==================================================================
Published by INEWS. Freely distributable if unaltered and complete. 
See end of document for info on free E-mail trial of INEWS.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS E-WIRE SERVICE All rights reserved. For 
information on receiving a free trial subscription to INEWS 
World News Daily via E-mail send E-mail to INEWS@AOL.COM
WORLD WIDE WEB: http://members.aol.com/inewscirc/inews.html
==================================================================

DISTRIBUTE FREELY

                        '96 ELECTION SNAPSHOT
                               VOL.1 #13


SUBSCRIPTION INFO/GENERAL INFO - INEWS@AOL.COM
TO REACH EDITOR ---------------- INEWSEDIT@AOL.COM


CONTENTS:
   CAMPAIGN '96 STATUS REPORT
   SENATE ACTION TO REPEAL GAS TAX
   ADMINISTRATION RULE OUT NEW FREE TRADE EFFORTS THIS ELECTION YEAR
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: THE EARLY MOOD OF THE VOTERS
   CLINTON HAS VETOED PRODUCT LIABILITY BILL
   CLINTON & BEEF PRICES
   NON-TRADITIONAL U.S. FIRST LADIES
   "THE SYSTEM", REFLECTIONS ON THE PRESIDENT AND FIRST LADY
   CAMPAIGN'96: DOLDRUMS
   CONGRESS AND THE MEDIA
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: POLITICS AND THE GASOLINE PRICE REVOLT
   FOCUS OF NORTH CAROLINA PRIMARY IS WHO WILL CHALLENGE HELMS
   BIGGEST ELECTION ISSUES WILL BE CLINTON CHARACTER, DOLE AGE
   ADDITIONAL VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATES DISCUSSED
   SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE POLITICS
   GAY VOTERS COULD TIP PRESIDENTIAL RACE SCALES IN SOME STATES
   POLLING PRISMS
   JOURNALISTIC JUXTAPOSITIONS
   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS
   PUNDIT PEARLS
   CONGRESS FAILS TO OVERRIDE CLINTON FOREIGN AFFAIRS BILL VETO
   INDIA'S ELECTION COMMISSIONER CLEANS-UP INDIAN ELECTIONS
   ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS GETTING MORE ATTENTION IN CONGRESS
   REPUBLICANS CRITICIZE CLINTON DRUG STRATEGY
   DOLE PRESENTS CLINTON WITH NEW BUDGET CHALLENGE
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: COUNTER TERRORISM BILL BECOMES LAW
   CLINTON WHITEWATER TESTIMONY
   BUDGET BATTLE LESSONS
   ANTI-ABORTION PROTESTORS DEMONSTRATE AT DOLE'S OFFICE
   U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE EMERGING AS A KEY CAMPAIGN ISSUE
   CAMPAIGN '96: WHAT'S IN A POLL?
   HOUSE SETS UP COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IRANIAN ARMS TO BOSNIA
   CAMPAIGN '96: THE WELFARE DEBATE
   DOLE FACES DILEMMAS DURING PERIOD OF CAMPAIGN DOLDRUMS
   DOLE WINS PENNSYLVANIA REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
   CLINTON/GORE '96 APPOINTS KNIGHT CAMPAIGN MANAGER
   VOTE ON TERM LIMITS BLOCKED IN SENATE
   CITIZENS URGED TO DEMAND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
   FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION REGULATES MONEY SIDE OF POLITICS
   PREDICTING PRESIDENTIAL VICTORY
   CAMPAIGN '96: CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
   FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER
   =========================
   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96 STATUS REPORT

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   The Republican Party's presidential nominating convention will
occur in August but already party loyalists are gearing up for a
battle over the issue of abortion.
   Abortion is an issue that threatens to tear the Republican
party apart. Religous conservatives who oppose abortion are one
of the most loyal constituencies in the Republican Party. For the
past 20 years, Republican conventions have endorsed the idea of a
constitutional ban on abortion. But public opinion polls this
year show most Republican voters now oppose the idea of a
constitutional abortion ban.
   Now, some Republicans who favor abortion rights are gearing up
for a fight over the issue at the San Diego convention.
   California Governor Pete Wilson is one of several moderate
Republican governors who fear that the party's tough stance
against abortion rights could cost them at the polls this
November:
   "I do not think it reflects the views of the majority of
Republicans nationwide. It seems to me that the answer is that
for those of us who are conscientiously pro-choice or those who
are conscientiously pro-life, we should be able to come to a
common ground."
   And that, it seems, is the eternal question in Republican
Party politics, can the party find a way to reach a compromise on
an issue on which both pro-life and pro-choice advocates are so
sure of their own positions?
   New Jersey congresswoman Marge Roukema is a moderate
Republican who supports abortion rights. She worries that a
divisive convention will doom the chances of the party's
presumptive presidential nominee, Senator Bob Dole:
   "If we ever expect to be a majority party in this country we
have got to understand that we cannot have litmus tests. And I
must say that apparently we are going to go through this debate
again. And I think it is unfortunate. I think we need some
leadership here that is going to show us how we can be inclusive
rather than exclusive in our party."
   But anti-abortion forces within the Republican Party are
already warning that their commitment to the pro-life plank in
the party platform should not be underestimated. Presidential
contender Pat Buchanan is vowing to keep the rhetorical fires
burning on the issue all the way to the San Diego convention.
   And his campaign manager and sister, Bay Buchanan, says any
attempt to change the pro-life abortion plank would result in a
mass desertion of the party by some of its most loyal supporters:
   "The rank and file of our party, the real energy behind it, is
very strong pro-life. People out there, the grass roots, if you
look at the primary (results), Bob Dole wrapped around him the
cloak of pro-life. He ran it in state after state to try to bring
votes from Pat Buchanan. And so we understand that the grass
roots in the party is pro-life. You take that plank out (of the
Republican platform) and you are going to see those people walk
(away from the party) or else stay home (and not vote)."
   Senator Dole has a pro-life record in Congress. But he does
favor some exceptions in a constitutional ban on abortion,
specifically in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the
mother is in danger.
   President Clinton is a strong supporter of abortion rights and
Democrats are poised to try and make abortion a major issue in
the campaign.
   The irony is that both sides in the Republican abortion debate
are now looking to Senator Dole for leadership on the issue in
hopes of averting a divisive showdown at the August convention.
The difficulty is that despite Senator Dole's long and
distinguished record as a compromiser in Congress, abortion is
one of those issues which simply does not lend itself to
compromise.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SENATE ACTION TO REPEAL GAS TAX

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   Republicans in the U.S. Congress have launched an
election-year drive to lower the federal gasoline tax, to help
counter a surge in gas prices. The Senate could vote on the issue
by the end of the month.
   While gas is still cheaper here than in many countries, prices
recently shot upward, in some states, as high as two dollars a
gallon, or about 50 cents a liter. With the peak summer driving
season approaching and elections soon to follow, both parties
moved quickly to seize the issue for political gain.
   Republicans aim to repeal an increase of just over four cents
a gallon in the federal gas tax, which President Clinton put
forth in 1993. In a Senate hearing Friday, majority leader and
presidential candidate Bob Dole declared the rollback all but
certain:
   "Well, I think it's very clear that this tax is probably going
to be repealed. We'll be introducing legislation today or next,
early next week. And we're looking at how we can pay for it."
   American transportation industries are backing the Republican
proposal, saying the high cost of fuel is hurting truckers, bus
lines and airlines. But Democrats argue the oil companies would
not necessarily pass savings on to consumers. Senator John Breaux
says the tax hike also helped shrink the federal deficit, and is
still needed if lawmakers hope to wipe out deficit spending:
   "Now, I would suggest that if we pass this repeal, that it
will destroy any reasonable effort to reach a balanced budget
agreement in this Congress. It will destroy it. Because we're
going to have to find 30-billion dollars somewhere."
   Republicans suggest they may link the repeal to a top
Democratic priority, raising the country's minimum wage, which is
now four dollars and 25 cents an hour. Both parties claim they
are doing the most for the nation's working families, a theme
they plan to repeat throughout the campaign.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ADMINISTRATION RULE OUT NEW FREE TRADE EFFORTS THIS ELECTION YEAR

   ART CHIMES
   WASHINGTON

   A senior White House official says the Clinton Administration
remains committed to expanding free trade. But he appeared to
rule out any new trade initiatives this election year, including
an expansion of the North America free trade agreement, NAFTA.
   White House advisor Mack Mclarty conceded that negotiations on
expanding NAFTA to include Chile are not likely to be completed
soon. But he said "quiet and steady" progress is being made:
   "I think it is fair to say that we will not achieve the kind
of progress that some had hoped that we would during this time
period. I don't believe we will be able to move forward with the
Chile fast track."
   Mr. McLarty said he does not expect Congress to enact
so-called "fast track" authority, which would give the
administration the tools it says it needs to negotiate a complex
trade agreement.
   His comments came at a luncheon sponsored by the institute for
international economics.
   Throughout his remarks he emphasized the Clinton
Administration's commitment to dismantling trade barriers. He
said that in a time of economic uncertainty, free trade can help
bring about economic security:
   "Continuing our fight for new markets is an important part of
the solution to economic insecurity. And addressing economic
insecurity is an important, critical element of our efforts to
compete and win in the global economy."
   The United States hopes eventually to establish a "free trade
area of the Americas" throughout the hemisphere.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: THE EARLY MOOD OF THE VOTERS

   ANDREW N. GUTHRIE
   WASHINGTON

   A good deal has been written lately about the current problems
of presumed Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, the
Senate majority leader from Kansas. However, as the presidential
campaign leaves the primary season, and hits the
late-spring-early summer doldrums, many columnists are finding
that neither the incumbent president, Bill Clinton nor Senator
Dole are exciting the voters, at least, at this stage of the
game.
   'He who laughs last, laughs best' as the old adage goes,
should give heart to Republicans disenchanted with the current
status of Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole. In Friday's
"The Wall Street Journal, a lead story headline read, in part:
"While Dole Forces Are In [the] Doldrums, consider Clinton four
years ago." The story goes on to quote various pollsters,
governors and other political insiders, with very pessimistic
comments about the candidate, only to reveal that it is Bill
Clinton and not Bob Dole, about whom they are talking! The
quotes, "The Journal" explains, come from four years ago, just
six months before Mr. Clinton won the presidential election.
   "The Journal's" message to Dole partisans is not to become too
disheartened this early in a campaign that has seen Mr. Dole
sweep to victory in the primaries, but then hit a lull in which
he has failed to delineate his reasons for seeking the presidency
a third time. The paper writes: ".... Mr. Dole and his party
should, in time, benefit from a number of significant assets: A
built-in advantage in a strong Republican base, the volatility of
U.S. politics that permits wide swings in voter sentiment,
overall GOP advantages on a number of key issues, and the feeling
that the incumbent comes up short [lacks] on the issues of
character and credibility."
   To gauge the early mood of voters, we sample some of the
current columnists on the subject, beginning with Jane Ely of the
"Houston Chronicle:"
   "The further democratic incumbent Bill Clinton gets ahead of
Republican Bob Dole in the early summer polls The less we are
hearing about the gender gap. The women of America can have their
own national convention and end forever bipartisan gender gaps.
For that matter, there are a lot of men who are weary of the two
major political parties by and large, they, like the majority of
women, are not especially enamored with either of the principal
contenders which surely says much, and probably more, about the
current state of politics and the candidates the system produces
than it does about the rest of us. "
   On Long Island, "Newsday" columnist William Douglas adds:
   "In the afterglow of the 1994 elections some Republican
leaders predicted voters in 1996 would give them a veto-proof
majority in Congress and a party member in the White House. But
Senator Bob Dole is trailing President Clinton badly in the early
polls. And Republicans are in a self-acknowledged funk
[depression], fueled in part by other polls that say the GOP's
expected cakewalk to an absolute congressional majority will
instead be a dogfight just to maintain their current advantage."
   In the Midwest, "The Columbus [Ohio] Dispatch" ran this
assessment by Washington bureau chief Roger Lowe:
   "The early presidential elections that states set up this year
have created real problems for the Republican party and Bob Dole,
its presumptive nominee... While [senator] Dole locked up the
nomination in March, one of the earliest points in history, the
[primary] victory was costly: He had spent so much that he is
hampered by spending caps for the next several months. Meanwhile,
[President] Clinton has 20-million dollars to spend before the
August conventions, after which a new round of spending begins
for both."
   Political analyst Robert Beckel of "The Los Angeles Times"
adds:
   "If Bob Dole and the Republicans think it's been a rough year
so far, they ain't seen nothing yet. [It will get much worse]
[Mr.] Clinton and his team are finally in campaign mode, and few
do it better the Dole people will be quick to say that
[President] Clinton is no Ronald Reagan maybe, but the last time
the Olympics were in the United States was in 1984 and the Reagan
team made maximum use of this spectacular forum. The sound you
will hear in July will be air force one revving up [starting] its
engines for Atlanta '96. Good luck!"
   "The Economist" warns Republicans to stay calm in the face of
Senator Dole's showing in the polls against the president. The
magazine says the panic in the Republican camp may, in the end,
rebound to Senator Dole's advantage":
   "[Republicans] are starting to panic. The panic begins with
Bill Clinton's double-digit lead over Bob Dole, and with fears
that Dole may be too flawed as a candidate to have much chance of
catching up...Panic is healthy for Dole...It is compelling him to
stop trying to micromanage the Senate and to focus on the contest
with Clinton. "
   On that note, we conclude this brief sampling of press comment
on the early stages of the presidential campaign.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CLINTON HAS VETOED PRODUCT LIABILITY BILL

