in a moment. He's up there in New

[8:46] Hampshire and Hey Mark, can you hear me?

[8:48] >> Hey Jim, I sure

[8:49] >> hey we were having audio problems. Did

[8:51] you hear what weigh in on the mean

[8:53] question please sir? Did you hear that?

[8:55] Is this

[8:55] >> I I haven't I haven't been able to

[8:57] >> All right. Question question I just

[8:58] asked Paul is this. This the word today

[9:00] is this is the meanest New Hampshire

[9:02] primary in recent history. Do you agree?

[9:05] >> Um boy, there've been some mean ones,

[9:08] but it it's been mean. It's been tough.

[9:11] Uh the it's one of the few times, Jim,

[9:13] where I've seen candidates out in front

[9:15] uh go after those behind them. Uh,

[9:18] usually it's the negative is is somebody

[9:20] uh going after somebody up front to

[9:23] bring him back to the field, but Senator

[9:25] Dole certainly spent a good part as the

[9:27] front runner of the last week uh

[9:30] pointing out the character,

[9:31] biographical, and moral defects of Lamar

[9:34] Alexander and Pat Buchanan.

[9:35] >> Yeah. Mark, uh, in general terms, uh, as

[9:38] as we the people of voting are voting

[9:41] now, or most of them have already voted.

[9:43] Is it fair to say that the people of New

[9:46] Hampshire got a good, square, clean look

[9:49] at these candidates?

[9:51] >> I think they got a good look. I mean, I

[9:52] think New Hampshire probably reasserted

[9:54] itself as the uh uh as the principal

[9:57] place where these decisions are going to

[9:59] be made, rightly or wrongly. uh the two

[10:02] candidates who flirted with other

[10:03] states, Phil Graham from the senator

[10:05] from Texas flirted with Arizona and

[10:08] Delaware and Steve Forbes uh went to

[10:11] Delaware and in both cases it it

[10:15] redounded to their detriment. Uh Mr.

[10:17] Graham never made it to New Hampshire

[10:18] but uh New Hampshire voters take this

[10:21] responsibility very seriously. I mean in

[10:24] spite of the negiveness of the campaign

[10:25] or whatever else uh the turnout today

[10:28] looks to be pretty impressive. But uh

[10:30] Paul the the the question is did the

[10:33] people get see the re the real Steve

[10:36] Forbes and what he stands for the real

[10:38] Bob Dole and what he stands for the real

[10:40] Lamar Alexander etc etc and on down the

[10:43] line was it was it at the retail level

[10:45] level and other levels did they see the

[10:48] real candidate

[10:48] >> well it this New Hampshire primary was

[10:51] less retail in that doortodoor sense

[10:53] that has grown up in New Hampshire lore

[10:56] than other New Hampshire primaries.

[10:58] There was more of it in on television.

[11:00] There were more staged events than in

[11:02] the past. There was less interaction

[11:05] with average voters, but there was still

[11:07] a lot more of all of that than you'll

[11:09] get in most other places. And I think

[11:11] Mark is right that that that New

[11:12] Hampshire has still reasserted itself uh

[11:16] as a very good vetting ground and

[11:18] particularly in a Republican primary. I

[11:20] mean, you can fit the Democrats in New

[11:21] Hampshire in a phone booth, but at the

[11:23] Republican primary level, this is a

[11:25] pretty good test of the Republican uh uh

[11:28] electorate. It's a diverse enough

[11:30] electorate. And um I think they got to

[11:33] they got to size up the candidates

[11:34] pretty well. What about uh uh the

[11:37] Republican party and the test of the

[11:39] Republican party of its of its extremes

[11:42] and what it stands for and what it

[11:44] doesn't stand for and what these

[11:45] candidates stand for? Mark, how would

[11:47] you rate that in terms of what came out

[11:49] in New Hampshire?

[11:50] >> Well, I I think, Jim, that the

[11:51] Republicans have a have a problem. They

[11:53] they are the anti-government party, just

[11:55] as the Democrats have been historically

[11:57] the progovernment party. And uh when

[11:59] your when your theme is anti-government

[12:02] uh and you've spent a good part of 1995

[12:04] really delegitimizing uh what government

[12:07] has done in the past in the areas

[12:08] environment or education or health and

[12:10] safety, it becomes a liability to have

[12:13] governmental experience. I mean, here's

[12:15] Bob Dole, who by any measurement has a

[12:17] long distinguished uh legislative

[12:20] career. And uh somehow up here last

[12:23] Friday night at the Christian Coalition

[12:26] meeting where Elizabeth Dole, his wife,

[12:28] substituted for him, she went to great

[12:30] lengths to emphasize that in 1979, Bob

[12:33] Dole had appointed opposed the creation

[12:36] of the Department of Education.

[12:37] Everybody else is calling for its

[12:38] abolition now, including Lamar

[12:40] Alexander, who was its secretary. But I

[12:42] mean, I think that that has It's it's

[12:45] intriguing that Dick Luger uh who was a

[12:48] respected United States senator, it's

[12:51] almost like he was carrying a burden

[12:52] because he had been a public servant.

[12:55] >> How do you feel about that, Paul?

[12:56] >> I there's a lot of hostility in the

[12:58] Republican party to what's been going on

[13:00] in Washington. And to be identified with

[13:04] the the welfare state that's been built

[13:06] up over 30 years is no great asset in

[13:08] the Republican party. There's no

[13:09] question about it. I think the the the

[13:11] the problems that have erupted though in

[13:13] New Hampshire and the Republican party

[13:14] are a little different. I think the

[13:15] fissures between the economic and the

[13:17] social conservatives that began you you

[13:20] saw a little bit in Iowa have been

[13:21] exacerbated uh in New Hampshire with

[13:23] Buchanan the the Phil Graham was a

[13:26] candidate who could appeal to both but

[13:28] ended up appealing not very much to

[13:30] either. Bob Dole is somebody who could

[13:31] appeal to both, but his weakness has

[13:34] tended to create openings for first

[13:35] Steve Forbes to speak for the economic

[13:37] conservatives, now Pat Buchanan for the

[13:40] for the cultural conservatives. So, you

[13:41] have those divisions, I think, showing

[13:43] up a lot more sharply than they have in

[13:46] previous Republican contests. Yeah,

[13:48] Mark. Uh, without we don't know the

[13:50] results yet, so it's uh we're we're not

[13:52] even not even Mark Shields and Chico are

[13:55] going to talk about the results until we

[13:56] have them. But but it's it's safe to say

[13:58] at this point that there's going to be

[14:00] at least three, possibly four candidates

[14:04] to to continue very strongly coming out

[14:06] of this, right? If it runs as closely at

[14:08] the top as it appears to, all the all of

[14:11] the uh the polls going in say, in other

[14:13] words, Dole, uh, Buchanan and Alexander

[14:16] are definitely going to be there. Maybe

[14:18] Forbes Luger will probably stay as well.

[14:20] Is that correct?

