The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight, the debate over gay marriage, Margaret Warner gets four views; "Where They Stand," a Bob Dole speech on moral leadership and values; security, "the" issue in the Israeli elections, Charles Krause is there; and Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with a government official just back from the troubled African country, Burundi. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: The House of Representatives today approved a 90 cent an hour increase in the minimum wage. Kwame Holman has the story.

MR. HOLMAN: Moderate House Republicans joined with Democrats to approve the increase which would raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour by July of next year.

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA, [R] New Jersey: 40 percent of all minimum wage workers are the sole wage earners in their household. These people are working harder and harder and falling farther behind. These people need our help, and they need it now.

MR. HOLMAN: But the moderates was the minority view in the Republican Party. Conservatives united against it.

REP. JIM KOLBE, [R] Arizona: Why do we think that legislating a wage of $5.15 an hour makes sense? We should really be looking at things like capital gains tax reductions, reduce regulations on businesses, and more surely and swiftly we'll increase both employment and wages. I urge my colleagues to oppose the minimum wage increase.

MR. HOLMAN: Most Republicans wanted to soften the impact of a higher minimum wage by exempting small businesses with less than $1/2 million in yearly revenues from any minimum wage requirement.

REP. BILL GOODLING, [R] Pennsylvania: Every time we've had a minimum wage increase we've always gone back and made the exceptions and the exemptions so that the small businesses could provide those jobs for those most in need and so small businesses could create those jobs.

MR. HOLMAN: But that effort failed, with more than 40 Republicans taking the side argued by Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: Just think about it for a minute. Do you think anyone who gets the minimum wage doesn't immediately spend it on paying their bills? The money goes right back into the economy, and we build the economy from the bottom up, not just from the top down.

MR. HOLMAN: The House approved the minimum wage increase by a wide margin, sent it to the Senate, and most members quickly left town for the Memorial Day recess.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Federal law enforcement officials today announced one of the biggest seizures of illegal weapons in U.S. history. Agents in San Francisco confiscated 2000 AK-47 rifles and arrested seven people in an arms smuggling ring. The Chinese-made assault weapons have an estimated street value of $4 million. Published reports said some of the men arrested work for munitions firms run by the Chinese government. The arrest followed an 18-month sting operation conducted jointly by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, the Customs Service, and the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco. Importing automatic weapons has been outlawed in the U.S. since 1994. Back in Washington, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick said the FBI was prepared to disrupt the supply of electric power to the Freemen Ranch in Montana. She said the FBI moved in portable electric generators to supply neighboring homesteads if the power is cut. Some 18 members of the so-called Freemen have been holed up at the ranch for two months. Members of the anti-government group are wanted on federal and state charges. Negotiations to end the stand-off have failed. The Presidential candidates engaged in a war of words today over banning so-called partial birth abortions. In Philadelphia, the presumed Republican nominee, Bob Dole, spoke to a Catholic news organization. He said he would work to block the late-term abortion procedure if elected, insisting President Clinton's veto of such legislation pushed the limits of decency too far. We'll have extended excerpts of that speech later in the program. In Milwaukee, President Clinton responded to Dole's criticism. He said he vetoed the bill because Republicans refused to exempt a relatively few number of women forced by physical disorders to have the late-term procedure.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Before he or anybody else stands up and condemns the rest of us for our alleged lack of moral compass, he ought to say he's looking at those women, and he said there was too much political support behind this, I did not want to be bothered by the facts, it's okay with me, whatever, if they ripped your body to shreds and you could never have another baby, even though the baby you were carrying couldn't live--now I fail to see why his moral position is superior to the one I took.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The President was in Wisconsin to meet with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The two leaders discussed the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and the upcoming elections in Russia. In New Orleans, the tobacco industry won a major legal victory today in a federal appeals court. A three-judge panel ruled a lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers could not proceed as a class action. The suit had been filed on behalf of millions of American smokers in an effort to recover billions of dollars in liability from tobacco companies. The suit accused the industry of concealing research that showed nicotine was addictive. Plaintiffs also charged the makers manipulated the levels of nicotine to keep smokers hooked. The case can still go forward as a lawsuit on behalf of the four original plaintiffs. In Washington today, a Senate subcommittee held hearings on Iranian arms shipments to Bosnian Muslims during the Bosnian civil war. Republicans have criticized the Clinton administration for looking the other way, despite a United Nations embargo on arms to the warring factions. The weapons were sent through Croatia. The U.S. ambassador told the Croatians he had "no instructions on whether they should block shipments." Deputy Sec. of State Strobe Talbott defended that decision.