   DEBORAH TATE
   WHITE HOUSE

   President Clinton has vetoed legislation that would have
limited damages in product liability lawsuits. Mr. Clinton says
the measure would have hurt consumers and protected powerful
corporations. The president's veto brought immediate criticism
from Senate majority leader Bob Dole, Mr. Clinton's presumptive
Republican challenger in November elections.
   The bill vetoed by President Clinton would have limited
punitive damages in product liability suits to 250,000 dollars,
or two times the damages.
   At a White House ceremony, Mr. Clinton argued the measure
would have made it harder for consumers to successfully sue
manufacturers over bad products, while protecting powerful
corporations from paying large damages:
   "The legislation would make it impossible for some people from
non-economic damages. This is especially unfair to senior
citizens, women, children who have few economic damages, and poor
people who may suffer grievously, but because their incomes are
low, get few economic damages. It would arbitrarily cap punitive
damages which are paid by corporations that have engaged in
egregious conduct, such as knowingly making or selling the public
a dangerous product. A cap on punitive damages can reward
wrongdoers and diminish the deterrent impact of punitive
damages."
   At the same time, however, Mr. Clinton says there is a need
for legal reform, saying the American legal system is too
expensive, too time consuming and contains frivolous lawsuits.
   He says he would sign a product liability bill if it does not
put consumers at risk.
   The veto was immediately criticized by Republican Senate
majority leader Bob Dole, who accused Mr. Clinton of siding with
trial lawyers, who are among the president's largest political
contributors.
   Mr. Clinton dismissed the charge, and noted the measure was
also opposed by the American cancer society, the heart
association, consumer groups and senior citizen organizations.
   The legislation passed the Senate and House without the
two-thirds majority needed to override the president's veto.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CLINTON & BEEF PRICES

   ROB SIVAK
   WASHINGTON

   The Clinton Administration this week (4/30) announced a series
of government actions designed to help the ailing U.S. beef
industry cope with falling cattle prices and soaring feed costs.
The moves have delighted the nation's cattle ranchers and angered
food retailers and environmental groups. But everyone agrees that
the nation's beef producers needed a break.
   The 40-billion dollar U.S. beef cattle industry has been
struggling through one of its worst seasons in the past twenty
years. Alissa Harrison, a spokeswoman for the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, says bad weather, rising fuel costs
and powerful market forces have created a desperate situation for
most beef cattle producers:
   "We have an over-supply of cattle. We have a major drought
going on in many parts of the country right now, and this is a
drought that has been going on for several years, and the drought
has also decreased the amount of corn out there, and other feed
grains available to cattle producers. That, of course, has driven
the price of those products sky high. So they are taking a major
loss, the biggest loss they have taken in thirteen years, when
they sell their animals. And what that means is that a lot of
them could go out of business."
   That is a concern apparently shared by the Clinton
Administration. U.S. agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman traveled
recently (4/26-28) to the heart of the southern plains drought
zone, touring parched winter wheat fields and bone-dry cattle
ranches in Kansas, Oklahoma and northern Texas. He described the
rain-starved region as "very, very bleak," and told reporters he
is especially worried about the drought's impact on the nation's
cattle farmers:
   "There is not a lot of grazing opportunities for cattle.
Farmers are worried. Things are tough, with low cattle prices and
high feed prices, and in some cases, perhaps, some questions
about shortages of feed. We have been doing some things to ease
the burden on cattle producers and we will continue to try to
work with producers to help them every way we can."
   In fact, the Clinton Administration, one day after intervening
in the oil market to hold down rising fuel prices, announced a
series of moves designed to boost sagging cattle prices and help
ranchers cut their feed costs. The steps include the accelerated
purchase of 50 million dollars worth of beef for the federal
school lunch program. In addition, ranchers will be allowed to
graze their cattle on 14 million hectares of private land now
idled and off-limits to grazing under a federal conservation
program.
   The cattle industry, which had lobbied the White House and
Congress both for some kind of relief, is applauding the
administration's actions. But critics say the beef bail-out could
hurt more than it helps. The U.S. restaurant industry warns that
government intervention in the cattle market will raise consumer
beef prices and ultimately hurt demand for beef. And
environmental groups are assailing the plan to permit cattle
grazing on lands enrolled in the agriculture department's ten
year-old conservation reserve program. Ken Cook, president of the
Washington-based environmental working group, calls the grazing
decision environmentally risky and ill-considered:
   "We have heard from the highest levels of the department that
there has been no consideration given to the environmental impact
of opening up 35 or 36 million acres of land to grazing. It is
the worst possible time to do it. This is just at the point when,
across the great plains and the Midwest, you have got on
conservation reserve program land a lot of wildlife nesting and
that land will be disturbed. And then, this summer, it will be
cut for hay. They will mow it, and that will cause further loss."
   Mr. Cook says access to cheap grazing land will certainly help
some struggling cattle producers, and perhaps win President
Clinton political points with a group not typically friendly to
Democrats during a presidential election year. But the
environmental activist says the help comes at the expense not
only of sensitive wildlife habitat but of U.S. taxpayers. Mr.
Cook says Americans spend one and a half billion dollars a year
paying farmers to protect their conservation lands, and now they
will pay again when beef prices start climbing. a wiser policy,
says Mr. Cook, would be for the government to provide one-time
emergency feed subsidies or low-interest loans to help ranchers
through this hard season.
   But the national cattlemen's Alissa Harrison believes the
government's actions will not cause a sharp rise in retail meat
prices, and she says short-term grazing will have only minimal
impact on conservation lands. She notes that without the White
House intervention, U.S. cattle producers would soon have been
forced to kill off their uneconomical herds or go out of
business, developments Ms. Harrison says would have guaranteed
sky-high U.S. beef prices for years to come.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   NON-TRADITIONAL U.S. FIRST LADIES

   MARILYN SILVEY
   WASHINGTON

   Hillary Clinton, the wife of American president bill Clinton,
is frequently criticized for playing too large a role in national
affairs. In a poll earlier this year, 51 percent of Americans
gave Mrs. Clinton an unfavorable rating, while 43 percent were
favorable. It's the first time in more than 30 years of polling
that a majority of people gave an unfavorable opinion of a U.S.
'first lady.' But Mrs. Clinton is not the first president's wife
to face considerable criticism for not being "traditional."
   The role of an American president is well-defined, both by the
constitution and in the minds of the American people. But the
role of a presidential wife, so far, all the presidents have been
men, is not set out anywhere.
   Many people expect a first lady to have only a ceremonial
role, and not to be involved in lawmaking. But Carl Anthony,
author of two volumes on U.S. presidents' wives, says that
Hillary Clinton is not the first president's wife to be
criticized for crossing that line. He says a political role has
been played by most first ladies since the time of America's
second president, John Adams. His wife, Abigail, was so well
known to be a political influence on her husband's thinking that
she was called 'Mrs. President' by enemies:
   "Mrs. Adams felt a great obligation, in a sense, an
intellectual obligation, to constantly discuss with her husband
the various political options, the various philosophies of
government, as different crises came upon him during his
presidency. She also, from a point of view of party politics and
partisanship, was particularly strong in wanting to crush the
growing power of the Jeffersonian Democrats, or, as they were
then called, the anti-federalists."
   Later on, first lady Julia grant was implicated in the press
in a political scandal involving the cornering of the gold market
in 1869. Democrats in the House of Representatives were pressing
to have her testify before them because she allegedly profited by
25,000 dollars, although Mrs. Grant claimed it was only 25
dollars. Carl Anthony says there were other similar situations
over the years:
   "Mary Todd Lincoln, during the Civil War, was highly
political. Sarah Polk, during the Mexican War, was very
political. Florence Harding spoke openly to the press about her
role in various cabinet and military appointments in her
husband's administration."
   Carl Anthony points out that in the early 1900s, Helen Taft,
the wife of America's 23rd president, was criticized for
reorganizing what was then the White House travel office: She
fired all the employees appointed by the preceding president, and
she made a deal with automobile manufacturer Pierce Arrow to
provide a full fleet of automobiles in exchange for the
advertising.
   Often, Mr. Anthony says, the political role of a first lady is
not known until years later, for example, Harry Truman consulting
with his wife, bess, before ordering the atomic bomb dropped on
Japan in 1945. Sometimes, the author says, presidents' wives have
escaped criticism by disguising their political motives, such as
Lady Bird Johnson, whose well-publicized flower planting projects
were part of a hidden legislative agenda calling for
environmental protection. And Patricia Nixon's overseas trips in
the 1960s were thought to be mere goodwill missions when she was
actually conveying American policy:
   "For example, when she made her goodwill tour in Africa of
Liberia, Ghana, and the Ivory Coast, she discussed Rhodesian and
South African policy."
   Probably the most controversial first lady in U.S. history was
Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who
served in the 1930s and early 40s. After her husband contracted
polio and his legs became paralyzed, Mrs. Roosevelt became his
eyes and ears, and traveled from one end of the country to the
other, visiting people and programs, and bringing back to her
husband word on what people were thinking.
   Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of a book about Franklin and
Eleanor Roosevelt, says Mrs. Roosevelt broke new ground in many
areas:
   "(She was) the first first lady to testify before a
Congressional committee, the first to write a syndicated column,
which unimaginably (unbelievably) she did six days a week, never
missing a single deadline until the day he (President Roosevelt)
died, in April of (19)45, and the first first lady to hold
regular press conferences, where she made this very simple ritual
that only female reporters could cover her press conferences,
which meant that every newspaper had to scurry and find its first
female reporter. In fact, a whole generation of female
journalists got their start simply because of Eleanor Roosevelt's
press conferences."
   Ms. Goodwin says that Mrs. Roosevelt provoked plenty of
criticism:
   "'Can't you muzzle that wife of yours?' Roosevelt was asked.
'Can't you at least chain her up? She talks too much!' One woman
who came to visit the White House got dust on her white gloves
and wrote to the president, 'can't your wife keep the White House
clean instead of running around the country?'"
   If the criticism against Hillary Clinton is stronger than
against other presidential wives in recent years, some people
believe it's part of a backlash against the increased
professional and political involvement of women generally in the
United States. Others believe that if Mrs. Clinton's major cause,
proposed national health care legislation, had succeeded, she
would be held in higher public esteem. Author Carl Anthony
believes Mrs. Clinton is more criticized because she has been
more honest about playing a political role than her predecessors
were.
   But short of a constitutional amendment saying that a
president must be single, there seems to be no real alternative
to letting a president's wife do pretty much as she pleases,
whatever the American public may think and say.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   "THE SYSTEM", REFLECTIONS ON THE PRESIDENT AND FIRST LADY

   TOM MAHONEY
   WASHINGTON

   Two respected observers of Washington politics, Haynes Johnson
and David Broder, have written a new book called The System. It
is based on events from 1993 through 1995, when the two Pulitzer
Prize-winning journalists witnessed an epic struggle which shook
American politics and government to the core.
   The book focuses on the national debate over health care
reform, an issue that touches the lives of all Americans. David
Broder and Haynes Johnson interviewed dozens of key players in
this policy debate, including President Clinton and first lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton. They recently shared some observations
about the Clintons. Says Johnson:
   "They are first of all a remarkably interesting story. They're
a political partnership the likes of which we've not seen since
Franklin and Eleanor Rosevelt in very different times."
   Haynes Johnson believes much will be written about the
Clintons in years to come, whether or not they remain in the
White House more than four years. He has mixed feelings about
their efforts on health care reform:
   "They deserve, I think, historic credit for pushing this issue
to the center of the American political agenda. Now, having said
that, they failed... And the failure was across the board. The
president takes full responsibility, maybe more than he should,
on his own shoulders."
   David Broder describes Bill Clinton as a fascinating person
and offers these observations about the president:
   "A wonderful capacity to express, both face-to-face and
through the camera, his empathy and understanding of what other
people are going through, the emotions that they're feeling. Less
capacity to organize change, to address those frustrations. And
an almost maddening ability to see every question from every
point of view so that it's very difficult to guess in advance
where he's going to come out or if he's going to stick to a
position on an issue."
   According to Haynes Johnson, Hillary Clinton's failure on the
health care debate shows her strengths are also her weaknesses:
   "She is a remarkably intelligent, eloquent, passionate
advocate. She mastered her brief on health care, she was not a
health care expert, effectively to a point where she was
impressive with anybody who listened to her across the board. But
she also was absolutely sure she was right.... A quality to be
assertive...(But with) really a very tin ear to the nuances of
politics.
   "I find it intriguing...I keep going back in my own mind
(Wondering) how she could be so tone deaf to the nuances of
politics when she is such an effective political player.
Therefore, I think, a sort of tragedy occurred. I have great
admiration for her skills, but also we are critical of the role
that she played in the process of not having seen the politics,
the difficulty of the position she played."
   That's a view shared by David Broder, who also expressed these
thoughts:
   "The story of the defeat of the Clinton health care plan, as
she sees it, is one of betrayal. She believes that people made
commitments to support them, to work with them and that they
reneged (went back on their word).
   "You talk to the people who were involved, who she believes
betrayed them, and time after time after time they said: 'we said
this to her, but she just really didn't hear what we were
saying.' And I think it's that sort of sense of certainty that
she knew what was right that made her tone deaf to what they were
saying."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN'96: DOLDRUMS