[14:21] >> Well, I I don't know what Senator Luger

[14:23] will do, Jim, but I think we're reaching

[14:26] the point where moral victories don't

[14:27] count uh for much and better than

[14:30] expected are no longer satisfactory to

[14:33] on a losing election night. I I think if

[14:36] Senator Dole were to win New Hampshire,

[14:37] it's a big victory for him. Uh

[14:39] >> even if he even if he wins by just a

[14:41] hair,

[14:41] >> even if he wins by a hair, Pat Buchanan

[14:44] is not going to go away. I mean, Pat

[14:45] Buchanan was interesting after his good

[14:48] showing in Iowa, came in here and got

[14:49] intense scrutiny, often times hostile

[14:52] scrutiny uh from his opponents and from

[14:54] many in the press this past week. And it

[14:56] may very well have stalled uh his

[14:58] candidacy here in in a chance that if he

[15:01] doesn't win, I think that the past week

[15:03] probably would account for it. uh Lamar

[15:05] Alexander got less of that. Uh he will

[15:07] get more especially I think on his f

[15:09] personal finances in the weeks ahead.

[15:11] But I I think that uh the uh the problem

[15:14] is going to be that Buchanan doesn't

[15:16] need money. Uh and and Alexander does uh

[15:20] Al and I I think that's the difference.

[15:23] I think Buchanan can keep going on the

[15:25] on the land and coach tickets and a rip

[15:28] and read off a off a UPI wire ticket.

[15:30] He's that's the kind of campaign he has.

[15:32] You agree Paul that it that that Dole

[15:35] Alexander and Buchanan are going to go

[15:38] on from New Hampshire. They for sure

[15:40] whether Forbes and Luger and the others

[15:42] do is is is up for up for grabs. But

[15:45] that the first three are not.

[15:46] >> If Lamar Alexander is close enough to

[15:48] the first two uh to credibly say um I

[15:52] have a chance to win some of the

[15:53] primaries, he's definitely going to go

[15:54] on. In particular, if Bob Dole loses

[15:56] here, uh then I think it's wide open.

[15:58] Steve Forbes has the money to go on

[16:00] elsewhere. He's got an awful lot of

[16:01] money, close to a million dollars

[16:02] invested in New York into that arcane

[16:05] primary maze that Al Damato has set up

[16:07] there. Uh he's on the ballot there. So,

[16:09] he's going to be uh loathed to get out

[16:11] before then.

[16:12] >> All right. Well, thank you. Uh and we'll

[16:14] Yeah, I'm sorry, Mark. We got to go. We

[16:16] got to go. And we'll pick up this

[16:17] discussion at uh 10:00 Eastern time on

[16:20] most of these public television stations

[16:22] tonight after the results are known.

[16:23] Thank you all very much.

[16:35] Now, the governors came to Washington

[16:37] today with a plan to reform welfare.

[16:39] Charlene Hunter G has the story.

[16:42] >> One of the biggest fights in this year's

[16:44] budget battle has been and remains over

[16:46] welfare reform. In the latest round, two

[16:50] of the nation's governors, a Republican

[16:51] and a Democrat, went to Capitol Hill

[16:54] today to try and sell their proposed

[16:56] bipartisan solution.Wami Hullman begins

[16:58] our report.

[17:00] >> The governors wrote their welfare plan

[17:02] during several days of meetings in

[17:04] Washington two weeks ago and adopted it

[17:06] unanimously. Today, two of the principal

[17:08] authors of the plan, Republican Tommy

[17:10] Thompson of Wisconsin and Democrat Tom

[17:13] Carper of Delaware, brought their plan

[17:15] to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee

[17:17] on Human Resources. The committee

[17:19] charged with turning it into

[17:20] legislation. Republican Klay Shaw is

[17:23] subcommittee chairman.

[17:24] >> This current welfare system is a

[17:26] tragedy. It saps the strength of our

[17:28] fellow citizens who find themselves on

[17:30] welfare. It destroys their dreams for

[17:33] tomorrow and it takes away their hope

[17:35] for today.

[17:37] allowing it to continue without change,

[17:40] which is the only hope of the Liberals

[17:41] who oppose a bipartisan governor's plan,

[17:44] would be a farce. For the sake of both

[17:46] the poor and for the taxpayers, let's

[17:49] not let that happen.

[17:50] >> The governor's plan is similar to a

[17:52] welfare reform plan already approved by

[17:55] Congress, but vetoed by President

[17:57] Clinton last month. Both plans would end

[18:00] the current entitlement status of aid to

[18:02] families with dependent children and

[18:04] curtail spending on other federal

[18:06] assistance programs. But the governors

[18:08] would set aside $15 billion over 7 years

[18:11] for child care, 4 billion more than was

[18:14] offered by Congress. The governor's plan

[18:16] also would make a $2 billion emergency

[18:19] fund available to states during an

[18:21] economic downturn. That's double what

[18:23] Congress passed. Federal assistance

[18:25] money, including funding for the food

[18:27] stamp program, would be distributed

[18:29] through block grants, allowing each

[18:31] state to design its own programs, but

[18:33] with some federal restrictions. As in

[18:36] the congressional welfare bill, adults

[18:38] would be required to find work within 2

[18:40] years. But the governor's plan would

[18:42] allow states to exempt from the work

[18:44] requirement parents with a child under

[18:47] age 1 and limit the work requirement to

[18:50] 20 hours a week for parents with a child

[18:52] under age six. States also could count

[18:55] up to 12 weeks of job search and

[18:57] training as fulfilling the work

[18:59] requirement. As in the congressional

[19:02] bill, states could restrict benefits for

[19:04] additional children born to families

[19:06] already on welfare. And states also

[19:09] would receive bonuses for reducing the

[19:11] number of out of wedlock births. But

[19:14] Democrat Harold Ford of Tennessee told

[19:16] the governors their plan is too

[19:18] restrictive and questioned how they

[19:19] would protect the youngest welfare

[19:21] recipients while requiring their parents

[19:23] to go to work.

[19:24] >> And we're talking about block grannon or

[19:27] handing over to the state's billions of

[19:29] dollars. Uh where are the checks and

[19:33] balances that we can check to see

[19:35] whether or not your performance is is is

[19:37] good, whether or not children are being

[19:39] protected here. We want to make sure

[19:41] that welfare recipients become

[19:43] self-sufficient as you said earlier of

[19:45] of the the government. However, we want

[19:48] to make sure that the the 10 million

[19:49] children who are on welfare are in fact

[19:52] protected and women who are able to work

[19:55] if they need the proper training and

[19:56] education that we provide that. I don't

[19:58] want my governor in my state uh to to

[20:01] look at a a a a a welfare proposal in in

[20:05] your state and think for some strange

[20:07] reason because you've had great success

[20:09] stories in your two counties that I in

[20:12] my hometown or my state would have those

[20:14] same success stories. All of us are

[20:17] concerned across this country, Democrats

[20:19] and Republicans alike, for children, for

[20:22] the poor,

[20:24] for the sick, for the elderly.