STROBE TALBOTT, Deputy Secretary of State: This was a specific exchange that moved our policy in the direction it was already going and in which it was seen to be going. It didn't fundamentally change anything. What would have changed something big time would have been if our answer to the Croatians had been no, we are flat against your letting these arms flow to the Bosnians. That would have had, we think, disastrous consequences, and we would have been up here a lot earlier than now testifying on a much bleaker situation.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The arms embargo was partially lifted earlier this year after a U.S.-sponsored peace accord was reached. Also in Washington today, the Department of Transportation banned passenger planes from carrying oxygen generators as cargo. The ban follows the investigation into the safety of the generators on board the ValuJet plane that crashed May 11th. Investigators suspect the generators may have contributed to the accident. The devices supply oxygen for passenger face masks. The ban is effective immediately and will continue at least until the end of the year. In the Florida Everglades today, workers cleared a path to the crater caused by the ValuJet plane crash. The National Transportation Safety Board wanted access to the swamp site so heavy dredging equipment could be brought in. Investigators say they have some indication from radar that pieces of wreckage may be buried in the crater's muddy bottom. Other recovery workers continued searching through silt and sawgrass around the crash site. Only 25 percent of the aircraft has been found. One hundred and ten people died in the crash. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the debate over gay marriage, a "Where They Stand" speech by candidate Dole, security and the Israeli elections, and the troubled African country Burundi. FOCUS - LOVE & MARRIAGE?

MS. FARNSWORTH: The fight against gay marriage is first tonight. Margaret Warner has the story.

MS. WARNER: Yesterday the Clinton administration announced that the President would sign a bill pending in Congress that would let states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. We get four perspectives on this controversial issue in a moment but first this background.

MS. WARNER: This was the scene in San Francisco's City Hall a few weeks ago, a symbolic wedding ceremony for 200 same-sex couples. Since 1991, gay couples have been able to register as domestic partners in San Francisco, but as in the rest of the United States, it is illegal for them to marry. Making such marriages legal has become an increasingly heated issue in recent weeks among gay rights advocates, church groups, and state and national politicians. The issue has assumed political dimensions because of a lawsuit brought against the state of Hawaii by three gay couples who claimed the state was discriminating against them in denying them marriage licenses. In a preliminary ruling favoring the couples, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ordered the state to prove that there's a compelling state interest in barring same-sex marriages. If the state cannot, gay marriages will be legal in Hawaii. Many cultural and religious conservatives in other states are alarmed over the developments in Hawaii, since a marriage performed and recognized on one state is normally recognized in all others. A southern California Christian group produced this video and sent it to church members and state legislators.

SPOKESMAN: When you can crack marriage and completely destroy the definition of it, you've just overturned all of society's moral structure.

MS. WARNER: Many states are now considering legislation protecting them against having to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Ten states have passed anti-gay marriage laws. Similar efforts have failed in seventeen other states, and they're still pending in eight others. Gay activists are fighting such legislative attempts. They took heart from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that threw out a Colorado constitutional amendment banning all local gay rights laws. It isn't clear, however, whether or not that ruling might apply to the same-sex marriage issue. On Capitol Hill, nearly 60 House Republicans and 60 Democrats have introduced a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. It does not specifically outlaw same-sex marriages, but it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed and recognized elsewhere. Bob Dole, the assumed Republican Presidential candidate, is a co- sponsor of the Senate version of the bill. Gay rights groups were counting on a veto of the bill if it ever reached the President's desk, but yesterday White House spokesman Mike McCurry said the President would sign the bill. Today in Milwaukee, President Clinton responded to critics in the gay community who had expressed outrage at McCurry's remarks.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'd say look at my record. Name me another President who has been so pilloried for standing up for the fact that we shouldn't discriminate against any group of Americans, including gay Americans, who are willing to work hard, pay their taxes, obey the law, and be good citizens. And let me just say, even though, I will sign this bill, if that's what it does, and that's what I understand it does, this is hardly a problem that is sweeping the country. No state has, has legalized gay marriages. Only one state is considering it. We all know why this is in Washington now. It's one more attempt to divert the American people from the urgent need to confront our challenges together. Now that's really what's going on here. And I'm determined--this has always been my position on gay marriage. It was my position in '92. I told everybody who asked me about it, straight or gay, what my position was. I can't change my position on that. I have no intention of it, but I am going to do everything I can to stop this election from degenerating into an attempt to pit one group of Americans against another.