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   The latest CNN USA today public opinion poll shows President
Clinton would defeat Republican Senator Bob Dole by 21-points if
the U.S. presidential election were held today. But the election
is being held on November 5th, and for the moment most Americans
appear to have little interest in a presidential campaign which
appears to have slowed to a crawl.
   Bob Dole, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is
busy behind the doors of his senate office, working on a
legislative strategy which he hopes will land him in the White
House.
   Pat Buchanan, his primary rival for the Republican nomination,
sits at home in suburban Washington, writing his campaign
manifesto, a statement of principle which he hopes to present to
the Republican convention in San Diego.
   There are virtually no rallies, few speeches, and no jetting
around to the next primary. We are in the doldrums of campaign
'96, a lull which is likely to last until the party nominating
conventions in August.
   But make no mistake, the campaign is going on. It has shifted
to a legislative battle here in Washington between President
Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress, led by senate
majority leader Dole and House speaker Newt Gingrich.
   Over the next several weeks, the race for the White House will
be fought out over a range of specific issues. Democrats, for
example, are pushing for an increase in the minimum wage while
Republicans are demanding a repeal of a gasoline tax hike
proposed by the Clinton Administration three years ago.
   But already, a number of Republican political experts are
grumbling about this strategy, fearing that it could hurt Senator
Dole in the long run. Republican consultant Ed Rollins and others
are suggesting that Senator Dole abandon his legislative strategy
and step aside as majority leader, focusing instead on
campaigning for president around the country.
   David Broder is a veteran political reporter for the
Washington Post newspaper. He says there is growing concern among
Republicans around the country that Senator Dole is doing little
to cut into President Clinton's lead in public opinion polls:
   "Well, the concern is real. I was out in California this past
week and talked to some of my Republican friends out there. It is
not just an inside the beltway phenomenon (just in Washington).
The concern is all across the country among Republican activists
as to when Senator Dole is going to get his act together and
start working on this big lead that President Clinton has."
   But even some Democrats expect the presidential race will
tighten once the conventions are held in August and the public
begins to focus on the candidates in September. David Broder also
points out that President Clinton's political fortunes have been
as unpredictable as the New York stock market:
   "My assumption, and it is only an assumption, is that we are
going to wind up with a competitive race. And I say that mainly
because the whole pattern of Bill Clinton's political career has
been one of such sharp, jagged, up and down movements (in the
polls). I mean, every time we in the press have thought that this
fellow's goose is cooked, it is over, he finds some way to revive
himself. And every time we think he has got it made, he seems to
stumble over his own feet. So six months is, surely for this
president, a lifetime."
   Something else to keep in mind, opinion polls show that most
voters do not make up their minds about the presidential race
until the final few weeks of the campaign.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CONGRESS AND THE MEDIA

   MARILYN SILVEY
   WASHINGTON

   American journalists like to think they form an unofficial
fourth branch of the government that keeps the public informed
and the other three branches, the executive, legislative and
judicial, honest. But a new report shows that citizens, members
of Congress, and journalists disagree on what is important in
news coverage of Congress.
   To explore the current relationship between Congress and the
media, the Freedom Forum, a private, nonpartisan foundation,
commissioned polls of editors and reporters, citizens, and
members of Congress. And it hired a veteran congressional
reporter, Elaine Povich, to spend a year at the Freedom Forum
analyzing the poll results and writing a book about them.
   A chief conclusion of the study is that no one is very happy
about the way the media cover the Congress. Ms. Povich says
citizens say they want more stories explaining what proposed
legislation would mean to their daily lives:
   "If the welfare reform act does in fact take place, what's
that going to mean for Mrs. Smith down the block with her three
children? Does it mean she's going to have to go to work? Does it
mean those kids will or won't get daycare? Does it mean they're
going to be (left home alone) and scrawling graffiti on the
neighbors' fence?"
   Washington, DC, journalists agree they do too few of those
types of news stories. They blame that on deadline pressure, and
the fact they are in the capital city and not in the outlying
areas where they might see the possible impact firsthand.
   But the study says another reason that Washington reporters
aren't giving the public what it wants is because the reporters
have become too cynical about Congress, and they focus too much
attention on partisan infighting and the personal lives of
members of Congress. For instance, Massachusetts Congressman
Barney Frank says he gets more press attention for his attacks on
people than for his legislation. And Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson
criticizes the news media for focusing on the 'three c's,
controversy, conflict and confusion.'
   Report editor Elaine Povich says she was amazed at the degree
of cynicism the study found, especially among reporters:
   "Reporters have always been skeptical, and I think it's a very
difficult line to walk between skepticism and cynicism. I am not
calling for people to go back to the days when nefariousness
(wickedness) was covered up, when womanizing was not talked
about, when public drunkenness on the floor of the senate was
ignored. But I think what has happened in this country is the
pendulum has swung so far up on one end towards cynicism that
almost everybody is unwilling to give anyone an even break."
   Jeff Biggs, a former congressional press secretary who also
worked on the study, agrees that reporters too often focus on a
public official's life style, which doesn't necessarily have an
impact on how he or she performs the job. But Mr. Biggs says the
reporters aren't the only cynical ones, the public is just as
cynical, maybe more so, about politics:
   "Part of the reason for the cynicism is a certain national
impatience. We've sort of lost an historical perspective on this.
The public sense at times is, 'well, the answer is easy, let's
just get it done, pass the bill.' Congress doesn't operate as
quickly as the public would like to have it operate, and
constitutionally, Congress was supposed to be slow. Change was
supposed to be difficult. Well, we've seen that it is difficult,
but the public is impatient."
   But the other side, Mr. Biggs says, is that the public is
generally much better informed about, and involved with Congress
and the political process than before. It used to be that, for a
citizen to express an opinion, he had to write a letter to the
editor of a newspaper:
   "We now live in a world of Internet, of E-mail, of faxes, of
radio talk shows, where the public suddenly finds that they're a
part of the process itself, and their opinions count. I think
both the political wing and the journalistic wing have to
recognize that, (while) there are a lot of downsides (negatives)
to this, there are some upsides (advantages), and that is, you're
talking about a very politically activated public. They may be
cynical, but they want to be engaged, and they will be engaged."
   The Freedom Forum report entitled, "Partners and Adversaries:
The Contentious Connection Between Congress And The Media, offers
a number of recommendations for both Congress and the media.
Among them are that Congress should reinstate regular, 15-minute
press briefings before the daily opening of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and should permit television
cameras to go anywhere that print media are allowed to go. Most
Americans, the polls found, get their information about Congress
from television.
   Another recommendation is that individual members of Congress
should rely less on press secretaries and more on face-to-face
contact with the media to improve the flow of information to
their constituents. And members of Congress, the study says,
should stop criticizing Congress themselves, realizing that their
own criticism has taken a toll on the institution's reputation.
   As for the media, the Freedom Forum report recommends that
editors should continue the trend begun in 1995 of giving
Congress at least as much coverage as the presidency. And it says
the media should de-emphasize political coverage, such as the
chances of a bill getting through Congress and why,  and do more
explaining of how laws affect ordinary citizens. The report also
recommends bringing editors to Washington, DC, for short training
sessions on issues and the legislative process, and, whenever
possible, having reporters in two bureaus in Washington, DC, and
in a local district, work together on stories explaining the
impact of the government on citizens' lives.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: POLITICS AND THE GASOLINE PRICE REVOLT

   ANDREW N. GUTHRIE
   WASHINGTON

   In this free-wheeling nation, where most people own cars, and
the roads are among the best on earth, people drive a lot. And
when the price of gasoline [petrol] rises sharply, it is not long
before everyone, including the president, begins talking about
it. That is what happened this week as prices hit about 33 cents
for one liter of unleaded regular octane fuel, low in comparison
to many nations, but still a 12-point-four percent price increase
just since the beginning of February. Now it has become an issue
in the budding presidential campaign, and comments are filling
the nation's editorial columns.
   The U.S. press suggests various factors possibly responsible
for the gasoline price increase, including: Instability in the
world oil market; low oil company reserves; an unusually bitter
winter that raised demand for home heating oil; higher speed
limits on some U.S. highways, and production problems in some
domestic oil refineries.
   But angry customers are not interested in the reasons, and
their demands for action has prompted responses from both major
political candidates, Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican
challenger Bob Dole. First, Mr. Dole insisted President Clinton
roll back the federal tax increase on gasoline that was part of
his budget balancing plan in 1993. Then, President Clinton
announced, what many say is, a symbolic sale of crude oil from
the nation's strategic oil reserves.
   Comments about the price rise in general, and the politics it
has engendered in particular, are everywhere in the press. "The
Salt Lake [City] Tribune," Utah's largest daily writes:
   "No question but that politics is answering the national
outcry against rising gasoline prices. The Republican involvement
seems the more disingenuous. Twice last weekend, prominent
Republicans attacked the one-point-one cents-per-liter gas tax
increase passed by congress in 1993 as part of [President]
Clinton's budget reconciliation package... Obviously, Senator
Dole is trying to score easy campaign points [an advantage] by
resurrecting the one portion of the controversial 1993 Clinton
tax increase that affected the middle class, more so now as gas
prices soar... Call it political gas [rhetoric]."
   "The New York Post" takes a very different view, calling the
president's action to release some of the nation's strategic
petroleum reserves "Clinton's gas panic":
   "What strategic interests are served by president Clinton's
decision to put 12 million barrels of oil from the nation's
reserve on the open market? Apart from assisting the president's
own re-election effort, we can't think of any... The reserve
exists for a reason , for one reason only, in fact: To insulate
the nation from a repetition of the shortages that marked the
1970s. It's not meant to facilitate price manipulation during
election season."
   Turning to the southwest, which, along with Alaska, produces
the majority of the nation's crude oil, "The Dallas Morning News"
retorts:
   "A spike [sudden increase] in gasoline prices has politicians
lobbing one bad idea after another... Put the brakes on it,
folks. [Politicians, cease and desist!] this scramble to appease
voters is downright embarrassing. A short-term price fluctuation
in a commodity doesn't demand a flurry of government action.
prolonged drought will diminish wheat harvests this year and
probably raise flour prices; will candidates react by blaming an
international weather conspiracy and halting wheat exports? A
free market means prices will surge when demand rises and
supplies drop... But politicos' actions so far have been nothing
more than election-year hooey [empty campaign rhetoric]."
   Across the oil-producing state, "The Houston Chronicle"
exclaims it its editorial headline: The "strategic petroleum
reserve should be left untapped", saying:
   "The 587-million barrel strategic petroleum reserve is the
nation's ace in the hole [protection] in case of an extreme
crisis. It is this country's emergency oil supply should foreign
oil be stopped or interrupted. The reserve should never be
drained merely to score political points with voters, as
[President] Clinton is obviously doing this week, and has done
before... if Washington politicians want to do something really
constructive for consumers and the oil industry, they could
fashion an energy policy that encourages oil and gas exploration
and the use of alternative forms of energy. Something that looks
beyond just the next election."
   Lastly, some pointed comments from northern California, where
"The San Francisco Chronicle" suggests:
   "This is a case, we suspect, in which less government meddling
would mean a greater likelihood that the forces of supply and
demand will restore relative sanity (and lower prices) at the gas
pump. Instead, politicians of all stripes are scrambling to
impose instant fixes [solutions] in order to jump aboard what
looks like a runaway issue of consumer frustration, fueled by the
seemingly inexplicable, sudden rise in gas [petrol] prices from
about 30-and-one-half cents per liter to 40 and one-half cents
per liter in California. We still think the oil companies have
provided a less than full accounting of how much profiteering
might be represented in those steep increases. Getting to the
bottom of that question [discovering the truth] may help prevent
the next price crisis."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FOCUS OF NORTH CAROLINA PRIMARY IS WHO WILL CHALLENGE HELMS
   By Stuart Gorin

   Very few people are ambivalent about Jesse Helms. The veteran
North Carolina senator, now seeking his fifth six-year term in
office, is the beloved champion of conservatives throughout the
country and a nemesis to liberals. He is one of America's most
controversial politicians.
   Helms has been tenacious in his support for the conservative
position on such issues as patriotism, religious faith, moral
principles and respect for law and order. As chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee he has played a major role in
attempting to change America's foreign affairs community and
drastically lower its foreign aid program. And he has been a
strong opponent of legislation supporting issues of social
welfare and arts and the humanities. His influence ranges far
beyond the borders of North Carolina.
   According to The Almanac of American Politics, "Helms'
political obituary has been written many times, but the copy has
always had to be reset." Despite intense Democratic opposition in
every election from candidates who even had backing from outside
the state, Helms managed to win even when behind in the polls.
   In North Carolina's primary election May 7, the 74-year-old
Helms has no Republican opposition. There is a lot of interest in
the Democratic primary, however, which will determine whether his
November opponent will be former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt or
Charlie Sanders, a retired pharmaceutical company executive.
   It is the second try for Gantt, an African American who lost
to Helms by six percentage points last time in a bitter battle
that included campaign advertisements blaming racial quotas for
white unemployment in the state.
   Gantt, 53, an architect by profession, was the first black
student in Clemson University's history and he later earned a
master's degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   This time, despite having statewide name recognition, Gantt
got off to a slow start but recently began questioning Sanders'
loyalty to the Democratic Party and charging that the businessman
was working "hand in hand" with Helms to protect high prices for
prescription drugs that gouge North Carolina citizens.
   Sanders, 64, a former cardiologist who served as chief
executive officer of Glaxco, Inc., initially registered as an
independent after moving to North Carolina from New England in
1989. He said that as an outsider he will bring "independence and
integrity" to the job and he accused Gantt of distorting his
record. Despite being a political novice, Sanders raised more
than $2 million for his campaign. Gantt raised about half that
amount.
   The two men have similar positions on a number of issues,
including support for abortion rights and increased spending for
education, and opposition to Republican efforts to slow the
growth of Medicare and repeal the ban on assault weapons. But
their television ads, saturating the North Carolina airwaves,
have been an attempt to set themselves apart.
   Meanwhile, many political observers feel that with all of the
attacks and counter-offensives, the race between Gantt and
Sanders remains too close to call.
   Raleigh News and Observer writer Ferrel Guillory said "while
Gantt seeks to draw upon Democrats' idealism, Sanders appeals to
their pragmatism." But, he added, "for many Democratic voters,
the race of Gantt and Sanders, as well as any questions about
where they stand on various issues, are subordinate to a single
overwhelming issue: Helms himself. To many, the only real
question in the primary is the purely pragmatic one of which
candidate has the best chance of unseating the politician they
detest above all others."
   According to Congressional Quarterly, Helms, who never
received more than 55 percent of the vote in any of his previous
races but always managed to win, briefly ran his own TV ads
charging both Gantt and Sanders with being "stereotypical
liberals who support racial preferences in hiring, oppose
voluntary prayer in the public schools and favor extending health
coverage to homosexual partners."
   In North Carolina's gubernatorial race, the Democratic
incumbent seeking re-election is popular James Hunt, whose only
political setback occurred in 1984 when he was the party's
unsuccessful candidate attempting to oust Helms from the Senate.
There are four Republicans in the primary battle to see who takes
on Hunt in November.
   Primaries also are scheduled in Indiana and the District of
Columbia on May 7. There is scant media attention being paid to
the presidential aspect of those elections since President
Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole already have won the
majority of delegates to their respective parties' national
nominating conventions.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   BIGGEST ELECTION ISSUES WILL BE CLINTON CHARACTER, DOLE AGE
   By Charles Salter