[20:27] We think as governors, Democrats and

[20:29] Republicans alike, that we can do a much

[20:31] better job if you give us the

[20:32] flexibility. One size does not fit all.

[20:35] Wisconsin is not like Delaware. It is

[20:37] not like Tennessee. Give me the

[20:39] opportunity to set up a program that

[20:41] works in Wisconsin and moves people off

[20:44] of welfare into work. Set some federal

[20:47] standards, some general standards that

[20:49] we have to comply with and come back

[20:51] year after year if you want to and see

[20:53] whether or not we're hitting that bar.

[20:55] And I'll assure you just as I'm sitting

[20:58] here, we will surpass those bars and we

[21:02] will be able to demonstrate to you and

[21:04] to all members up there that we can do a

[21:06] better job if we have the flexibility

[21:09] and the opportunity to set up individual

[21:11] programs in our respective states, be

[21:13] you a Democrat or Republican.

[21:15] >> Republican Phil English of Pennsylvania

[21:18] wondered if the governor's plan is

[21:19] restrictive enough. uh what you have

[21:21] proposed uh as I understand it is that

[21:25] you are shooting for a more modest work

[21:29] participation requirement moving toward

[21:31] 25 hours per week. Uh and I wonder uh do

[21:36] you believe that that could be

[21:37] legitimately criticized as week on work

[21:41] or do you believe you can take this

[21:43] provision and and run with it?

[21:45] >> A lot of the people that were trying to

[21:46] move from welfare to work don't have

[21:48] much education. a lot of dropped out of

[21:50] high school. What we're doing in my

[21:51] state when somebody shows up at a

[21:52] welfare office, we're not interested in

[21:54] saying we want to spend two years or

[21:56] four years training you be ready to go

[21:58] to work. We want to try to get them to

[22:00] work right away. Sometimes the best the

[22:02] best training a person can get is

[22:03] actually on the job. And what we

[22:05] anticipate doing while people are

[22:06] working getting into to work, maybe they

[22:08] go to work at McDonald's, maybe they're

[22:10] flipping hamburgers, but the idea is not

[22:11] for them to continue to flip hamburgers

[22:13] for the next 20 years. The idea is for

[22:14] them to to get the skills on the job and

[22:17] maybe uh going to school part-time so

[22:19] that they can become the uh the night

[22:21] manager or maybe eventually the day

[22:22] manager and eventually maybe own their

[22:24] own uh their own franchise themselves.

[22:26] That should be what we're about.

[22:27] >> The governor's urged Congress to move

[22:29] quickly to turn their welfare reform

[22:31] plan into legislation. Even though the

[22:33] Clinton administration has yet to take a

[22:35] position on the governor's welfare

[22:37] blueprint,

[22:39] >> the opposition to the plan comes from

[22:41] both the right and the left. And that's

[22:43] the fight we try and join. Now, here to

[22:46] defend their plan are two governors.

[22:48] Republican Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin,

[22:50] chairman of the National Governor's

[22:52] Association, and Democratic Governor

[22:54] Gaston Caperton, who is with us from

[22:56] Charleston, West Virginia. In the

[22:58] opposition corner on the right, we have

[23:01] Christy Hamrich of the Family Research

[23:03] Council. And on the left from Skenctity,

[23:06] New York, we have Terresa Funachello, an

[23:08] author of books on the welfare system

[23:11] and a former welfare recipient. Coming

[23:13] back to you, Miss Henrik, what is your

[23:15] overall objection to the governor's

[23:17] proposal? Well, the answer to a failed

[23:20] federal welfare system with a bloated

[23:23] bureaucracy and programs that have

[23:25] institutionalized bad incentives. I'll

[23:27] give you more money if you don't marry,

[23:29] if you don't name the father of your

[23:31] children, if you have more children, if

[23:33] you don't work. All these incentives in

[23:35] place with money tied to them. Uh, and

[23:38] so we say, look, this program is broken

[23:39] down. We need to fix it. And instead,

[23:41] the answer to that can't be, all right,

[23:43] we're going to take all that money and

[23:44] in fact at a little bit more, send lump

[23:47] sums back to the states without

[23:48] restrictions and in fact not deal with

[23:50] the heart, which is an incentive system.

[23:53] I think that we're overlooking the fact

[23:54] that the American people are a

[23:56] compassionate people. They want to truly

[23:58] help, but the system itself has put has

[24:01] built in incentives for the kind of

[24:03] behavior which is killing them, which is

[24:05] killing a society.

[24:07] >> All right, that's your overall. Now,

[24:09] give me one specific example of

[24:11] something within the program that you

[24:13] think the major one of the major

[24:14] problems with it.

[24:16] >> The major problem is the philosophy in

[24:18] the contract with America and with the

[24:21] all the welfare proposals today. We have

[24:23] said illegitimacy, dealing with that

[24:25] behavior is the core to understanding

[24:27] why our system is breaking down. We are

[24:29] giving you money for not marrying, for

[24:31] not forming strong families. We are not

[24:34] helping families stay together. We're

[24:36] not sticking with the heart. You know,

[24:38] the most effective exit from welfare has

[24:40] been marriage. And yet, what does this

[24:42] program do? Does it build marriage

[24:43] strengthening policies? Uh does it say,

[24:45] look, we're going to deal with the

[24:46] behavior uh out of wedlock births that

[24:49] are really causing this problem? No. It

[24:51] says, "We're going to set up child care

[24:53] centers. We're going to take women with

[24:55] young children and focus on them getting

[24:57] into the workforce rather than dealing

[24:58] with work there for men or women with

[25:01] older children's. Again, we're dealing

[25:03] with bad incentives, but now they're at

[25:04] the state level rather than the

[25:05] federal."

[25:06] >> Governor Thompson, how do you respond to

[25:08] that? You heard the whole thing, so I

[25:09] won't repeat it. You're sitting here.

[25:12] But no, I think a lot of the things

[25:14] Christina has said is uh are very true

[25:16] and I I'm not going to argue with her.

[25:18] But isn't it beautiful in Washington DC

[25:22] that you have people from Democrat side

[25:26] and the Republican side coming together

[25:28] on a bipartisan approach on welfare

[25:30] reform and yet we're being criticized

[25:33] from people on the left and the right.

[25:35] So I think we're probably probably

[25:37] correct. When you have people opposing

[25:39] us from both sides, we're able to come

[25:40] through the middle and say we have a

[25:42] bipartisan. What I differ from Christine

[25:44] basically is she does she wants to set

[25:46] some national standards and then I

[25:48] believe give the flexibility back to the

[25:50] states to implement them. I say give it

[25:52] to the states. We're in a much better

[25:54] position to be able to come up with

[25:56] better programs and be able to take

[25:58] people off of welfare, be able to

[26:01] hopefully hold down an illegitimacy,

[26:03] help to bring uh family units together,

[26:06] and be able to collect child support and

[26:09] get people to work. These are the kinds

[26:11] of things that governors are doing all

[26:12] over this country. We're the ones that

[26:14] are coming up with innovative ideas that

[26:16] will help people get off of welfare.