MS. WARNER: Here to debate the issue now are Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian education and advocacy group; Rev. Robert Schenck, a general secretary of the National Clergy Council, an ecumenical network representing over 4,000 clergy; Republican Rep. Bob Barr, primary sponsor of the House bill regarding same-sex marriages; and Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who opposes the bill. Welcome all of you. Elizabeth Birch, why do members of the homosexual community want the right to be married and have that legally recognized?

ELIZABETH BIRCH, Human Rights Campaign: Well, I think we first have to simply acknowledge that there will be no right to marry in this country for a number of years between two adults of the same gender, so I think we have to recognize that this debate is taking place in an election year, and it's a very mean-spirited political ploy, I believe, but let's just step back and note this: There have always been gay and lesbian Americans. There will always be gay Americans, and families have grappled in very emotional ways with this issue. I think the real issue is what does a nation do with its gay and lesbian sons and daughters and who gets to decide. There are two components to marriage. One is a religious ritual that is regarded as very, very sacred, and nothing that happens in Hawaii or anywhere else will touch that. But there's also a civil side to marriage that I think is being ignored here and glossed over. There are benefits that flow from the private ordering of one's life and memorializing it, and gay and lesbian Americans are taxpayers. They help to build all the institutions of America and this society, and if they help to build them and invest in them, they should get the returns that flow to every other American.

MS. WARNER: Reverend, why do you find the concept of gay marriage so unacceptable?

REV. ROBERT SCHENCK, National Clergy Council: Well, let me say that I agree with much of what Ms. Birch has said, and I think there are important things to be said. But we have to look at the very definition of marriage, what marriage is. Marriage is primarily a religious notion. It began that way. It has always been that way. The vast majority of marriages are performed under the aegis of some religious institution. Most marriages are solemnized by religious officials, and the vast majority of people will look at marriage as more than just a business arrangement. It is a spiritual thing, and it has very deep and very, very profound meaning. And historically and religiously, and I think I speak for more than the Christian religion, I happen to be a Christian, but if you examined virtually every major religion, you would find that marriage has been exclusively for a man and a woman to bind themselves together for a life-long commitment with a very critical component, and that is procreation for the rearing of children. And it's when you bring all these elements into marriage that you realize this is far more than just signing an agreement and having a mutually beneficial business arrangement. And this proposal to violate the historic and, and very deep and profound meaning of marriage offends the sensibilities of the vast majority of people. And I think that's why we have the situation that we have in this debate.

MS. WARNER: What about his point about the historic and religious roots of this? Is that without merit?

MS. BIRCH: I think that it's without merit to make decisions based on what used to be, what is a historical kind of compass. If that were true, we would still have slaves in this country, we would still have women being the property of men when they got married, we would say that inter-racial marriage is wrong. This is no way for a free society to make decisions. And that's why there's a sacred old constitutional construct of the separation of church and state. What I said is who is to decide, and the same cast of characters that are bringing this anti-gay onslaught in this election year are precisely the same organizations and people that brought us the anti-gay state ballot initiatives, which thankfully the highest court in the land ruled out this weekend.

MS. WARNER: Let's stay on the same-sex marriage issue. I mean, could you imagine some other kind of legal union that the homosexual community would accept that would not be called marriage but would convey the legal protections and benefits that you say you seek?

MS. BIRCH: I don't think so because I think that it would be a waste of resources for the society, a profound waste of resources, to build parallel machinery and structures to order the benefits that flow from marriage. Remember, the only one--the only people making this murky and bringing the religious to the civil side are the people that are advocating that under no circumstances should gay and lesbian people be able to marry.

MS. WARNER: What do you say to her earlier point that it's really in society's interest to have stable relationships of all kinds and that gays who make these kind of commitments ought to be supported, at least by the legal protections that we convey to marriage?

REV. SCHENCK: Again, because marriage fills a very unique role in human culture historically, and we're not again just limiting this to American history, we're going back 5,000 plus years of recorded history, and I think if you examine virtually every human society or culture, you're going to find that marriage fills a unique, a truly unique role, and it's not to be toyed with or experimented with because the consequences are exponential. And while it seems a noble thing to say yes, two people should be able to commit themselves together for life, we have to realize that marriage has parameters, just as other human relationships do. I cannot just go out and engage in any kind of relationship I please. We put social parameters. For example, I love my children passionately, but I am not allowed to express my love to my children or anyone else's children sexually. And there are parameters around human sexuality and those parameters have proven historically to be extremely beneficial. So here to, to go on some reckless experimentation, we already see the consequences, for example, of single-parent homes. We had for a while people advocating, well, it's not important to have a father present in the home. Now we're beginning to see the fallout of that. And the consequences are enormous, and they are exponential. And the same will happen here. I don't think people are ready for example in public school, for a homosexual couple to be held up as the equivalent of heterosexual male/female marriage. I don't think we're ready for the consequences.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let me get the two congressmen in on this now. Rep. Barr, what would be the practical effect of your bill, if it were to pass?