   The biggest issues in the 1996 presidential election will be
Bill Clinton's character and Bob Dole's age, says political
observer Jerry Hagstrom.
   Speaking recently to journalists at the U.S. Information
Agency's Foreign Press Center, Hagstrom, contributing editor of
the National Journal, said the results of the 1996 election could
be a combination of what occurred in 1992 and 1994, respectively,
when both the president and the majority party in Congress were
thrown out of office.
   While the economy suggests there is tremendous stability in
the American economic and social system, there is still
tremendous volatility concerning the upcoming election, Hagstrom
noted. He added that the public has no common foreign enemy, as
existed during the Cold War, to keep it united behind a leader.
The people, he said, are in a "hiring and firing mood."
   Noting that the 1994 elections fired the Democrats rather than
hired the Republicans for their Contract With America, Hagstrom
said this is evident because of the recent reversal of public
opinion towards the Republicans' plan.
   Hagstrom said that economic conservatism is a trend in
America, but socially, the United States is moving towards the
center of the political spectrum. "Americans are tolerant but not
advocates," he said, explaining that while they do not like
discrimination, they still are not advocates of such special
programs as affirmative action.
   The 1996 election also will be a referendum on the personality
of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Hagstrom said, adding that
"Americans do not trust one party rule."
   Hagstrom said he believes California and the Midwest will be
the most important areas to watch in the 1996 election. He also
noted that one traditional battleground, Florida -- where many
retired persons live because of the weather -- could very well go
Democratic since Medicare is an important issue there and Clinton
has defended that program throughout his presidency.
   The Democrats' biggest job in 1996 is to get out their voters,
Hagstrom said, pointing out that they lost in large part in 1994
because traditional Democratic voters did not come to the polls.
He explained that Republicans, especially white males, are
traditional voters who do turn out.
   Foreign issues will not play a large role in the election,
according to Hagstrom, but he felt that should they arise, those
issues likely would be Bosnia, the Middle East and trade
agreements. These, he said, would be looked at as "tests of
Clinton's foreign policy."
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   ADDITIONAL VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATES DISCUSSED

   Following are comments by political observers in the American
Political Network Hotline's most recent group of interviews
regarding potential vice presidential running mates for presumed
Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole:
   -- Republican political consultant Ron Kaufman said
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge has been "a very articulate
spokesperson for his state and for the party" and as a wounded
veteran of the Vietnam War, "has a way of talking with,
identifying with and working with veterans." Even though Ridge is
pro-choice on the abortion issue, Kaufman said that among the
Catholics in the state, "he is so good on things like education
vouchers and school choice that he overcomes his position on
abortion. That won't be the issue that makes a difference."
   -- Washington Times managing editor Josette Shiner said
California Congressman Christopher Cox "would be a bold and
interesting choice because he really represents the Republican
future." Cox is young, energetic and principled, Shiner said, and
has "developed a reputation as someone who not only knows the big
issues, but knows the details." If the Republican Party does not
write off California to the Democrats and decides to stake a
claim, Cox is the best choice in the state who can help the
ticket, Shiner added, because he "genuinely represents" the core
of Republicans who are trying to catch the imagination of a broad
base of Americans.
   -- Media consultant Alex Castellanos said Tennessee Senator
Fred Thompson, who is up for re-election this year and is
committed to returning to the Senate, has "considerable
communication skills and gifts" that would be an asset to the
ticket. As an example of populism, Castellanos said, Thompson is
"a term-limit Republican who has been bringing a message of
reform in government. He's an outsider by discipline and by
message." Castellanos said he thought it would be "fun" to see a
vice presidential debate between Thompson and fellow Tennessean
Vice President Al Gore.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE POLITICS
   By Mike Davis

   Among the most powerful forces driving American politics today
are such special interest groups as political action committees
(PACs), which are formed by people who share similar beliefs in a
specific issue and work to influence policy makers and other
government officials who are in a position to benefit their
cause.
   These PACs attempt to shape legislation, ensure that laws are
enforced and even get political candidates elected. This
influencing process is known as "lobbying," which often takes the
form of monetary contributions to political campaigns.
   PACs are a very heterogeneous group. For example, some
interest groups are "public" while others are "economic" in
nature. Public interest groups are those committed to
representing the entire electorate, and are involved in such
issues as the environment and health care. Economic interest
groups, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with creating
a favorable political environment for particular business
interests.
   PACs can range in size as well as purpose. Some interest
groups claim only a few thousand members. Membership in others,
such as the American Association of Retired Persons, number in
the millions.
   Interest groups have a controversial reputation in the United
States. The funds which they contribute to politicians' campaigns
gives them an influence over policy that most Americans simply do
not have. Limits do exist as to the amount of money which they
can use to lobby government officials, but these limits can be
easily circumvented.
   The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE),
a nonpartisan organization that studies voter turnout, organized
a meeting this week of an unusual alliance -- more than 30 groups
representing unions, business, liberals and conservatives trying
to defeat proposed legislation to abolish PACs and impose other
restrictions on election spending.
   Referring to two groups that are pushing the proposal, Common
Cause and Public Citizen, CSAE director Curtis Gans said "their
answers to the problems are wrong."
   But Common Cause president Ann McBride said the meeting of
groups that usually find themselves on opposite sides of
legislative and ideological battles, showed "the one thing that
they can agree on, which is maintaining the status quo and their
ability to use money to buy outcomes on Capitol Hill."
   The campaign finance bill, which has been introduced in both
the Senate and the House of Representatives, calls not only for
ending PACs, but also for voluntary state-by-state spending
limits, 30 minutes of free television time for political
candidates in evening viewing hours and cut rates for other
campaign advertising before primary and general elections.
   Meanwhile, two experts with differing views of the role of
PACs in politics -- Josh Goldstein of the Center for Responsive
Politics and American University professor Ron Shaiko --
addressed the issue of interest group regulation during a recent
U.S. Information Agency Worldnet television program.
   Goldstein, who is opposed to the tremendous influence wielded
by interest groups, feels that elected officials should make laws
which force full disclosure of all the money and favors that
political candidates receive from these PACs. However, he points
out, it is "not in their interest to change the system that got
them where they are."
   Shaiko, taking a somewhat more positive view of interest
groups, sees them as a natural consequence of a pluralist,
democratic society. The money that candidates receive during an
election does, in some way, come from people, he said, and thus
the campaign contributions which PACs make to candidates can
indicate their viability.
   Both Shaiko and Goldstein note a change in the nature of
lobbyists, who in the past had direct access to "all the major
players in the policy process" and could readily pool the support
of dozens of legislators. However in recent years, they point
out, most lobbyists are lawyers or college graduates who have an
understanding of the policy process itself rather than a personal
relationship with specific elected officials.
   According to both, one thing is fairly certain -- as long as
politicians remain dependent on PAC campaign contributions, they
are unlikely to "bite the hand that feeds them."
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   GAY VOTERS COULD TIP PRESIDENTIAL RACE SCALES IN SOME STATES

   The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says gay, lesbian and
bisexual voters comprise 3.2 percent of the electorate in the
United States and represent a political force that could tip the
scales in some key battleground states -- including California,
Florida, Michigan and Texas -- in the 1996 presidential election.
   The group issued the results of a survey of 15,488 voters that
indicated gay and lesbian voters tend to be younger and settled
in states with high urban concentrations. The survey also
revealed that gay and lesbian voters remain primarily concerned
with issues such as expanding government services, preserving
abortion rights and tolerance of diverse values; they are less
concerned with deficit reduction and a breakdown of family
values.
   "Gay issues have exploded into the 1996 presidential campaign
in an unprecedented way. After a generation of coming out of the
closet, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans are flocking to the
polling booths," said task force director John D'Emilio.
   The survey also showed that gay and lesbian voters turned out
for Bill Clinton by a large margin in 1992 and continue to
support the president. But exit polls of the 1994 midterm
election revealed that only two-thirds of the gays who voted in
1992 returned to the polls in 1994.
   The task force blamed the lower turnout on reduced attention
to gay rights issues and overall disappointment with the Clinton
administration's handling of gays in the military and its "don't
ask, don't tell" policy.
   ---------------
  
   ---------------
   POLLING PRISMS

   -- According to a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, President
Clinton would defeat Bob Dole by 21 percent, the widest margin
yet in public opinion surveys. The poll questioned 827 registered
voters nationally. Several weeks ago, the same poll had Clinton
ahead by 17 points.
   -- A Louis Harris Associates poll of 1,007 people shows that
many voters turned off by the Republicans and Democrats appear to
be losing hope that an attractive centrist party can emerge. The
survey indicates the popularity of Ross Perot has dwindled lower
than the cause he supports, and that only 40 percent of the
people wanting a third party appear willing to vote for him.
   -- An MTV survey of 501 young adults shows 53-41 percent
support for President Clinton over Bob Dole in a general election
matchup, but among those who favored Dole, 63 percent said their
"mind is made up," while only 54 percent of Clinton's supporters
felt that way.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   JOURNALISTIC JUXTAPOSITIONS

   -- New York Times writer Elaine Sciolino: "Unquestionably,
Dole has more foreign policy experience than Ronald Reagan or
Jimmy Carter had upon assuming the presidency, or that matter,
Bill Clinton, who has never had perfect pitch on foreign policy.
In one sense, nothing in Dole's legislative career really counts,
since he could perform much differently once in the Oval Office.
Still, his reaction to crises along the way offer snapshots into
his thinking. In a televised interview just after Iraq invaded
Kuwait, Dole said, 'We don't belong in that part of the world,'
adding that the invasion 'ought to be settled by the Arabs.' Six
years later, he may have to explain how views like these fit into
his foreign policy mantra of America as global leader."
   -- Time magazine writer Richard Lacayo: "If you happen to be a
prominent Republican, you have to wonder where your revolution
went. The party that entered Washington in glory last year is
looking anything but triumphant now. With its members divided
among themselves, cranky about their presumptive presidential
nominee and nervously entertaining the thought that their House
majority might not survive November, Republicans are going
through what even House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls a funk....
What scares top Republicans is the prospect that Dole will not
get their message -- that he needs to find a compelling message
fast."
   -- Syndicated columnist Tony Snow: "What should have been the
best of times for conservatives looks grim indeed. The
president's approval ratings and poll leads compare well with
Ronald Reagan's position in 1984. But a few tiny rays of hope
puncture the conservatives' gloom. Not many Americans seem
enthralled with Democratic Party politics, and the more that many
people know about the party's policies, the less they're likely
to support them."
   -- Syndicated columnist William Rusher: "The election is still
more than six months away. At this point in 1992, George Bush's
poll figures made Mr. Clinton look like a basket-case. Neither
Mr. Dole nor Mr. Clinton will even be officially nominated for
four more months. By then, let alone November, the state of the
nation, the world situation and the personal qualities of the
incumbent president and his challenger may all look
unrecognizably different. We can't predict how these situations
will change, but you can bet they will change."
   -- Congressional Quarterly writer Rhodes Cook: "Rarely has the
essence of a presidential campaign been quite so identical to the
daily machinations of Congress. Foreign crises or domestic
scandals may yet arise this year, becoming the focus of the 1996
presidential contest. But for now, the battle is being fought
primarily in Washington, with partisan salvos flying up and down
Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol. The
strength of this pattern to date suggests that the 1996 election
could be highly party-oriented, with the fates of the
presidential candidates more closely linked to those of their
parties' congressional candidates than at any time in a
generation."
   -- Syndicated columnist Robert Novak: "Now that the Republican
Party is more confused than at any time since Watergate, Bill
Clinton is on the brink of taking a step that could significantly
alter the political landscape far into the future. President
Clinton, as he presses the confused Republicans and their
presidential candidate to agree to a balanced budget plan, could
propose a legitimate cut in the capital gains tax. That is being
considered by the president as an integral part of his
re-election strategy. The question is whether he will demonstrate
the nerve to do it."
   -- Time Magazine writer Michael Duffy: "No one has ever tried
to run the Senate and unseat a Democrat in the White House.
Dole's advisers remain deeply divided over the wisdom of doing
that, as well as over many other issues.... Oddly enough, amid
all the confusion, a general consensus about strategy is starting
to emerge. The preferred model for action is actually eight years
old: in 1988 George Bush trailed Michael Dukakis by 16 points
three months before the Republican convention. So Bush and his
advisers spent those months defining the candidate in a series of
speeches. Dole has followed the Bush play book through the
primaries this year, and most of his advisers favor sticking with
it through the summer, culminating in a defining address at the
Republican convention."
   JOURNALISTIC JUXTAPOSITIONS
   -- Syndicated columnist William Pfaff: "President Clinton
would be happier if America had no foreign policy. Foreign
affairs offer him political risk with an uncertain prospect for
electoral gain. He has tried to avoid having a foreign policy,
substituting for it a commercial policy of trade expansion....
Mr. Clinton's challenger, Senator Bob Dole, represents a
moderate, and moderately competent, Republican foreign policy
tradition which takes pride in having no 'vision' (or so
President Bush once suggested) but which does know about power."
   -- Washington Post writer Dan Balz: "At a time when the
Republican Party's image has taken a beating because of the
performance of the 104th Congress, Dole has not found the
rhetorical formula for seizing the voters' imagination.... Dole
has difficulty stating things in black and white, perhaps because
he has learned after 35 years in the legislative branch that
there are few political absolutes, or perhaps because he is still
wrestling with how he wants to present himself and his party to
the American people."
   -- Syndicated columnist David Broder: "The polls are as
consistent as they are counter intuitive. Ross Perot, they say,
will not hurt Bob Dole's chances against President Clinton if
(Perot) tries again to be the third man in the race.... But if I
were Dole, I still think I'd rather have a straight-out contest
with Clinton without all the mix-ups Perot brings to the race.
Forcing Clinton to find an absolute majority in the electorate
still offers the stiffest challenge to the incumbent."
   -- Syndicated columnist Mort Kondracke: "In a memo to
Democratic leaders last month, pollsters Geoff Garin and Stan
Greenberg reported that a voter's view of the economy 'is the
strongest predictor of the congressional vote' and while
Democrats have made striking gains on the issue during the past
six months, they remain 'significantly behind the
Republicans'.... At the moment, according to the pollsters, the
political playing field is 'level' because voters are angry with
Republicans, but 'the Democratic Party's overall image has not
changed very much' since 1994.