[26:18] >> Governor Kevin in West Virginia had

[26:20] anything to add to that? Well, I think

[26:22] that what we've really emphasized as

[26:24] governors is we want flexibility, but

[26:26] yet we want the the government to be a

[26:29] federal partner to give us some

[26:30] guarantees in case of uh bad turns in in

[26:33] the economy. Uh I think what we all have

[26:36] to remember is that uh the president has

[26:39] uh been one of the real leaders in

[26:40] welfare reform. Uh that governors have

[26:43] to deal with this every day and they

[26:44] want welfare reform. No one likes the

[26:47] system as it is today. And we're only

[26:49] going to have a good system if we come

[26:51] together uh in in some sort of

[26:53] compromise. And that's what the national

[26:55] governors have done. And I think that

[26:56] we've come up with a good plan uh that

[26:59] as as you've shown on this show that is

[27:02] criticized from the far left and the far

[27:04] right. But I think we've got a very good

[27:05] plan and a good start. Now, the most

[27:07] complicated part about this is what

[27:09] we're going to do about getting people

[27:11] to work. That's the real challenge of

[27:13] this.

[27:13] >> All right. Well, let's get back to that

[27:14] in a moment. But Miss Hamrik, let me

[27:16] just ask you, how do you like what

[27:17] you've heard

[27:19] >> in response to your criticism?

[27:20] >> I would like it better if we were

[27:21] dealing with the problem rather than the

[27:23] funding source. I mean, the issue is not

[27:26] uh whether or not the money should be

[27:27] federal money or state money. Frankly,

[27:29] if the governors were willing to say,

[27:31] "Look, uh we are better acquainted with

[27:33] it. Let's cut out the taxes that are

[27:35] taken to the federal level. Let's just

[27:37] reduce federal taxes. And at the state

[27:39] level, let's have full accountability.

[27:41] Let's have full control." But that's not

[27:43] what being said. We're removing

[27:45] accountability uh from the people. The

[27:47] money is going from them to the federal

[27:49] government with no strings to the state

[27:51] and we're not saying look for our money

[27:52] we would like some assurances that the

[27:54] lives that are being destroyed in a

[27:56] system that breaks down the family. It

[27:58] needs to be rebuilt. We need to rebuild

[28:00] this system rather than just saying the

[28:02] answer is no strings on the cash.

[28:04] >> Just a brief response. Governor,

[28:05] >> the system has failed. This is the best

[28:08] vehicle to make a monumental change in

[28:10] welfare as we know it in our society.

[28:13] Give us the chance. Don't stop it. And

[28:16] unless this package passes, I don't see

[28:19] anything out there. You can talk about

[28:21] all those wonderful theories, but unless

[28:23] you change the law, we still have the

[28:24] same failed system.

[28:26] >> All right. Let me just hear briefly from

[28:27] Miss Funichello, your overall reaction

[28:29] to uh the plan.

[28:31] >> Well, this is a classic case of throwing

[28:33] the baby out instead of the bathwater.

[28:36] Um we're passing the bureaucracy on from

[28:39] Washington to the states. That's lovely.

[28:42] Um but the one piece of the money that

[28:45] used to be or up until now anyway

[28:48] guaranteed to go into the pockets of

[28:50] poor people which is the smallest amount

[28:52] of the welfare um system is now up for

[28:56] grabs and that is

[28:58] >> that that is the AFDC money the go if

[29:02] the governors reduce entitlements or

[29:06] people are cut off for various reasons

[29:08] that money is what governors are asking

[29:10] to have made available to them uh in

[29:14] effect to distribute as patronage which

[29:17] is where most of the money already goes.

[29:19] This is a redistribution scheme from

[29:21] poor people to middle class

[29:22] professionals who will receive the

[29:24] government government contracts that

[29:26] become available as a consequence. It's

[29:29] truly depressing.

[29:30] >> Governor Kapan, can you respond to that?

[29:33] >> I don't I don't concur with that. I

[29:34] think what this bill that the governors

[29:36] have agreed upon is one that emphasizes

[29:38] work uh that recognizes the importance

[29:41] of health care uh care of children and

[29:44] uh focuses on education and personal

[29:47] responsibility. I think that those are

[29:49] the right principles and I think they'll

[29:51] work. I don't think we're going to get

[29:52] an answer on this on either the far

[29:54] extreme left or the far extreme right. I

[29:56] think we've got to come together and do

[29:58] what makes good common sense. be sure we

[30:00] have a program that creates flexibility

[30:02] and one that has federal guarantees so

[30:04] the federal government becomes continues

[30:06] to be a partner.

[30:07] >> Governor Thompson, to her specific

[30:08] complaint that this this takes money

[30:11] away from the people who need it the

[30:13] most and gives it to middle class people

[30:14] or it becomes a patronage scheme because

[30:16] there presumably no checks on the

[30:18] governors and how they spend the money.

[30:20] How do you respond to that?

[30:21] >> Absolutely incorrect.

[30:22] >> I agree with that. I don't agree with

[30:24] she's correct either. I mean, she's

[30:26] absolutely stating a falsehood that is

[30:28] not true. The state the states right now

[30:30] are getting waiverss. The states right

[30:32] now have the opportunity to set

[30:34] different levels on welfare in all 50

[30:36] states. The states right now have

[30:38] flexibility to do things in order to be

[30:41] able to contract out. What we're trying

[30:43] to do is change the system. We're trying

[30:45] to move people from welfare, a dependent

[30:48] society into one of independence. We're

[30:50] trying to allow people to have an

[30:52] opportunity to improve themselves.

[30:54] People on welfare are in poverty. We're

[30:56] trying to improve that. Miss Funichello,

[30:58] he says you're they both say you're just

[31:00] not right.

[31:01] >> Well, I don't know any governor who

[31:03] would say I am right, but that doesn't

[31:05] change reality. Um the reality of

[31:08] politics is that you if you have control

[31:11] over money, what you do with it, if you

[31:13] can is distribute it in patronage and

[31:16] and I didn't make that up. That's that's

[31:18] just the way things are.

[31:19] >> Are there checks on this money?

[31:21] >> Checks on it.

[31:23] >> That's exactly what governors are trying

[31:24] to escape the checks. That's why they

[31:26] don't want a federal entitlement. That's

[31:28] what

[31:28] >> she's absolutely wrong. She doesn't even

[31:30] understand what the governors are trying

[31:31] to do.

[31:31] >> Where are the checks? Governor,

[31:33] >> the checks are throughout the whole

[31:34] system. We have

[31:36] >> to make sure that the money gets to

[31:37] >> Absolutely. We have to make sure that

[31:39] people are taken care of. We have to

[31:41] trying to escape.

[31:42] >> We have to make sure what we're trying

[31:43] to do is get flexibility at the state

[31:45] level so we can minister program.

[31:47] >> Federal entitlement.