REP. BOB BARR, [R] Georgia: Well, the practical effect would be fairly limited but very, very important. And this legislation that we're working on through the House and which I expect to pass and which the President has indicated he would sign is far from the extremist piece of legislation that homosexual proponents would have the country believe it is. It is a very simple, very straightforward and very carefully crafted and specifically targeted reaction to the situation in Hawaii. Now whether the situation in Hawaii presents itself to us in three months or four months or a year I don't think is really the issue. The issue is: Does Congress have a responsibility in light of confusing court cases and in light of certain challenges by homosexual activists, once the court in Hawaii reaches this final decision, to prevent that from being forced on the citizens of all the other states without the citizens of each one of those states making a very careful and very profound public policy decision. Ms. Birch mentioned something about who will decide these issues. Well, I don't think, and I'm surprised to think that she would feel or that Rep. Frank would believe that three judges in Hawaii should speak for the rest of the country. All our legislation says is that no one state shall be forced to accept homosexual marriages if they are, in fact, recognized in another state.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Frank, what's wrong with that?

REP. BARNEY FRANK, [D] Massachusetts: What's wrong with it is that it's not really an accurate representation of what Mr. Barr and others think is the situation. You noted that--in your earlier introduction--that 10 states have already passed laws saying they will not recognize gay marriages. The proponents of this bill all believe, or almost all of them believe, that the states already have the power to do this. There is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. There's a doctrine that says a state may by its own public policy exempt itself from certain full faith and credit. Everyone believes, who believes that the states can do this, that the states already can. What we have here, and it does make a difference when we do this, we're in the mist of a Presidential reelection campaign. We have a Republican majority in Congress which has been unable to do very much. They filed this bill. A week later they had a hearing. They're rushing to judgment before we can discuss a lot of the implications because this is not about what states do in marriages. This is what the states do in the electoral college. What we have is a situation where the states already have constitutional authority to make public policy accepted. The Supreme Court will then have the constitutional decision to say is that a legitimate one or not. There's no role for the Congress in this, and the people who are pushing this bill, in fact, believe that the ten state laws that have been adopted have already been done. What we have here is politics, and, look, we just heard this from one of your guests who said, well, you know, this offends people's sensibilities. I do not think it is a decent way to behave to try to disarrange the lives of others because they've offended your sensibilities. My living with another man has no negative impact on anyone else. If you don't like it, don't come to our house for dinner, don't invite us to your house for dinner. Live your life, and let us live ours. But the notion that because this is going to offend his sensibilities we should be denied certain basic rights hardly rises to the level of legitimate national legislation.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Barr, how do you respond to that?

REP. BARR: Well, of course, the fact of the matter is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to pass laws that, that can limit its effect, or that determine the effect that it shall be given. Also, as Mr. Frank well knows, there is great uncertainty in this area. There is great uncertainty in how the courts are going to rule. Take the case earlier this week in which the court ruled on a homosexual matter from the, from the state of Colorado. If one had gone back and looked at previous decisions of the Supreme Court over the last decade and looked at cases where it had decided issues relating to homosexuality, finding, for example, that homosexual behavior is not a constitutionally protected form of behavior, and other cases, one would have not concluded that the court would throw out the Colorado amendment, but they did. So the fact of the matter is even though, yes, certain states, including my state, have passed laws saying that homosexual marriages will not be recognized in our state, reflecting very strong public policy opinion in that area, there is uncertainty, and I think it's responsible of Congress to craft this very narrowly targeted response to a situation that is going to present itself, the extremists who are pushing this agenda are going to force--

REP. FRANK: May I just say--

MS. WARNER: Go right ahead.

REP. FRANK: Yes, there is some uncertainty, but it's not an uncertainty which is resolved one way or other by a congressional statute. Mr. Barr mentioned the Colorado case. All the congressional statutes in the world wouldn't have had any effect. That was the Supreme Court ruling on the substantive constitutionality of what Colorado did. These are people who believe that the states have the right to do what they already did, but what they've got is gay bashing envy. They are sorry that the states got into the act, and they can't.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let me--

REP. FRANK: They want to help the--

MS. WARNER: --interrupt you.