   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS
   -- The New York Times: "If Mr. Dole's presidential campaign is
to get off the ground, he will have to lift his sights and
deliver both a broad sense of direction and a commitment to
practical results, even if that means standing up to the
conservatives among his allies. The biggest embarrassment to Mr.
Dole came when the Senate rebuffed his attempt to load health
insurance reform with measures desired by conservatives but
certain to provoke a presidential veto.... This was also supposed
to be a time for Mr. Dole to display his foreign policy maturity
with a speech outlining his position on China. But he seems well
on the way to equaling President Clinton's own record of
unfortunate vacillation on that issue."
   -- The Baltimore Sun: "What is gridlock to some voters is the
checks and balance system to others. Traditionally Americans have
looked to Congress to curb an excess of power in the presidency.
But this year, if a New York Times/CBS poll is reasonably
accurate, the pressure goes the other way. Working in President
Clinton's favor is the public's supposed wariness about turning
both the White House and the Congress over to the Republicans for
the first time since Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1952 victory. With
voters blaming Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress
for two government shutdowns, the Republican Party in this
post-primary season is at its lowest point in voter esteem in 12
years. Thus, the big Republican victory in the 1994 congressional
campaigns may have been the best thing that could have happened
to Mr. Clinton's re-election prospects."
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   PUNDIT PEARLS

   -- Political analyst Michael Kinsley: "Why is Clinton's
'character' such a liability to him, when by any reasonable
reckoning his professional and personal failings average out to a
level of moral compromise so typical among presidents and
presidential candidates that it almost amounts to a job
qualification? Part of the answer lies in Republican strategy.
With not much cooking on the foreign front, and with the economic
issues that usually decide elections divisible into those that
look pretty good right now (growth, unemployment, inflation, the
deficit) and those for which the Republicans have nothing much to
suggest (wage stagnation, middle-class angst), 'character' is
naturally a tempting theme."
   -- University of California political scientist Barbara
Sinclair: "Dole will look irrelevant if he goes running around
the country while the action is in Washington. It may not be the
best place to run from, but majority leader is who Bob Dole is;
that's what he's selling. He can't make himself over. The people
who say he should get out there and give these great, passionate,
philosophical defining speeches -- they are talking about the
wrong guy."
   -- Republican strategist Ed Rollins: "I think Bob Dole in the
next 30 days needs to give up being majority leader, take his
case to the country in the month of June, get in shape as a
campaigner.... The Democrats are not killing us today; we are
killing ourselves by a lack of enthusiasm. The other side of this
that is very dangerous is even though the campaign may not begin
till the fall on our side, the Clinton White House has begun
their campaign, and they are very good at what they are doing."
   -- City University of New York professor emeritus Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr.: "Politics is about many things -- power, money,
image -- but in a democracy, politics is in last analysis about
remedy. We must recognize the deep-running and irreversible
structural changes that are giving rise to an otherwise
inexplicable degree of frustration, fear and anger. The challenge
to political leadership is to cushion the transition into what
can be a future of unparalleled abundance, opportunity and hope.
Nor is it likely that this challenge can be met, as right wingers
claim, by turning to the free market and to state and local
government.... The national state must take the leadership in
assuring employment, promoting racial harmony and justice,
rehabilitating the cities, protecting the environment, extending
health care, raising educational standards, combating drugs and
crime and reducing disparities in income and opportunity."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CONGRESS FAILS TO OVERRIDE CLINTON FOREIGN AFFAIRS BILL VETO

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   President Clinton's veto of a controversial foreign policy
bill will stand. An attempt in Congress to override the veto
failed in the House of Representatives.
   The president objected to many provisions of the bill, most
notably a demand that he dismantle one of three foreign policy
agencies.
   The veto was expected on Capitol Hill. But Republican
supporters of the measure wanted one more vote and one more
chance to have their say about the legislation. Toby Roth of
Wisconsin urged members to defy the White House:
   blow for reform and stop the abuse and put the interests of
the American taxpayer first for a change."
   It takes a two-thirds majority to override a veto and
Republicans knew they needed dozens of Democrats to cross party
lines. But the Democratic Party ranks held firm and the override
attempt died in the House.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   INDIA'S ELECTION COMMISSIONER CLEANS-UP INDIAN ELECTIONS

   RAVI KHANNA
   BANGALORE

   The campaign for India's parliamentary elections this time has
been low key and less expensive as compared to the past, due to a
single man's drive to clean up Indian politics and prevent waste
of money. That man is the chief election commissioner of India TN
Seshan.
   Mr. Seshan achieved his goals by putting a limit on the amount
of money a candidate can spend on his or her campaign.
   He also barred the poster campaign that used to make every
wall in every city and town ugly. After the polls, it would take
a huge amount of money to get the posters off the walls. He also
put limits on large rallies using loudspeakers that formerly
continued beyond midnight.
   What does Mr. Seshan think of the impact of his one-man
drive?:
   "There have been some changes for the good. The ostensible
throwing around of money has certainly stopped. The dirtying up
of the streets and towns has stopped. All the hoopla has been got
rid off, and the voting percentages have not become poorer as a
result. They have been as good if not better than previous
elections. These are some of the very good things that have
happened. We are still unhappy with the quality of the voters
list, many names have been found missing, and we should take
steps now to make sure that there are no missing names in the
voters list. We will devise ways and means of making sure that
before there is another general election, the list is as complete
as possible. There will always be short falls in a list as big as
590-million voters. But that is not an excuse for a poor voters
list. We should try and improve them."
   Mr. Seshan says he believes the limit of 15,000 dollars
(four-and-one-half-lakh of rupees) he set for each candidate's
campaign is too low, and must be raised. But he says that should
be done only after plugging the loopholes the candidates are
using to by-pass the limit he set to spend more money on their
campaigns. He says the election commission has done what it could
do under the constitution and any further reforms will have to be
passed by the parliament:
   "There are basic reforms of a structural nature which we have
been asking about, which people have been talking about to keep
the criminals out of the election frame, to reduce the influence
of religion, caste and what not, and more than anything else to
bring down money power by making the accounts of the parties
transparent, by plugging the loophole in the law, which now
enables the candidate to say that the excess expenditure was
incurred because the party incurred the expenditure or friends
incurred the expenditure. The real limit must be raised from four
and half lakhs (15-thousand dollars) to 15 lakhs (50-thousand
dollars) or something, whatever is considered appropriate, but
then you must plug the loopholes. Those are there or four of the
basic reforms and only parliament can do them, we (the election
commission) can not do them only parliament can do them. We hope
that parliament will."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS GETTING MORE ATTENTION IN CONGRESS

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   The environment is becoming a big issue in this U.S. election
year. Republicans and Democrats are arguing over the role of
government, the effect of environmental protection on economic
growth, and the ability and willingness of big business to care
for the land, the water, and the air. In recent weeks,
environmental politics is getting more attention on Capitol Hill.
   On a sunny Monday in April, President Clinton and
vice-President Gore travelled to a park in the Washington
suburbs. They rolled up their sleeves and helped clear debris
from winter storms, hoisting downed tree limbs from the pathway
along the historic C&O Canal.
   Republicans were not impressed.
   Congressman Ralph Regula of Ohio is the Republican chairman of
the House subcommittee that provides money for environmental
programs. At the subcommittee's urging, Congress approved
millions to help fix up the C&O Canal.
   Mr. Regula says the Republican stand on the environment has
been misconstrued and misunderstood. He says Democrats are just
playing politics when they try to portray the Republicans as
extremists who care more about profit margins than they do about
saving America's natural resources:
   "What a great environmental record they have. We put two
million dollars in to take care of the c&o canal. The president
put in ten minutes."
   The Republicans say they want to protect the environment, but
they want to do it efficiently. They are targeting the
Environmental Protection Agency, which, ironically, was created
under Republican, former President Richard Nixon. Congressman
Jerry Lewis of California says the EPA is too big, and costs too
much. He says environmental regulations should be set at the
local level, not in Washington:
   "The reality is that in this time of shrinking economic
circumstances and trying to restrain the growth of government, we
need to recognize there are good people within our states and at
the local level who know more about the environment than we here
in Washington."
   But the EPA has managed to survive. The same can not be said
for Republican unity on environmental policy. Party moderates
have repeatedly voted "no" on legislation to weaken current laws,
posing a challenge to the Republican leadership.
   And now Republican pollsters are beginning to detect a trend.
While their surveys show Americans think there are too many
government regulations, that sentiment does not apply to
environmental protection. Those surveyed also say, by a
two-to-one margin, that they trust the Democrats to protect the
environment more than the Republicans.
   Congressman Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, is not
surprised:
   "I believe from day one of this Congress that the defining
issue for the Republicans was their anti-environmental stand."
   Republicans are now finding themselves on the defensive.
Instead of talking about the need to cut environmental
regulations, they are focusing on efficiency. Bob Livingston of
Louisiana says they want to make the system work better:
   "We all live in the same environment. We have children and
grandchildren who live in this environment. We want a clean
earth, but we also want common sense returned to our
environmental laws."
   But the Democrats know that public sentiment on the issue is
moving in their direction. And they believe it can be a potent
issue on election day. George Miller of California says the
Republicans are more interested in protecting business interests
than they are in protecting the environment:
   "What they stand for is eviscerating forest policy, turning
public lands over to the miners, turning timber over to the
timber industry rather than protecting valuable assets of our
country."
   Throughout the long battle over the 1996 budget, Republicans
and Democrats fought over everything from money for more police
to funding for programs for disabled children. But the final
sticking points, the last ones to be resolved, involved
environmental policy. In the end, the Republicans handed
Democrats a victory. The environmental provisions demanded by
House Republicans were made subject to presidential approval.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   REPUBLICANS CRITICIZE CLINTON DRUG STRATEGY

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   Republicans in Congress are criticizing President Clinton's
new anti-drug strategy, saying the plan is mostly election-year
posturing.
   Opposition lawmakers say the initiative does not make up for
what they call three years of failure. Among other things, the
White House proposal is aimed at curbing methamphetamine. But
Senator Orrin hatch blames the president for the spread of the
drug in his home state (Utah), and for not taking the lead in the
overall drug war:
   "I'm not getting any great joy out of standing here saying
that the president has done a lousy job on this. But you can not
look at the last two years and say he's done a good job. He's
done a bad job."
   The Republicans attacked Mr. Clinton for slashing anti-drug
budgets and the federal drug policy office. Some of the cuts are
now being restored and the choice of retired General Barry
McCaffrey to head the office is winning praise from both parties.
But Republicans charge the president's efforts are still too weak
or misguided.
   Congressman Mark Souder (pronounced sow-der) says the country
is spending too much on drug treatment while not doing nearly
enough to stem the tide of drugs from the Andean states:
   "If there's one thing that's the clear role of the federal
government, it is interdiction. In fort Wayne, Indiana, that I
represent, we can't battle at the border the drugs that are
flowing into our city."
   Even some Democrats say the president has failed to speak out
often enough or forcefully enough about drugs. Republicans say
this is one reason for the rise in drug use by young people.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE PRESENTS CLINTON WITH NEW BUDGET CHALLENGE

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   U.S. senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole has renewed
his challenge to President Clinton to balance the nation's budget
in the next few years. Republicans still hope to turn the issue
of deficit spending to their advantage.
   In a Washington speech Monday, the Senate majority leader
tried to counter impressions that he and his party lost the
budget battle. Rejecting charges the radical right has hijacked
Congress, he says Republicans need more time to finish what they
started:
   "And we haven't given up. In the bill the president signed a
couple of days ago, the big, big appropriation bill, because of
Republican input and only because we had a Republican Congress
we're going to save 23-billion dollars last year (this fiscal
year) in spending. Twenty-three billion dollars is a lot of
money."
   The White House and Congress have just finished months of
bitter partisan warfare about spending for this fiscal year.
Republicans plan to move the 1997 budget as fast as they can to
avoid angering voters. But opposition lawmakers say they are
still committed to eliminating deficit spending and hope to make
the balanced budget a crucial election-year issue.
   Republicans are expected to pick up the attack this week, with
new proposals for saving billions of dollars by cutting or
reshaping social programs. Mr. Dole says his rival is not willing
to make these fundamental changes in his own budget plan:
   "The savings would not come until after he's gone back to
Little Rock (Arkansas), in the year 2001. We can't wait that
long, Mr. President. If we're going to balance the budget we have
to make the tough decisions. And tough decisions are not easy to
make but we have to make those decisions."
   The Republicans hope to force Mr. Clinton to either accept
their priorities or else veto them and then take the blame. While
this year's budget is in place, the fight over long-term deficit
spending seems likely to drag on.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: COUNTER TERRORISM BILL BECOMES LAW