[31:48] >> Why should the federal government there

[31:49] isn't there is no The problem is is that

[31:51] one sizefits-all does not work. What

[31:54] we're trying there are different

[31:55] problems in Wisconsin versus West

[31:57] Virginia versus Delaware versus

[32:00] California. What we're trying to do is

[32:01] develop a system that is more efficient,

[32:03] more effective to help people get off of

[32:06] welfare. I would think she would be

[32:07] supportive of that. I think most people

[32:09] that look at the system say it has

[32:11] failed. It is time to change it and

[32:13] that's what the governors are trying to

[32:14] do.

[32:14] >> Miss Hamri, you want to weigh in on

[32:16] this?

[32:16] >> Yeah. One of the problems though in

[32:18] terms of helping people get off welfare

[32:20] is that we're targeting the wrong

[32:21] people. Uh, President Clinton started

[32:24] with a very failed idea that the most

[32:25] important group to target are women with

[32:28] the youngest children. That that's the

[32:29] group to weigh in on. And and the

[32:31] governor's proposal also targets women

[32:33] with young children. And so we put

[32:35] beside a failed federal welfare system,

[32:37] a possible failed federal daycare

[32:39] system. The research is clear that young

[32:42] children need their mothers and that

[32:44] mothers wish to take care of their

[32:45] children. These pro, one of our

[32:46] concerns, one of pro- family concerns is

[32:48] that at the very least, let's target

[32:50] men. Let's target women with older

[32:52] children rather than institutionalizing

[32:54] with more money a new failed and

[32:56] possible federal daycare system.

[32:58] >> Governor Matt, let me just get Dr.

[33:01] Governor Thompson in on this.

[33:02] >> Well, we want to try and change the

[33:05] whole system. We want to try and make

[33:06] sure that we are able to hold families

[33:09] together. We're trying to make sure that

[33:10] children are given ample daycare. That's

[33:13] where the $4 billion

[33:14] >> we got $4 billion of additional money

[33:17] for child care.

[33:18] >> But that's the problem. the and we're

[33:20] trying to give the skills necessary for

[33:22] people to get off of welfare. People

[33:23] forget that people on welfare are in

[33:25] poverty. We're trying to improve their

[33:27] lot in life. We're trying to keep

[33:29] families together.

[33:30] >> There is $4 billion in there for

[33:31] childare.

[33:32] >> Absolutely. But the problem is that

[33:33] they've put all this attention. They're

[33:35] saying in the in the proposal, our goal

[33:37] is to increase uh daycare services, to

[33:40] increase daycare spending when we know

[33:42] already that uh parent care would be

[33:44] better than daycare. Uh, and frankly,

[33:46] why isn't that money going to help jobs

[33:49] for the older people, for the for the

[33:50] men, for the men who need to support

[33:52] families and for older women? And there,

[33:55] you want to weigh in?

[33:56] >> Yes. Men are not on AFDC and and so you

[33:59] can't really do much about men by

[34:01] changing AFDC. We're suffering from

[34:05] extraordinary levels of national

[34:07] cognitive dissonance. Mothering is good.

[34:10] Mothers who try to do it um ought to be

[34:13] punished. uh work is the necessary uh

[34:18] solution, but there are no jobs. There's

[34:21] no way out. We say we're the governors

[34:25] say they're not trying to distribute

[34:27] more patronage, but the only new money

[34:29] in this bud budget is precisely to

[34:31] distribute in contracts uh one way or

[34:34] another for what they call child care.

[34:36] But that's what mothers do. Um

[34:39] >> Governor, let me get Governor Caper to

[34:40] respond to that. Well, first of all, you

[34:43] know, this child care is a problem that

[34:46] goes beyond just poor mothers, but we've

[34:49] got to give mothers uh that want to work

[34:52] and need to work an opportunity to be

[34:54] sure their children get good daycare and

[34:56] that's what we're trying to do. I think

[34:57] it's extremely important and uh I

[35:01] support that part.

[35:01] >> What is the targeting here? The problem

[35:03] here is the targeting. Rather than

[35:05] working on the the foundation, which is

[35:08] broken families, which is a system that

[35:10] rewards you when when the men leave,

[35:12] when more children enter a very

[35:13] fractured household, we're not targeting

[35:16] the building up of families. We're not

[35:17] targeting marriage, which is a family

[35:19] strengthening proposal with uh for

[35:21] example, Redfare. We're not targeting uh

[35:23] family cap issues, which says you're not

[35:25] going to get an automatic raise if you

[35:27] have more children. Instead, you're

[35:29] targeting a new bureaucracy, but we're

[35:31] it's a new care.

[35:33] >> 18 states have put family caps on right

[35:35] now. 18 states have put family caps on.

[35:37] And you know, here I listen to these

[35:39] arguments.

[35:40] >> They're still arguing for the status quo

[35:42] and everybody knows that the system has

[35:44] failed. The governors are stepping

[35:46] forward on a bipartisan basis and

[35:49] saying, "Let's change it. Let's help

[35:51] people get people off of welfare." And

[35:53] yet we get criticized.

[35:54] >> All right, Miss Pachella, let me just

[35:55] ask you briefly. What would you have the

[35:57] governors do that they're not doing now?

[35:59] Well, certainly it isn't giving poor

[36:02] people money which is a problem. We give

[36:05] money to all kinds of people. Less than

[36:07] 1% of the federal budget is what goes in

[36:10] money to poor people. 99% of the federal

[36:13] budget is redistributed to other people.

[36:16] But

[36:16] >> so is there a way to fix this so that

[36:18] there can be a compromise for welfare

[36:20] reform this time around?

[36:21] >> There certainly is. And in fact there

[36:23] that way was proposed by President

[36:26] Reagan uh Nixon rather in the family

[36:28] assistance plan which said let's just

[36:31] give uh a guaranteed annual income to to

[36:35] people cut out the bureaucracy and go on

[36:38] from there as we do with social

[36:40] security. But underneath all this is not

[36:43] just an attack on AFDC and the children

[36:45] on AFDC, although that ought to be

[36:48] enough to concern people, but this is a

[36:51] subrosa attack on entitlements

[36:53] completely, including social security.

[36:56] That's where the money is. And sooner or

[36:59] later, that's what people are going to

[37:00] hear. They need to wake up and listen

[37:02] now. I want to hear about justice. I

[37:05] want to hear about compassion. I'm tired

[37:07] of all this. Send the mothers to work.

[37:10] Briefly, Governor Thompson, you see room

[37:11] for compromise in there?

[37:13] >> We have already compromised. I mean, we

[37:16] have gone a a great distance in trying

[37:18] to reach an agreement with 50 governors

[37:21] and this is a bipartisan approach with

[37:23] all the governors supporting it,

[37:25] liberals and conservatives alike to

[37:27] change the system for the better. And we

[37:30] say, give us an opportunity.

[37:32] >> Miss Ham, what would you have the

[37:33] governors do that they're not doing now?

[37:35] And let's get a reaction from them

[37:36] briefly. make building up families the

[37:39] number one priority. Not building new

[37:41] systems or not merely redistributing the

[37:42] money, but actually targeting the goal

[37:45] of having men involved in their famil

[37:47] family's lives, having mothers with

[37:49] young children uh have better skills.