REP. FRANK: --Dole campaign by putting this into the Presidential campaign.

MS. WARNER: Congressman, let me ask both of you now, what do you think the President's decision to sign this bill, if it gets to him, does to prospects for passage of the bill? Congressman Barr first, and briefly, we don't have a lot of time.

REP. BARR: Well, of course, those that are bashing me, let's talk about heterosexual bashing here, uh, are saying that this is extremist legislation. I think it's very difficult for them now to state that with a straight face since the President of their own party has come forward and said this is responsible, reasonable legislation, and I intend to sign it.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Frank?

REP. FRANK: Well, I'm sorry Mr. Barr's tender feelings have been hurt by people who are critical of him. I'll try to be more considerate of him in the future. The President is running for reelection. I'm disappointed in what he did, but to be honest with you, I long ago came to accept the fact that on some issues people who agreed with on everything were probably not going to be able to be elected President. I think what happened is this: The Republicans cleverly found a way to take the attention away from Medicare and the environment and Medicaid and education, and they threw this in the President's lap. And I think he is responding out of political necessity as he sees it. I think he's wrong. I think he misreads it. But as far as affecting chances for passage, it was going to pass anyway because the Republicans are so frustrated by their inability to do anything in Congress this year or to make any real capital that they--this is just a godsend to them as far as they're concerned, and they were going to put it through anyway.

MS. WARNER: Ms. Birch, how do you see the President's action?

MS. BIRCH: I see that the bill itself, and I must say that I think Rep. Barr is completely disingenuous, because if he was telling the truth, they would amend the bill and add, you know, notions of procreation, only people who can procreate, maybe second and third marriages. We've always been unclear about which marriage of his he's defending, his first, his second, or his third, and what they've done very cleverly here is they've taken this bill and they've boxed President Clinton. That was the point of this. It was to separate President Clinton from an important part of his base, gay and lesbian Americans, and no gay or lesbian American should allow that to happen.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Barr, do you want to say a quick word in response to that?

REP. BARR: Well, these are arguments ad hominem. The fact of the matter is the President pulled the ground out from under the, the extremists on the other side, and they're scrambling around trying to find some way of making up for what is a specious argument on their part, that this is extremist legislation. It reflects the views of the vast majority of people in this country. It will pass, the President will sign it, and that's the way it should be.

MS. WARNER: Rev. Schenck briefly, do you think the President's move now takes this out of Presidential politics and politics in this election year?

REV. SCHENCK: Well, no, it doesn't, and it won't go away, because it is such an important issue, and it's important that we're having this debate, and it's too bad that Ms. Birch relies on ad hominem insults against a man because this is a very, very critical issue. This will not go away.

MS. BIRCH: Excuse me, Reverend.

REV. SCHENCK: And it's--

MS. BIRCH: This is man is--

MS. WARNER: Let him finish.

MS. BIRCH: --pushing--

REV. SCHENCK: Well, I'm just saying that this has its own merits. We have to debate the issue for what it really is, and that's not going to go away, and we have to remember, this is not an anti- anything act. This is a defense of marriage. This is a defense of the historic traditional marriage between man and woman. That's what the debate is all about. That's what we ought to confine it to.

REP. FRANK: This is a defense against no attack. My living with another man in a loving relationship is no threat to anyone else's marriage.

REV. SCHENCK: Quite to the contrary, sir.

REP. FRANK: Call it what you want.

REV. SCHENCK: It has enormous--

REP. FRANK: Sir, you are defending nothing because nothing is being threatened or attacked. Two people, a man and a woman who are living together and love each other and have a marriage, they are not threatened by this. That is simply silly. I am not threatening anyone by living with another man in a loving relationship.

REV. SCHENCK: I disagree with you, Sir.

REP. FRANK: And that language--

REV. SCHENCK: I disagree with you.

REP. FRANK: --that language accusing of attacking a marriage, I know a lot of emotion--many of my friends and relatives are married, and they do not feel that their marriage is threatened by- -

MS. WARNER: All right.

REP. FRANK: --by this in the slightest.

REV. SCHENCK: No, all--

MS. WARNER: Very brief.

REV. SCHENCK: --all of our behaviors impact, uh--we are not islands. We are not only unto ourselves. Every action we take--

MS. WARNER: All right.

REV. SCHENCK: --has consequences on others--

MS. WARNER: All right.