   ANDREW N. GUTHRIE
   WASHINGTON

   Surrounded by survivors of the terrorist bombings in Oklahoma
City and the New York World Trade Center, President Clinton last
week signed into law a bill that provides new tools and tougher
penalties to fight domestic terrorism.
   There has been a good deal of editorial discussion about the
bill, as newspapers weigh the need for increased anti-terrorist
protection against the need to maintain constitutional guarantees
protecting individuals from the state's police powers.
   The president signed the bill during a ceremony on the south
lawn of the White House in front of dozens of terrorism victims.
Some wiped away tears, according to "The Philadelphia Inquirer,"
as the president signed the bill into law.
   Among other things, the new law sharply limits federal appeals
in capital (death penalty) cases, and commits about one billion
dollars over the next four years to fight domestic terrorism.
Some of the more controversial provisions include permission for
the government to deport a suspected terrorist without presenting
evidence to a judge. The government would also be allowed to
exclude foreigners belonging to suspected terrorist organizations
from entering the country. "The Record" in Hackensack, New Jersey
said:
   "The truth about Congress' anti-terrorism bill is that it's
more about posturing to worried voters than making a substantive
reduction in terrorist attacks. The bill strikes its biggest blow
against the appeals procedure for all death-row inmates,
curtailing the process. Unfortunately, this could increase the
risk that an innocent person could be executed. Yes, there are
some tiny measures in the bill, such as the tagging of plastic
explosives to make them more traceable after a bombing, that
would assist in the fight. But for all that it has been
advertised to deliver, the anti-terrorism bill falls woefully
short of the promises."
   On the west coast, "The Los Angeles Daily News" adds:
   "On balance, the legislation seems like a credible attempt to
avoid doing too much or too little on the thorny issue of
terrorism on American soil. In its final form, the bill lacks
some elements that were proposed immediately after the Oklahoma
City bombing, such as expanded federal authority to eavesdrop on
private telephone conversations, and easier collaboration between
law enforcement authorities and U.S. military forces While we
recognize that the measure is a compromise it constitutes a
thoughtful public response to the very real threat of terrorism."
   In the south, Tennessee's "Commercial Appeal" in Memphis, sums
up its thoughts with what it sees as a glaring irony:
   "...Nothing in the new anti-terrorism law would have prevented
or helped to solve the act of terrorism its passage commemorates,
the April 19th 1995 Oklahoma city bombing."
   To the far Pacific northwest, the news tribune of tacoma, in
the state of Washington, adds:
   "In the struggle with terrorism, the bombing in Oklahoma city
last year was America's Pearl Harbor...The response to that day
of infamy, long in coming, is the anti-terrorism bill... Its
arrival is welcome; it should let the nation step up its
vigilance, most significantly by allocating an additional one
billion dollars to underfunded counter-terrorist efforts...It's a
good bill, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, with the country
facing a possible resurgence of domestic terrorism, it may not be
good enough."
   Back East again, in Pennsylvania, "The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette" laments:
   "No lawmaker wants to be labeled soft on terrorism, especially
in an election year. that's why Congress (moved) quickly to pass
a badly flawed anti-terrorism bill... Never mind that the bill
needlessly endangers the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens,
or that only one of its provisions could directly affect the
Oklahoma City bombing case. The measure is more about getting
votes than countering terrorism..."
   In Southern California, "The San Diego Union-Tribune" provides
something of an answer for "The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's"
criticism:
   "The anti-terrorism bill is considerably weaker than what
President Clinton and law enforcement officials wanted or what
the Senate initially proposed. But politics, being the art of the
possible, prevailed."
   Lastly, some additional criticism from one of the largest
dailies in the north east, "The Buffalo (New York) News:"
   "The centerpiece of this bill, death penalty 'reform', will
have little or no impact on terrorism. The measure's focus in
state court cases, but most terrorists are prosecuted in federal
courts. That makes the bill's main thrust virtually meaningless
against the type of terrorism that occurred in Oklahoma city a
year ago."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CLINTON WHITEWATER TESTIMONY

   DAVID BORGIDA
   WHITE HOUSE

   President Clinton has provided videotaped testimony at the
White House in the fraud and conspiracy trial of former business
partners in the Whitewater real estate venture. He did so as a
witness, he is not charged with any wrongdoing.
   He began his Sunday as he usually does, attending a local
church service.
   But then, for almost four and a half hours, President Clinton
spoke in a closed session with defense attorneys and prosecutors
on the ground floor of the official residence, in a room once
used for top-secret World War II briefings. He testified under
subpoena on behalf of James and Susan McDougal and Arkansas
Governor Jim guy tucker, former partners in the Whitewater real
estate venture. They are accused of misusing about three million
dollars in government-backed loans in the mid-1980's.
   The prosecution's key witness, former judge David Hale, has
alleged that in 1986 then-Arkansas Governor Clinton was involved
in arranging an improper loan to Mrs. McDougal. The president
denies the specific charge, as well as any wrongdoing in
connection with the Whitewater real estate venture, what he
describes simply as a losing investment.
   A White House statement released after the videotaped session
said the president fulfilled his promise to provide whatever
information he could offer. Exactly what he said is to be made
available only to the judge and jury in federal court in little
rock, Arkansas. By court order, participants in the session are
prohibited from discussing what happened. But a transcript could
eventually be made public.
   Clinton advisers fear Republicans may seize on this
opportunity to score political points against the president in
partisan advertisements during the presidential election
campaign. Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour is
not ruling that out. So Clinton political advisers limited media
and public access to the president's testimony.
   National Democratic Party officials have been critical of the
entire three-year Whitewater investigation, saying it is
politically-motivated and aimed at embarrassing an incumbent
president who is doing well in the public opinion polls.
   Bill Clinton is not the first incumbent president to testify
in a trial. In 1975, then-President Gerald Ford gave a videotaped
deposition in the trial of Lynette Fromme, who was convicted of
trying to assassinate him. Former President Jimmy Carter
testified twice on videotape. And former President Ronald Reagan
testified by videotape after he left office in the 1990 trial of
Iran-Contra figure John Poindexter.
   Clinton advisers preferred the president testify in a closed
session at the White House rather than travel to Arkansas,
fearing a public spectacle would contribute to a mistaken public
view the president was being charged with a crime rather than
appearing simply as a witness.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   BUDGET BATTLE LESSONS

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   Almost seven months into the fiscal year for the United States
government, the U.S. Congress has finally completed work on the
1996 budget. Now, 1997 looms and lawmakers are facing a new set
of tight fiscal deadlines. The lessons learned in recent months
could have a strong impact on the budget battles that lie ahead.
   The 1996 budget is now history. Weeks and months of rancor
ended with compromise and a sigh of relief heard across Capitol
Hill.
   As debate on the final 1996 spending bill began in the House
chamber, members seemed eager to cast one last vote and bring
their legislative nightmare to an end. Veteran Democrat Joe
Moakley of Massachusetts has taken part in dozens of budget
negotiations. But he admits he has never endured anything
comparable to the drawn out agony of 1996:
   "Mr. Speaker, there is one question the American people want
to ask Republicans in Congress, what took you so long?"
   Part of the reason lies with the budget process itself. It is
complicated at best. And when you add on an overlay of intense
partisanship, the result is a formula for delay, anger, and
frustration.
   The constitution gives Congress the "power of the purse (or
power to reject some projects the president wants in the
budget)." The legislature must approve all spending for programs
ranging from military readiness, to education assistance for
disabled children. The appropriations committees in the House and
Senate are responsible for drafting 13 separate spending bills,
each one providing funding for a group of government departments
and agencies.
   David Obey of Wisconsin is the top Democrat on the House
Appropriations Committee:
   "The House does not run the government. We do not execute the
laws or administer the programs of this government. But we do
play a central role in funding the activities and
responsibilities of the federal government. That, in fact, is the
core of the responsibility given to this institution by the
constitution."
   When Republicans formally assumed control of Congress in 1995,
they saw the power of the purse as a way to bring about
substantive change in the federal government. They insisted on
deep spending cuts and they challenged many programs long
championed by the Democrats.
   The Republicans said they were on a crusade and the principle
of smaller, more effective government was paramount. But
President Clinton vetoed many of their spending bills. And two
partial government shutdowns resulted.
   Public opinion polls initially showed most Americans blamed
the Republicans for the impasse, though in time the blame began
to spread to both political parties. It was a tough lesson for
House Republicans, who were anxious to exert their authority
after 40 years of democratic control in the legislature.
   As they begin the 1997 budget, Republicans appear split. Some
say the confrontational tactics they used in 1996 brought one
important result, a 23 billion dollar cut in federal spending
from 1995 levels. Others argue that the price the party paid in
public opinion was too high.
   At the moment, most lawmakers seem determined to avoid a
repeat of the 1996 battle. Among them is the chairman of the
appropriations committee, Republican Bob Livingston of Louisiana.
He is focusing on the ability of all sides to work together and
meet each other halfway after many months of rancor. In a matter
of days they were able to resolve issues that split Congress and
the White House for months:
   "These were compromises. I stress "compromises." They were
done in conjunction with the demands of the White House. They
were not everything that the White House wanted. They were
compromises. They make everyone and no one happy. And in truth
most of these issues will be revisited again in a few short weeks
as we commence the fiscal year 1997 bills."
   The rhetoric could be subdued in the next budget cycle. No one
wants a snag in the budget deliberations during an election year.
There are several reasons. Senate majority leader Bob Dole, who
is expected to be the Republican presidential nominee, does not
want to revive memories of the shutdowns and uncertainty that
marked the 1996 budget process. Members of the House and Senate
hoping to retain their seats want to wrap up the 1997 spending
bills early, so they can go home and campaign. And with the
voters much on their mind, they want to send a strong message
from Washington that Congress can do its job and finish on time.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ANTI-ABORTION PROTESTORS DEMONSTRATE AT DOLE'S OFFICE

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   A handful of anti-abortion protesters have staged a sit-in
Friday at the office of U.S. Senate majority leader and
presidential contender Bob Dole. While he opposes abortion, the
activists say his stance is not strong enough.
   Before they moved into the office, the demonstrators knelt in
prayer on the sidewalk.
   The group, the Christian Defense Coalition, says the senator
can not call himself pro-life, or anti-abortion. Among other
things, he opposes changing the constitution to ban the procedure
and voted for a bill to limit protest at abortion clinics.
   The coalition leader, Reverend Patrick Mahoney, says while he
and his colleagues hope to beat President Clinton, they will not
compromise principles:
   "We may not vote for Bob Dole either. I think what we are now
starting to say is, the Republican party has taken our vote for
granted. In 1992, George Bush ignored us and lost. We said it
would happen. And I think now we are tired of being the outside
stepchild of the Republican Party."
   Many anti-abortion Republicans supported Mr. Dole in this
year's primaries. In a recent speech, he defended his views, but
also said if elected president, he would not press them as hard
as the coalition would like, specifically, when choosing judges
for the federal bench:
   "I'm pro-life. Have been. Proud of it. But I'm not going to
use that as a test for anybody I appoint to the court."
   The senator also hopes to win votes from Republicans who favor
abortion rights. The anti-abortion activists vow to press their
case at the party convention in August.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE EMERGING AS A KEY CAMPAIGN ISSUE

   DAVID GOLLUST
   PENTAGON

   The adequacy of U.S. efforts to develop a national missile
defense system is emerging as a key issue in the presidential
election campaign. Republicans, led by Senator Bob Dole, say the
United States has been left vulnerable to missile attack. The
Clinton Administration accuses the Republicans of seeking to rush
a technologically-inadequate system into service.
   There is no debate over the current U.S. national missile
defense system. There is none. But the political debate is
growing in intensity over how much the United States should be
spending to develop a missile defense, and when one might
ultimately be deployed.
   The Pentagon is currently spending about three billion dollars
a year on anti-missile technologies. But the administration's
emphasis is on perfecting what is called theater missile defense,
that is, protecting American troops from short-range missile
attack like the scud missile Iraq used to destroy a U.S. Army
barracks in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.
   Funds are being devoted to laser, anti-ballistic missile and
other technologies that would protect the continental United
States from long-range missile strikes. But the administration
has no deployment timetable, and says one should not be set until
or unless a clearer threat emerges.
   However Congressional Republicans argue the threat is already
materializing, with rogue states such as North Korea working on
longer range missiles and weapons of mass destruction, and with
what they say is a growing danger that missiles from the former
Soviet arsenal might be fired either by accident or because of
some security lapse.
   Senate Republican leader Bob Dole, his party's certain
presidential nominee, flatly accuses the Clinton White House of
leaving the United States defenseless from missile attack:
   "Right now the United States has no defense, and I repeat, no
defense against ballistic missiles. And if it's left up to the
Clinton Administration it will stay that way."
   Senator Dole is lead sponsor of legislation called the "Defend
America Act" which would require the deployment of a national
missile defense system by the year 2003. The bill has been
approved by the Senate armed services committee and Mr. Dole
could bring the measure up for action by the full senate at the
peak of this summer's election campaign.
   The Clinton Administration has already begun a counter-attack.
Defense Secretary William Perry, in a Washington address
Thursday, said U.S. intelligence believes the chance that a
Russian or Chinese missile might be fired at the United States by
accident, or outside the chain of command, is remote. And he said
the threat of a rogue state such as North Korea acquiring a
long-range strategic nuclear capability is more than a decade
away.
   Thus, he said the timetable provided for in the Dole bill
would result in the hasty deployment of inadequate technology:
   "Choosing a system now will limit our options to build a
better system that is better matched to the threat. In this case,
the choice is between building an advanced system to defeat an
actual threat, versus a less capable system to defeat a
hypothetical threat."
   Mr. Perry also warned that committing to anti-missile
deployment now, as called for in the Dole bill, would "almost
certainly" prompt Moscow to renege on nuclear reductions under
the start-one and start-two arms treaties, leaving in place some
3,200 Russian warheads that would otherwise be scrapped.
   He said no ballistic missile defense can offer the country
more security that would the elimination of more than three
thousand Russian warheads that might otherwise be targeted at the
United States.
   Senior defense officials note that the Dole bill passed the
armed services committee April 23rd by a single vote. They are
already talking about a presidential veto if the bill wins Senate
and House approval, and say it appears unlikely Republicans could
get the two-thirds majority vote needed to override the
president.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: WHAT'S IN A POLL?