[37:51] >> Governor Cton, with critics like this on

[37:53] the right and the left, do you what do

[37:54] you how do you assess the chances of

[37:56] getting a welfare reform bill this year?

[37:58] >> Well, I've found that usually when you

[38:00] get the criticism from the far left and

[38:02] the far right, you're probably in a

[38:04] pretty good place. I think we put

[38:06] together an extremely good program, very

[38:08] bipartisan, both of us, uh, giving a lot

[38:11] to get where we are. Uh, but I think it

[38:13] gives us the flexibility and the

[38:14] guarantees we we need. And I think that,

[38:17] uh, it has the most everything the

[38:20] president has asked for. It's got work,

[38:22] it's got health care, it's got

[38:23] children's care, and it's got personal

[38:25] responsibility. I think we're moving in

[38:27] the right direction.

[38:27] >> Governor Thompson, chance for success

[38:29] this year.

[38:31] >> Wisconsin, we sort of led the way. We've

[38:33] been able to reduce the welfare case

[38:34] load by onethird.

[38:35] >> So, you'll get a bill this year, you

[38:37] think?

[38:37] >> I'm sure we will.

[38:38] >> Well, thank you all for joining us.

[38:49] >> Finally, tonight, the US Supreme Court

[38:51] takes up the Rodney King case. Elizabeth

[38:53] Farnsworth has that story. The issue

[38:56] before the Supreme Court today was

[38:58] whether a trial judge properly reduced

[39:00] mandatory prison terms for the two

[39:02] officers convicted in the Los Angeles

[39:04] beating case. We begin with this

[39:06] backgrounder from Jeffrey K of public

[39:08] station KCT in Los Angeles.

[39:13] >> Los Angeles erupted in flames in 1992

[39:17] after four police officers were

[39:19] acquitted in state court of unlawfully

[39:21] beating Rodney King.

[39:24] One year later, authorities braced for

[39:27] more disturbances as two of the officers

[39:29] were acquitted and two convicted on

[39:32] federal charges of violating King's

[39:34] civil rights. The city remained calm,

[39:37] but the case sparked a legal battle over

[39:40] the nation's federal sentencing system.

[39:42] Lawrence Powell and Stacy were

[39:45] sentenced to 30 months in prison, far

[39:47] short of the 70 to 87 month range, which

[39:51] prosecutors maintain were mandated by

[39:53] federal sentencing guidelines.

[39:55] >> The government argued vigorously for its

[39:57] position.

[39:59] We are disappointed by the downward

[40:02] departures imposed today.

[40:04] >> While and Pal served out their

[40:06] prison terms, prosecutors appealed. They

[40:09] argued and an appellet court agreed that

[40:12] the judge should have stuck to the

[40:13] guidelines, a set of rules which set

[40:16] sentences based on types of crimes and

[40:18] criminal records. Hoping to avoid more

[40:21] prison time, the former police officers

[40:24] took their case to the US Supreme Court.

[40:27] >> Well, actually, there's a lot more at

[40:28] stake in this case than even just the

[40:30] Rodney King case. According to law

[40:32] professor Lorie Levenson, this case

[40:35] could also determine how much discretion

[40:37] federal judges have in sentencing.

[40:40] >> Frankly, when the Supreme Court took

[40:42] this case, they decided to take a look

[40:44] at the sentencing guidelines. And

[40:46] there's a great deal of controversy

[40:48] about those guidelines. The question

[40:50] boils down to this. Should trial judges,

[40:53] judges like Judge Davies, have broad or

[40:56] narrow discretion in sentencing people

[40:59] under the guidelines? Judge John Davies

[41:02] ruled that because this was a unique

[41:03] case, he could depart from the

[41:05] guidelines. Davies concluded King had

[41:08] provoked his own beating by refusing to

[41:10] comply with the officer's orders and by

[41:12] trying to evade arrest. He also said

[41:15] that because of their notoriety,

[41:17] and Pal had suffered by losing their

[41:20] jobs and might undergo further

[41:22] punishment in prison by abusive inmates.

[41:26] Powell's lawyer, William Copen, defends

[41:29] the judge's decision. He says Pal and

[41:31] have been in constant fear for

[41:33] their lives. What the judge focused on

[41:36] was their punishment would be harder.

[41:38] They would be worried. They would either

[41:40] have to be kept in protective custody,

[41:41] which would be much more difficult than

[41:43] being in a general population prison, or

[41:45] they would have to all every day of

[41:47] their life, every minute of their life

[41:48] in prison, suffer the psychological

[41:50] concern of am I going to be stabbed in

[41:52] the back? Copenony says the judge's

[41:54] so-called downward departure from the

[41:57] guidelines was justified by the unusual

[42:00] circumstances of the case.

[42:02] >> I think what Judge Davies did is say

[42:04] they're going to have to do harder time

[42:06] than another person in their position.

[42:08] So, I'm going to make them do less of

[42:10] it. And that seems to me to be a very

[42:12] rational basis for concluding that the

[42:14] sentence a downward departure should be

[42:16] granted. and the government has can't

[42:18] point to any statute or case law or any

[42:21] reason that that reasoning could not be

[42:23] employed by a district judge. It makes

[42:25] it a unique case too.

[42:27] >> But US attorney Nora Manella argues that

[42:30] this was a typical police brutality case

[42:33] and no special dispensation should be

[42:35] allowed because of its notoriety.

[42:38] As to the fact that it was a notorious

[42:40] case, we certainly wouldn't want to

[42:41] create a discount for people simply

[42:43] because their behavior was so offensive

[42:45] that it caused outrage throughout the

[42:47] entire world. As to the likelihood of

[42:50] additional punishment in prison, um

[42:52] again, we don't create discounts for

[42:55] people whose offenses are so bad that

[42:57] they may even offend their fellow

[42:58] inmates. If we were to give a discount

[43:01] on that basis, we would be giving

[43:02] discounts to child molesters who are

[43:04] notoriously unpopular in prison. we'd be

[43:06] giving discounts to gang members who

[43:08] might be subject to retaliation from

[43:10] rival gang members. That's simply not an

[43:13] appropriate basis for discounting a

[43:14] sentence.

[43:16] >> Prosecutors also say the judge should

[43:18] have disregarded King's initial

[43:19] combative behavior because King was

[43:22] beaten after he offered no resistance.

[43:24] But beyond the specifics of this case is

[43:26] the debate over how defendants are

[43:28] sentenced. The complex federal

[43:31] sentencing guidelines were established

[43:33] in 1987 by a commission created by

[43:36] Congress to reduce disparities in

[43:39] sentences for defendants with similar

[43:41] criminal records who commit similar

[43:43] crimes. Since then, Congress has also

[43:46] passed additional laws establishing

[43:48] tough minimum sentences for particular

[43:50] crimes. Judges are allowed to go outside

[43:53] the guidelines in unusual cases, but

[43:56] many judges complain that too often

[43:58] inflexible rules prevent them from

[44:01] evaluating cases on their merits.

[44:03] >> I'm frustrated. I know my colleagues are

[44:05] frustrated, too, because uh one of the

[44:08] reasons for these so-called guidelines,

[44:10] and I will always refer to them as

[44:12] so-called, is that they're not

[44:13] guidelines, they're mandates, and they

[44:15] effectively take away our discretion

[44:17] entirely. Los Angeles District Court

[44:20] Judge Terry Hatter says as an example he

[44:22] has had to sentence small-time drug

[44:24] dealers to life in prison because they

[44:26] had prior convictions. But when major

[44:29] narcotics traffickers came before him

[44:31] under the guidelines, he was forced to

[44:33] give lighter sentences because those

[44:35] defendants had no criminal records. If I

[44:38] could not give them the maximum, what

[44:39] kind of a message does that send? So

[44:41] there's frustration at the at the top

[44:43] and at the bottom in the with these

[44:44] so-called guidelines

[44:45] >> and and so with these big-time drug

[44:47] dealers, you were forced to to give them

[44:50] a sentence that was no higher than

[44:52] someone who might be dealing a smaller

[44:54] amount

[44:54] >> far less. As a matter of fact,

[44:56] >> the and Pal case is being closely

[44:59] watched by the US Sentencing Commission,

[45:01] the independent agency which formulated

[45:03] the guidelines for Congress and which

[45:06] regularly makes modifications with

[45:08] congressional approval. The commission's

[45:10] general counsel, John Steer, told

[45:12] reporter Allison Aubry that the

[45:14] guidelines are doing what Congress

[45:16] intended, and that is to impose greater

[45:19] uniformity in sentencing.

[45:21] >> I think it's fair to say that Congress

[45:23] likes the concept of a tough guideline

[45:28] system, an appropriately tough guideline

[45:30] system, and one in which judges sentence

[45:33] within the guidelines a high percentage

[45:36] of the time. I think there would be some

[45:38] concern though about increased disparity

[45:41] if uh the court rules that uh uh you

[45:44] know for the defendants in this case and

[45:46] rules very broadly. A broad ruling for

[45:49] the defendants would allow judges to

[45:51] impose lighter or heavier prison

[45:53] sentences as they wish. If the justices

[45:56] rule for the government, the former

[45:58] police officers will be back in court

[46:00] for reentencing.

[46:02] For more on today's Supreme Court

[46:04] hearing, we're joined by Stuart Taylor,

[46:06] correspondent for the American Lawyer

[46:08] and Legal Times and a regular on the

[46:09] NewsHour. Welcome, Stuart. What was

[46:12] happening in 1984 that caused Congress

[46:14] to want these guidelines to begin the

[46:16] process of drawing up the guidelines? Uh

[46:19] there was a lot of criticism at that

[46:20] time that the traditional method of

[46:22] criminal sentencing which is letting the

[46:24] judge decide what he thinks is the

[46:26] appropriate sentence based out of a huge

[46:28] range of possibilities was leading to

[46:30] wild disparities all over the country

[46:32] depending not so much on the nature of

[46:34] the crime of the criminal as on the

[46:36] judge. Soft judges were giving light

[46:38] sentences to people who did terrible

[46:40] things. Hard tough judges were giving

[46:42] heavy sentences to people who did less

[46:44] serious things. And there was a

[46:46] convergence of liberal reformers who

[46:48] didn't like uh these disparities and

[46:50] conservatives who were worried about

[46:52] some judges molly coddling criminals

[46:54] came together and said let's have some

[46:55] uniformity. Let's tie these judges down

[46:58] to some guidelines so that the sentence

[47:00] doesn't depend on who the judge is.

[47:02] >> And how do the guidelines work? They're

[47:04] very complicated according to Jeff's

[47:06] piece. That principle was carried to

[47:09] very detailed uh specification um

[47:13] initially by Congress but in more detail

[47:15] by the sentencing commission that

[47:16] Congress created of uh how much the

[47:19] sentence ought to be for every one of

[47:21] the uh zillion crimes in the federal

[47:23] criminal code. Um and then with

[47:25] adjustments upwards for the criminal

[47:27] record and and the uh the embodiment of

[47:30] it all is this grid which is actually

[47:31] what a federal judge is supposed to use

[47:34] uh when he passes sentence. You look at

[47:36] uh the offense level and in in Rodney in

[47:39] this case for example these two police

[47:40] officers they said we start with six

[47:42] because they violated the civil rights

[47:45] of Rodney King and then we added the

[47:47] numbers

[47:48] >> right we add 15 and that's the complaint

[47:50] a lot of judges have is they've taken

[47:51] the human element out of sentencing.

[47:53] Some judges complain they've reduced it

[47:55] all to a numbers game. We we aren't

[47:57] supposed to be computers. This is too

[47:59] rigid. That's part of the background.

[48:00] >> Do you have any sense that most judges

[48:02] don't like the guidelines? Is there any

[48:04] research on that?

[48:05] >> There's been a lot of anecdotal material

[48:07] and a lot of resolutions passed by

[48:09] various judicial bodies over time

[48:11] indicating uh although the judges tend

[48:14] to be a little bit wary of taking public

[48:17] positions on this. I have the sense that

[48:19] there's very widespread unhappiness

[48:21] among federal judges about this and not

[48:23] limited to the Democratic appointed uh

[48:25] Carter and Clinton judges who one thinks

[48:28] might be more sympathetic to criminal uh

[48:30] defendants. I've talked to a lot of

[48:31] Reaganapp appointed uh judges, former

[48:34] prosecutors who think these guidelines

[48:35] are too inflexible and often too harsh.

[48:38] >> And that's really what this case is

[48:39] about, whether they are too inflexible.

[48:41] >> Um not exactly. This case is about how

[48:44] inflexible they are. Uh the Supreme

[48:47] Court is being called upon in this case

[48:49] to decide whether the guidelines allow

[48:52] judges a fair amount of freedom to

[48:55] depart from the guidelines and give a

[48:57] lesser or for that matter a greater

[48:58] sentence based on what they think are

[49:00] unusual factors in the case or whether

[49:02] the guid the judges are really obliged

[49:04] to stick to the numbers rigidly except

[49:07] in the most extraordinary cases. In this

[49:10] case, for example, Judge John Davies,

[49:11] who sentenced the two police officers

[49:13] for beating Rodney King, gave them a

[49:16] much lesser sentence than the guidelines

[49:18] would have called for because of a bunch

[49:20] of

[49:20] >> much less. Let's get that clear.

[49:21] >> He gave them each two and a half years.

[49:23] And if he' just stuck to the guideline

[49:25] sentence, he would have given them more

[49:27] like six or seven years. And he

[49:29] >> and Jeff explained why he did that, the

[49:31] various factors that led him to do that.