   TOM MAHONEY
   WASHINGTON

   Recent public opinion polls indicate that for the first time
since the so-called "Republican Revolution" in 1994 that swept
GOP lawmakers into control of both Houses of Congress, voters now
favor Democratic candidates in hypothetical contests.
   A poll by the Pew Research Center, which showed the Democrats
gaining the political edge, received extensive media coverage
early this month. Voters were asked this question: If the 1996
election for Congress were being held today, would you vote for
the Republican Party candidate or the Democratic Party candidate
in your district? Respondents favored Democrats over Republicans,
49 to 44 percent.
   Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, says:
   "The central issue is that voters have become unhappy with the
GOP legislative agenda. They greeted the Republican takeover of
the House of Representatives and the Senate as well in 1994 with
a great deal of enthusiasm, but over the course of the year
[1995] they became increasingly disillusioned, feeling that the
Republicans were taking too radical approach in cutting
government and trying to complete their contract for America."
   Mr. Kohut says this disenchantment came at a time when Bill
Clinton was more clearly defining his presidency and standing up
to the Republican majority on capitol hill. Mr. Clinton and
Democrats in Congress criticized what they called the GOP's "mean
spirited" legislative initiatives and decried their "cuts" for
such programs as Medicare. Republicans were unable to convince an
increasingly skeptical public that they just wanted to "reduce
the rate of growth" of various government entitlements.
   The pew poll also contained a much-discussed finding that
women prefer President Clinton to his presumed Republican rival,
Senator Bob Dole, 57 to 37 percent. Mr. Kohut cites two reasons
for that 20-point margin:
   "In one part it's structural. Women are Democrats to a much
greater degree than men are. There's a big change on that [trend]
even over ten years ago when we first discovered a gender gap in
American politics. Secondly, women are greater critics of the
Republican legislative agenda than are men."
   Andrew Kohut says the discontent with GOP plans and policies,
particularly among independent women, has put Bob Dole in a
particularly difficult situation for now.
   Evelyn McPhail, co-chair of the Republican National Committee,
says she and her GOP colleagues are mindful of such survey
results. But she notes that it's important to keep things in
perspective and remember that polls reflect how people are
thinking today, not who is going to win in November:
   "If we had paid attention to polls from the point of view that
we thought we could not win, we would have been in trouble in the
'94 election because at this time it showed us nine points behind
in the congressional and senatorial races. So what it does, I
think, is it makes us more aware of the things we need to do.
   "Look at the things that people have in their minds the day
the poll is taken and use that [information] to sort of
strategize on where we're going to increase our grass-roots
participation...Where our message might need to be changed."
   Ms. McPhail, a long-time GOP activist at both the state and
national level, says you can't overemphasize the importance of
the women's vote in this or any election year:
   "First of all, more women vote than men. So you right there
know that you've really got to strive for the women's vote. We
have been doing that in a very aggressive way, quite frankly, for
the last year, reaching out for the women's vote.
   "We did increase the vote with women in the elections of 1994.
We have never polled more women for Republican candidates than
for Democrat candidates. We just always attempted to increase
that number, which we did in '94. So we have continued to try to
increase that number and we'll do that all year long."
   For his part, pollster Kohut cautions against reading too much
into numbers from the Clinton-Dole matchup, because the figures
now look like the survey results in the 1992 presidential race
which showed George Bush enjoying a considerable lead. as he
explains it:
   "People haven't really given Bob Dole much of a consideration.
They're going to come back and think about him again. I think
that the most telling percentage in the whole poll is that only
80 percent of Republicans say they're backing Bob Dole at this
point. Ninety percent of Democrats say they're backing bill
Clinton.
   "Now we know that's gonna change. First of all, after a
fractious primary season, it takes a while for a party to get
behind a candidate. That will happen. Secondly, Republicans are,
at least, generally more brand loyal, or party loyal, to their
candidates than Democrats."
   According to Andrew Kohut, a major issue to be debated this
election year is government's role in the lives of Americans. He
says the public has less confidence in government solutions to
problems these days than it did five, ten or 20 years ago.
   Yet, he notes, the American people, for all their frustration
and cynicism, believe there is a role for government in today's
complex society. During campaign '96, the public will give
pollsters and politicians an earful about what that role is and
how large it should be.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   HOUSE SETS UP COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IRANIAN ARMS TO BOSNIA

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   The U.S. House of Representatives is setting up a special
committee to investigate the flow of Iranian arms into
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
   House speaker Newt Gingrich says the White House, in essence,
invited Iran into Europe. He says the policy decision was
reckless and could have disastrous consequences. He leaves no
doubt, he wants the matter to become an issue in the presidential
election campaign.
   The speaker has blasted the decision several times in recent
days, most notably during a speech last week to a convention of
newspaper editors. Now, he is stepping up the pressure. After
meeting with Republican members of the House, he announced the
establishment of a special investigative committee.
   The panel will be led by Henry Hyde, the veteran Republican
lawmaker from the state of Illinois. He is chairman of the house
judiciary committee, and a senior member of the international
relations committee. He has been a relentless critic of President
Clinton's Bosnia arms policy.
   Mr. Hyde sponsored legislation in Congress last year to lift
the Bosnian arms embargo. He was incensed when he learned the
administration opted to look the other way when Iran began to
smuggle weapons to Bosnia:
   "We were facilitating through inaction, the entrance, the
entry, of the radical Islamic state of Iran in that part of the
world."
   Administration officials say they tolerated the arms smuggling
because the Bosnian government desperately needed help, and the
new Muslim-Croat Federation was in trouble. But Mr. Hyde seems
reluctant to accept that argument:
   "Yes, it was the right thing to do to help the Bosnian
Muslims, but not that way, not through Iran."
   The special panel is likely to focus a lot of attention on the
secrecy surrounding the administration's 1994 decision. White
house officials told congressional leaders, at the time, it would
be wrong to unilaterally lift the arms embargo, and the United
States would not act without the approval of its European allies.
   Democrats in Congress accuse the Republicans of using the
issue for political gain. They say lawmakers learned some time
ago, through intelligence reports, arms from Iran were making
their way into Bosnia. But Republicans say the United States may
have violated the arms embargo, and the president should not make
these kinds of decisions without consulting Congress.
   This new special committee is not the only congressional
entity that will look into the matter. The intelligence
committees in the House and Senate are launching their own
investigations. The House International Relations Committee has
said it will hold more hearings in the near future.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: THE WELFARE DEBATE

   DEBORAH BLOCK
   WASHINGTON

   In the United States, millions of people are locked in poverty
with little hope for a better future. Many are helped through
welfare programs, government social services that provide food,
housing and financial assistance to the poor. Although many
people benefit from welfare, critics say the system needs to be
changed. They say too many people are relying on public
assistance instead of trying to find work. The issue is expected
to generate considerable debate during the '96 presidential and
congressional election campaigns.
   Republican Congressman Phil English, thinks the current U.S.
welfare program is not helping the poor better their lives:
   "I think there is a fundamental imperative for welfare reform
of the right sort that's going to reduce the welfare rolls, move
people out of the welfare system and into the productive
economy."
   The debate over welfare has grown in recent years as many
Americans become increasingly troubled over the large number of
welfare recipients. Most people on welfare are single mothers
with children, who receive money through a government program
called "aid to families with dependent children." Many of them
also receive government food and housing subsidies.
   Although a U.S. law passed in 1988 established programs to
provide training and job opportunities for welfare recipients,
Congressman English says too many of them are not working. He
also believes drug and alcohol abusers should not be allowed to
receive welfare payments, and instead, should be required to go
into treatment programs to qualify for government assistance. And
after a limited period of time, in the congressman's view,
welfare benefits should be cut off, except for handicapped
people:
   "I think we need to move away from a permissive welfare system
toward a system where we ask for things in exchange for benefits.
We need to link welfare rights to community responsibilities. In
return for benefits we should require that people do some work
where they are able. We should stop rewarding behavior like
alcoholism or drug addiction with cash benefits and we move
toward a system which more resembles the sort of conditions
people need to experience in order to get out of the welfare
system and to enter a low-paying, low-skilled job which is their
ticket into the productive economy."
   Not everyone agrees that welfare reform is the answer. Robert
Borosage (bore-oh-sahge) is the director of the Campaign for New
Priorities, a group that wants the government to reevaluate its
program objectives. He says cutting off benefits to welfare
recipients would be disastrous because many of them are not able
to work:
   "I think it's something of a fraud. Everybody in America would
like people to work, including welfare mothers. The vast majority
of recipients are young, single mothers with children, without
skills to get into this job market. So the question is less their
willingness to work, than is there work out there, and will they
be provided with services they need to raise their children, like
health care insurance, and a minimum wage that will keep them
above the poverty level. and the real question everyone is
avoiding is that, in reality, it costs more to train people to
work and provide them with health care or minimal level jobs so
their work will pay enough to allow them to work and keep their
children out of poverty.
   The U.S. Congress and Clinton Administration agree that the
welfare system needs to changed and that states should have more
flexibility in the implementation of those programs. Last year,
both houses of Congress passed welfare reform bills but President
Clinton vetoed them. He called the House version too harsh, and
said the Senate plan could lead to the impoverishment of huge
numbers of children. He also vetoed a compromise bill from
Congress.
   Congressman English thinks states can better administer
welfare programs because each one has different problems.
   A former Clinton Administration official, Isabel Sawhill,
disagrees. She does research at the urban Institute, a non-profit
policy research organization in Washington. She says there is no
guarantee that states can do a better job than the federal
government:
   "I think we have to ask hard questions about whether simply
moving responsibility to the state government is suddenly going
to lead to major improvements. There's no reason to think that
the state bureaucrats are any more talented than federal
bureaucrats. So I think we have to be a little bit skeptical that
it is all going to work out just fine. One thing we know for sure
is that less money is going to be devoted to this system, so
unless there were major efficiencies in the way states spent the
money, the prospects are that there are going to be fewer people
eligible for benefits, or the benefits themselves are going to be
lower than they are now."
   Republican Congressman Phil English is running for re-election
this year. He thinks the welfare issue will be an important part
of his campaign and explains the position the Republican Party
will probably take on the issue:
   "I think the Republicans are going to approach this issue by
blasting the president repeatedly vetoing welfare reform. The
president's position is a more difficult one. The president,
having been in the position of having opposed specific welfare
positions, having not offered his own specific blueprint in this
session of congress, is trying to make up for it in a lot of ads
(advertisements) talking about welfare reform. But I don't think
most people are going to buy it."
   Robert Borosage (bore-oh-sahge) of the Campaign for New
Priorities, says welfare will be part of a bigger picture:
   "I think it's more one of a series of issues that will be part
of the struggle about an economy that is not working very well
for working people in the united states. President Clinton made
it sort of insignia of how he was a different kind of president
in 1992, promising to end welfare as we know it, to move from
welfare to work, and I think Republicans will try to embarrass
him with that unfulfilled promise in 1996."
   Private voluntary groups fear that some of the proposed
changes in welfare legislation would only hurt the people it is
supposed to protect. They say if the budgets of welfare programs
are cut, recipients of assistance will look to the various
humanitarian agencies for help. But the agencies say they would
not be able to fill the gap because they do not have enough
resources or money.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE FACES DILEMMAS DURING PERIOD OF CAMPAIGN DOLDRUMS
   By Stuart Gorin

   Republican presidential hopeful Bob Dole faces a whole set of
dilemmas during the "four months of campaign doldrums" between
the end of the meaningful state primaries and the opening of the
Republican convention, says political analyst Norman Ornstein of
the American Enterprise Institute.
   Noting that the Senate majority leader is "more comfortable on
the Senate floor than on the hustings," Ornstein said this is the
forum for Dole to frame his campaign and have his allies
involved. But it will not be easy, Ornstein said, because the
Senate Democrats are unified in a way they have not been for
years.
   The Democratic minority, Ornstein said, will have ample
opportunity to try to embarrass Dole while he tries to pass
legislation demonstrating his political differences with
President Clinton.
   Also, Ornstein pointed out, on the other side of Congress,
"the House Republicans are focused on their own game," which is
not necessarily Dole's agenda. Ornstein also said the political
climate around congressional races has changed, and recent public
opinion polls show a dead heat between Republicans and Democrats
in the House races that are hotly contested. Before following
Dole, the Republican legislators will do what is good for
themselves, Ornstein added.
   Meanwhile, it was a bad week for Dole even though he rebounded
slightly by winning the Pennsylvania primary April 23.
   On the Senate floor, Dole lost a proposal to add tax-deferred
medical savings accounts to a bipartisan health care bill when a
group of Republicans joined the vote against him. He blocked a
vote to raise the minimum wage in the United States despite
strong popular and Congressional support for the measure. And on
the issue of Congressional term limits, which he supports, he is
far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a congressional
amendment.
   Taken together, these acts, or non-acts, bring attention to
Dole's decision to try to run for the White House and still run
the Senate at the same time. Said Washington Post writer Helen
Dewar, "It worked for him during the early primaries but now
appears to be creating as many problems as it solves."
   But Dole may not have much of a choice now that his
pre-convention campaign spending has just about reached its
federally-mandated $37 million limit. Former Republican National
Committee Chairman Rich Bond said giving up the leadership
position is "less of an option" because "there is virtually
nothing that Bob Dole can do to campaign."
   To date the Dole campaign has spent $34.5 million, nearly
one-third of it on such fund-raising efforts as direct mailings
to raise even more money. Another third of the expenses covered
such overheads as travel, staff salaries, taxes, telephones and
office rentals and equipment. Television advertising accounted
for less than 20 percent, and the balance was used for polling
and other miscellaneous campaign activities.
   Last week Dole met with former President Bush, who advised him
publicly to "resist the pull of fellow Republicans to impose
trade sanctions" on China. America's most-favored-nation trade
status with Beijing expires this spring and Dole, who has a
record of supporting such extensions unconditionally, is under
pressure this year to stake out a position opposite President
Clinton. Dole said he has not "taken up the issue yet" but will
be developing a position on it very soon.
   And following reports that last year Dole's campaign received
thousands of dollars in illegal contributions from workers at a
Massachusetts sporting goods company run by one of his national
vice chairmen, Simon Fireman, the senator said the federal
government should investigate the allegations. Several of the
firm's employees said they were given cash in return for personal
checks made out to the "Dole for President" campaign. An attorney
for the company, Aqua-Leisure Industries, said he can
"categorically deny those things ever happened."
   Suggesting that there is "very little enthusiasm" about Dole
in the Republican Party, conservative activist Bill Bennett, a
former secretary of education, called on him to quit as Senate
majority leader and to "draw sharper and more controversial
distinctions" with Clinton on conservative issues.
   On the plus side for Dole, CNN analyst William Schneider said
the best thing going for him was that while current public
opinion polls are down on the Republican Party, people do not
disapprove of him personally.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   DOLE WINS PENNSYLVANIA REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
   By David Pitts