[49:33] >> Yes. And then the federal appeals court

[49:35] which heard the case on appeal by the

[49:37] prosecution said that judge Davies had

[49:39] aired that he had misupplied the law and

[49:42] that all of the reasons he had given for

[49:44] departing downward from the guideline

[49:46] sentence were invalid. That the

[49:48] defendants in turn who have now been

[49:50] released from prison and would have to

[49:52] go back for a long time if they lose

[49:54] have appealed to the Supreme Court to

[49:56] try and avoid that.

[49:56] >> And what happened in the Supreme Court

[49:58] today? Uh the court made it clear the

[50:00] various justices in their in their

[50:02] questions uh that they see this case as

[50:06] an important question in that involves

[50:08] thousands and thousands of cases and

[50:11] that they're less concerned about what

[50:12] happens to these two former police

[50:15] officers than they are about the

[50:17] precedent they set and how it will

[50:18] affect many other cases. Justice Brier,

[50:21] for example, said at one point, "I'm

[50:24] more concerned about the general

[50:25] principle here than about the facts of

[50:27] the case because this will affect

[50:29] thousands and thousands of cases, 50,000

[50:31] a year." He said, uh, it's less clear

[50:34] who's going to win. Uh, this case was

[50:36] harder to read than a lot of them in

[50:38] terms of, uh, some of the justices gave

[50:40] hard questions to each side and didn't

[50:43] really show how they were leaning with

[50:44] any clarity.

[50:45] >> You couldn't tell at all from what was

[50:46] said.

[50:46] >> I wouldn't bet money on the outcome of

[50:48] this case. Uh, I thought that some of

[50:52] the justices, in particular, Justice

[50:54] Brier and Justice Sudter, seem

[50:56] sympathetic to the police officers, the

[50:59] defendants arguments that judges should

[51:02] have fairly broad discretion to depart

[51:04] downward from the guidelines as was done

[51:06] in this case, but that they weren't

[51:07] necessarily buying that argument across

[51:10] the board because the judge here cited a

[51:12] whole bunch of different factors for

[51:13] departing downward. And it sounded like

[51:15] some of the justices might be more

[51:17] persuaded by some of them than by

[51:18] others.

[51:19] >> And Justice Brier actually helped write

[51:21] the guidelines, didn't he?

[51:22] >> He had a an important hand both when

[51:24] Congress drafted the Reform Act in 1984.

[51:28] He was the senior uh staffer on the

[51:31] judiciary committee working for Senator

[51:33] Kennedy uh who had a very important role

[51:35] in drafting them. And then he was one of

[51:36] the first members of the sentencing

[51:38] commission and had a very important role

[51:40] in drafting the guidelines themselves.

[51:42] then as a federal appellet judge before

[51:43] he joined the Supreme Court he uh

[51:45] decided some of the more important uh

[51:47] precedents. So he comes to this case

[51:49] with a lot of experience in the matter.

[51:51] >> This is an unusual case isn't isn't it

[51:53] in that the issue of judicial discretion

[51:55] with the guidelines is often championed

[51:57] by uh lawyers for criminal defendants

[52:01] and not so often by by police officers

[52:04] who want them to be applied right down

[52:05] the line. And yet here are the police

[52:07] officers making that argument.

[52:08] >> It's it is an irony of this case. In

[52:10] fact, there are two police organizations

[52:12] that are uh friends of the court in this

[52:15] case backing up the police officers and

[52:17] they are making the same argument that

[52:19] the National Association of Criminal

[52:20] Defense Lawyers is making which is that

[52:22] the important general principle in this

[52:24] case is that judges ought to be able to

[52:26] show mercy to depart downward from the

[52:29] guideline sentence uh in a fairly wide

[52:32] variety of cases. Uh, and it is odd to

[52:35] see police officers arguing that

[52:36] principle. But of course, when police

[52:38] officers are defendants, they see things

[52:41] uh the way other defendants do.

[52:43] >> And you said that Stacy and

[52:44] Lawrence Powell are now out of of

[52:47] prison. For how long might they go back

[52:50] if the case is decided against them?

[52:52] >> They could go back for four or five

[52:54] years depending on if they lose on every

[52:56] issue across the board. Uh they'll

[52:58] probably do at least four more years. Uh

[53:00] they've served a little over two years

[53:02] now. uh they got out early on their two

[53:05] and a half year sentences because of

[53:06] good behavior in prison and they do face

[53:08] the prospect of going back for a long

[53:10] time.

[53:10] >> Thank you Stuart.

[53:11] >> Thank you

[53:19] >> again. The major story this Tuesday was

[53:21] Pat Buchanan's apparent stunning victory

[53:23] in the New Hampshire primary. Senator

[53:25] Bob Dole running second, Lamar Alexander

[53:28] third, Steve Forbes fourth. All four

[53:31] television networks have projected the

[53:33] Buchanan victory, but here are the

[53:35] latest numbers with 60% of the votes in.

[53:38] Uh Buchanan with 27%, Dole 26%,

[53:42] Alexander 23, Forbes 12. We'll see you

[53:46] at 10:00 tonight with full analysis of

[53:50] these results and others. And we'll be

[53:52] back, of course, tomorrow night at our

[53:54] regular time also with full analysis of

[53:56] the New Hampshire primary results. I'm

[53:58] Jim Lara. Thank you and good night.

[54:02] >> Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[54:04] Lara has been provided by the Archer

[54:05] Daniels Midland Company, ADM,

[54:08] Supermarket to the World,

[54:12] and by New York Life, yet another

[54:14] example of New York Life's wise

[54:17] investment philosophy,

[54:20] and by the Corporation for Public

[54:22] Broadcasting, and by the annual

[54:25] financial support from viewers like you.

[54:31] For all the latest World, National, and

[54:33] Northwest regional news, plus features

[54:35] and some fun, join OPV Radio for Morning

[54:38] Edition tomorrow from 3 until 9:00 a.m.

[55:06] Heat. Heat.

[55:15] Heat. Heat.

[55:40] Heat.

[55:42] Heat.

[55:50] Heat. Heat.

[56:25] Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim

[56:27] Ler are available from PBS video. Call 1

[56:31] 800 328 PBS1.

[56:39] This is PBS.

[56:46] Funding for local broadcast of the

[56:47] NewsHour with Jim Ler has been provided

[56:49] by a grant from ODS Health Plans, the

[56:52] group medical plans that meet the needs

[56:53] of Oregonians by providing a broad range

[56:56] of medical and dental coverage and

[56:57] responsive service and by the Oregon

[56:59] Troll Commission. Family-owned

[57:01] businesses catching your seafood for

[57:03] you, supporting research and management

[57:05] of a public resource.

[57:20] Next time on Front Line,

[57:23] >> the media feeding frenzy on the Michael

[57:25] Jackson story.

[57:26] >> We practice a form of checkbook

[57:28] journalism, but uh so does everybody

[57:30] else. Front Line examines the impact of

[57:32] the tabloids on American journalism in

[57:35] tabloid truth

[57:36] >> on OPB tonight at 9.

[57:41] >> Well, that OPB forecast for tonight

[57:43] shaping up like this. Eastern areas of

[57:45] Oregon could see