   To no one's surprise, Senator Robert Dole won the April 23
Pennsylvania Republican primary election. It was his 26th
consecutive primary victory.
   With 97 percent of the vote in, Dole had 62 percent of the
vote to Buchanan's 19 percent. Buchanan, however, did not
campaign in the state even though he remains in the race as a
challenger to Dole. Steve Forbes, who dropped out of the race,
won 10 percent of the vote, Alan Keyes five percent and Richard
Lugar four percent.
   The state's 73 Republican convention delegates officially run
as uncommitted, but most are expected to support Dole in San
Diego this August. Dole already has enough delegates to clinch
the nomination.
   A statement to Pennsylvania Republicans quoted Dole as saying,
"You showed that the Republican Party is unified, it is focused
and it is ready to take its message of positive, conservative
change to the American people."
   In addition to the Republican presidential primary vote,
attention also focused on contests for the seats of two retiring
Republican congressmen, Robert Walker and William Clinger.
   In the race for the Republican nomination for Clinger's seat,
State Senator John Peterson won with 38 percent of the vote over
Bob Shuster, the son of an incumbent congressman in a neighboring
district, and two other candidates.
   State Senator Joe Pitts won the Republican nomination for the
seat being vacated by Walker. Pitts won the nomination with 45
percent of the vote over five other candidates.
   In the Democratic primary, President Clinton had no major
opposition and coasted to victory. Eight-term Democratic
Congressman William Coyne faced a major challenge from Pittsburgh
City Councilman Dan Cohen, but won easily 64-34 percent.
   Pennsylvania is likely to be a major battleground in the
November general election. Both the Republican and Democratic
nominees view the state as important to victory. Currently,
Clinton leads Dole by a wide margin in public opinion polls.
   The next primary elections will be held May 7 in North
Carolina, Indiana and Washington, D.C.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   CLINTON/GORE '96 APPOINTS KNIGHT CAMPAIGN MANAGER

   The Clinton/Gore '96 campaign, which still has not selected a
campaign chairman, named Washington attorney Peter Knight as
campaign manager April 24.
   President Clinton said that Knight, a Democratic lobbyist and
fund-raiser with close ties to Vice President Gore, "brings
managerial and strategic skills, and a personal commitment to
making a difference."
   Knight will take a leave of absence from his law firm to
assume his new responsibilities of running the day-to-day
operations of the campaign staff.
   UNLIKELY, BUT REFORM PARTY COULD ENDORSE CLINTON OR DOLE
   The newly-formed Reform Party in the United States "could,"
although it is unlikely, wind up endorsing President Clinton or
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, according to its founder, Texas
billionaire Ross Perot.
   Perot said in a television interview that Congress would win
the hearts of his supporters if it passed every plank of the
House Republicans' Contract With America. "Every part of it needs
to be," he said. "It does not need to be watered down."
   Independent voters, Perot said, are still looking for results
from the Republican-led Congress, and they are particularly
annoyed by the lack of progress toward balancing the federal
budget.
   He also said the Reform Party, which has now qualified to
appear on nine state ballots in the November election, remains
committed to holding its own national nominating convention in
early September.
   Ohio became the party's most recent qualifying state when more
than 34,000 voter signatures were accepted by the office of the
state secretary of state. The other states are California, Maine,
Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, South Carolina and
Virginia. Party organizers are working to get on the ballot in
all 50 states.
   Volunteers collecting signatures in Missouri and Kansas told
the Kansas City Star they are "far more concerned with promoting
the Reform Party than with making Perot president."
   Perot himself -- despite giving political speeches throughout
the United States in recent weeks -- will not say at this time if
he intends to use the Reform Party platform as a launch for
another presidential bid. His 1992 vice presidential running
mate, retired Admiral James Stockdale, has been selected as a
delegate from California to the Republican convention, and he
said he will support Dole.
   Said CNN political analyst William Schneider, Perot can't win
the presidency if he runs, but he does have leverage, namely
reform -- campaign reform, lobbying reform, fiscal reform and
government reform. And while he's waiting to maximize his
leverage, Schneider said, Perot is trying to force the
politicians to solve problems.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   VOTE ON TERM LIMITS BLOCKED IN SENATE

   Senate Democrats used a legislative procedure April 23 to
effectively kill a Republican-introduced proposal calling for a
constitutional amendment to limit terms of office in Congress.
   Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to end a Democratic
filibuster delay on an actual vote, but that attempt came up just
short at 58-42. It is now unlikely that the measure will come up
in Congress again this year, but some Republicans vowed to raise
the issue again, saying most voters in the United States support
term limits.
   The measure lost in the House of Representatives last year
despite being a cornerstone of the Republicans' Contract With
America.
   The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length of
congressional service. This proposed amendment, which still would
have to be ratified by 38 states, called for a limit of two
six-year terms for senators and six two-year terms for members of
the House.
   ---------------
  
   ---------------
   CITIZENS URGED TO DEMAND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

   Republican Congresswoman Linda Smith, who introduced
legislation in Congress last October to reform U.S. campaign
finance laws, has now urged Americans to call their lawmakers and
demand that action be taken on the bill.
   There has been none to date. The proposal calls for cuts in
the amount of money congressional candidates may spend on
political races plus elimination of political action committees.
Smith said it is designed to reduce the influence of big money
members of Congress who receive large contributions, and reduce
the influence of special interest groups on elections.
   The National Association of Business Political Action
Committees is lobbying Congress against the measure.
   Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee,
opposes the reform bill but it has been endorsed by his
Democratic counterpart, Don Fowler.
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION REGULATES MONEY SIDE OF POLITICS
   By Andrew L. Lluberes

   The U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is something of a
misnomer, according to Commissioner Danny Lee McDonald.
   "We don't do any of the traditional stuff that (electoral)
commissions do" in other countries, such as register voters, set
up the electoral process, count ballots and declare the victor,
McDonald said in a recent interview.
   What the commission does do, he said, is "regulate the money
side of politics at the federal (election) level."
   Bill Clinton and Bob Dole -- the nearly certain protagonists
in the November presidential election -- have both learned the
hard way that FEC regulation entails scrutiny of every cent they
and every other candidate for federal office raise, receive and
spend.
   In February 1992, an FEC audit determined that Dole's
unsuccessful campaign for the 1988 Republican presidential
nomination owed the Treasury $235,822; Dole's committee repaid
the money the following month. The audit also discovered
violations of the campaign finance laws, a misstep that cost
Dole's campaign $122,000 in civil penalties and a more than
$104,000 refund to the Treasury or contributors.
   The 1992 Clinton campaign's encounter with FEC scrutiny came a
short 10 days after he was inaugurated in January 1993, when it
had to repay $1,383,587 for the president's primary campaign and
$109,061 for the general election.
   McDonald has served on the FEC since 1981, three times as its
rotating chairman. He cited the two incidents as examples of the
reputation for evenhandedness the FEC has developed since it was
established in 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal
that ended the Nixon presidency.
   The commission administers and regulates the financing of all
primary and general elections for federal office, including the
quadrennial presidential and biennial congressional races. It has
substantially more leverage in the presidential races because it
also controls the distribution of the public money received by
those campaigns.
   Candidates running for president, in both the primary and
general elections, are eligible for federal matching funds raised
from the voluntary $3 checkoff taxpayers can make on their annual
income tax returns. A presidential candidate does not have to
accept federal matching funds -- as was the case in the
unsuccessful campaign of Malcolm "Steve" Forbes for the
Republican presidential nomination; he spent $36 million of his
own money instead. But if a candidate does accept the federal
money, the rules are specific and stringent.
   "We're trying to level the playing field," McDonald said, "so
that people who wouldn't normally have deep pockets or
deep-pocket backers get in the process. One of the things that
makes the process fair and healthy is that you have to (first)
raise $100,000, but you have to raise it in 20 states and in
increments of $250 from individuals.
   "You must raise $5,000 (in each of) those 20 states. At first
blush, that sounds like no money at all, but historically it's
been pretty hard to go out in 20 states. Our recommendations to
Congress over the years have been that it (the minimum in each
state) be raised, but still it's worked pretty effectively."
   So effectively, McDonald noted, that incumbent U.S. presidents
were beaten in 1976, 1980 and 1992.
   "So whether you like who won or who lost, at least the system
was viable enough," he added. "Once you raise $100,000, it only
allows you to start receiving matching funds. You can receive
matching funds based on the money you raise from individuals. In
this country, you can get $1,000 from individuals, but we'll only
match $250. The beauty of it is that you're better off to have
four contributions of $250 than one of $1,000. At least there's
some rationale to it."
   ---------------
   
   ---------------
   PREDICTING PRESIDENTIAL VICTORY

   America is a nation obsessed with predictions, so different
"experts" have come up with a variety of unique ways to determine
who will win the presidency in November. Among them:
   -- the boring convention indicator: whichever political party
has the more orderly, or dull, nominating convention wins.
   -- the basketball method: a Democrat is elected when the
collegiate basketball champions win their final game by 10 points
or more.
   -- the baseball method: an American League victory in the
World Series presages a Republican win.
   -- the hemline theory: shorter skirts in women's fashion mean
a Democratic win.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   New public opinion polls indicate that President Clinton is
widening his lead in the presidential race over the presumptive
Republican nominee, Senator Bob Dole. And now some Democrats
believe that the president's improving poll numbers could mean
Democratic gains in congressional races this year.
   Some recent polls show the president leading Senator Dole by
as much as 14-points. Nonetheless, most political experts do
expect the race to tighten (or expect the gap to narrow) well
before November.
   But there are congressional elections this year as well, all
435 House seats and 33 out of 100 Senate seats are up for grabs.
   Just a few months ago, the conventional wisdom was that
Democrats could expect further losses in both the House and
Senate. But that is now changing.
   Norman Ornstein, who watches congressional races for the
American Enterprise Institute in Washington, says:
   "But to say that Democrats could hold their own in the Senate
with 47 seats and maybe even pick up a seat or two is not
completely out of the question. That climate has changed."
   Some Democrats are even predicting that they will retake
control of the House, though most analysts regard that as
unlikely.
   Why have things changed? A lot of polls indicate that
president Clinton and the Democrats won the budget battle last
year. Republicans got the lion's share (or most) of the blame for
the government shutdowns and Democrats are eager to cast house
Republicans as ideological extremists in the upcoming election.
   William Schneider monitors U.S. politics for the American
Enterprise Institute and is a well-known television commentator.
He says Republican victories in the 1994 congressional elections
have actually proved to be a boon to President Clinton's
political fortunes:
   "The bottom line is that losing (the Democratic majority in)
Congress (in 1994) may be the best thing that ever happened to
Bill Clinton. It made him the first democratic president in fifty
years not to be challenged for renomination. It has enabled him
to move to the center without losing Democratic support and it is
scaring voters away from Bob Dole."
   Senator Bob Dole has clinched the Republican presidential
nomination but a number of political analysts predict that
President Clinton will mention the name of house speaker Newt
Gingrich just as often during the upcoming campaign.
   Analyst Norman Ornstein says Democrats will try to take
advantage of Mr. Gingrich's high negative ratings among the
public to win back some of the House seats they lost two years
ago:
   "You are going to see, as we have already begun to see, every
Democratic Congressional candidate in the country running against
not his or her opponent, but against (house speaker) Newt
Gingrich. And you are going to see Bill Clinton, as much as he
can, running against Newt Gingrich."
   And do not forget Ross Perot. The former independent
presidential candidate is forging ahead with his new reform party
which he says will endorse candidates for various House and
Senate seats. It all depends, he says, on their commitment to
government and lobbying reform:
   "If you want the swing vote in '96, you had better repent, be
reborn and be responsive to the American people instead of those
guys who give you the millions of dollars to run your campaigns.
That is what has wrecked this country."
   Despite the surge in Democratic confidence about the
congressional races, many Republicans are skeptical that
President Clinton's relative strength at the moment will
translate into Democratic gains in Congress. They recall that it
was less than a year ago that Democrats in droves vowed to run
away from the president when his poll numbers were low and they
feared being dragged down to defeat. Now, some of those same
Democrats are hoping for a presidential visit to their states
sometime this fall in hopes of boosting their own re-election
campaigns.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER

          "CLIP" NEWS SERVICE

          INEWS DAILY IS NOW AVAILABLE THROUGH E-MAIL

          FREE TRIAL

          LOW COST ROYALTY FREE REPRODUCTION RIGHTS AVAILABLE

   International News E-Wire Service (INEWS) is an English
language daily, covering news of the world.  INEWS provides
up-to-date and accurate world news.  It also includes many
features and interviews covering such topics as current events,
politics, economics, science, medicine, history, technology,
agriculture, religion, and music.

   Low cost republication rights are available allowing articles
to be used on BBSs, in newsletters, advertising, LANs, weeklies,
community newspapers, school newspapers, brochures, media kits,
presentations, church bulletins, and more.

   Every day, INEWS gathers reports filed by correspondents
stationed at 26 news bureaus throughout the world.  INEWS relates
first-hand coverage of stories from news bureaus in Abidjan,
Bangkok, Beijing, Berlin, Bonn, Cairo, Chicago, Geneva, Hong
Kong, Islamabad, Jerusalem, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles,
Miami, Moscow, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Paris, Prague, Rio
de Janeiro, San Jose, Tokyo, Vienna, and Washington, D.C.

   Daily INEWS service is available for less than $4.00 a month.

   Delivered through E-mail in one of two versions, plain text or
a DOS/VGA version.  The DOS/VGA version is sent either through
E-mail, encoded, or through file transfer on America Online,
Compuserve, or Prodigy.

   A free two week trial can be received by sending E-mail
containing E-mail address, name and address to:

   INTERNET: INEWS@AOL.COM 
   AOL: INEWS
   COMPUSERVE: 76725,3622
   WORLD WIDE WEB: http://members.aol.com/inewscirc/inews.html
   --------------
   ***END OF FILE*** 