REV. SCHENCK: --and particularly on children.

MS. WARNER: I'm sorry, all of you, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour, a candidate Dole speech, security and the Israeli elections, and trouble in Burundi. SERIES - WHERE THEY STAND

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, "Where They Stand," our weekly look at major policy speeches delivered by candidates Dole and Clinton. Tonight we excerpt a speech given by Senator Bob Dole this morning at the annual convention of the Catholic Press Association in Philadelphia. He focused on values and moral leadership.

SEN. BOB DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: There are many issues at stake in this election. Renewing the strength of America by restoring our social and moral order has got to be somewhere near the top of the list. America's greatness has always depended not on our economic or military power alone but on our strength of character. And every great nation needs ideas and convictions and shared hope that hold it together and ennoble its life. And we have those unifying convictions, but many Americans today look at our culture and wonder what's to become of them. And at times, those values seem to have vanished from our national life. And as a society, we can't shake the feeling that our culture is in trouble and our values are under assault. Our welfare system discourages work, undermines families, and perpetuates poverty. If so many of our country wanted to undermine the fabric of American society, it could not inflict anything upon us worse than the welfare system we've inflicted on ourselves. We all know that too often a baby born on welfare belongs to a girl who's herself almost a baby who was born on welfare. And we are just beginning to recognize that perhaps half of the fathers of these babies are grown men, 20 years or older. In other words, a central feature of the plague of illegitimacy is older men preying on young girls. And solving the welfare problem must include ending the epidemic of these male sexual predators. And that is why I issued a call to our nation's governors. Enforce the statutory rape laws you already have on the books and make them stronger where need be but enforce them to the fullest. And I believe the governors will respond. And there are things the government can do. [applause] There are things the government can do to help. Social Security, which I think I can correctly helped save, along with Sen. Moynihan in 1983, has lifted generations of elderly out of poverty. Food stamps and the WIC program, which I helped to create, have provided nourishment to the most vulnerable Americans among us. The Americans With Disabilities Act, which I proudly sponsored, opened the door for millions and millions who had been shut out far too long, and Medicare, which I and others are fighting to preserve, has helped protect millions of elderly and disabled Americans. America does not lack community organizations or parishes or synagogues. It's willing to help restore goodness to our country. The problem is these organizations often lack the resources they need to do so. To this end as President, I will propose a charity tax credit which over time would allow taxpayers to earmark a portion of their annual taxes to private and religious charities, faith-based or not, that spend over 75 percent of their money on poverty relief. [applause] This credit will be up to $500 for individuals and up to $1,000 for couples. And finally, Americans look to the White House, as they should, for moral leadership. Yet, in some ways, we have an administration that reflects the most troubling features of our culture, an administration that seems to believe in everything and nothing, an administration that talks about the politics of meaning and with such talk reinforces for far too many the meaningless of politics, an administration guided by nothing more profound or permanent than the latest polling data, an administration constantly exhorting itself and lecturing the public but itself fundamentally adrift, without direction or moral vision. And the saddest evidence came last--this last month when President Clinton vetoed a bill to prevent partial birth abortions. And let me speak on this issue as simply as I can. I am opposed to abortion on demand. I am pro-life. But I understand that reasonable and decent people can disagree on certain points here. But this was an easy call. Here was an issue where all Americans or nearly all Americans could come together, pro-choice, pro-life, the American Medical Association, and with his veto, President Clinton pushed the limits of decency too far. And if I am President, I can tell you exactly what I'd do. I will ask Congress to pass a bill banning the practice, and I will sign it into law. [applause] And I've learned from experience from the media that on this issue, in particular, there are those who seek to focus on what divides us. Everybody has that right. It's a free country, but I prefer to focus on what unites us, and the values that hold us together as a people, and it's in these values I have found my strength and our nation has found our strength.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole speaking this morning in Philadelphia. FOCUS - DECIDING FACTOR

MS. FARNSWORTH: Next tonight the issue that dominates all others in Israeli politics, the question of security. Correspondent Charles Krause is in Israel covering next week's election for prime minister and the parliament. Tonight he reports from Jerusalem on the extraordinary security measures that have been put in place.

CHARLES KRAUSE: On the surface, Jerusalem remains much as it has always been, a place of extraordinary beauty, an ancient city of churches, mosques, and synagogues, of winding streets, and outdoor cafes, a city which appears to be at peace, both with itself and with its neighbors. But appearances can be deceiving, especially here in the Middle East. Jerusalem was stunned when two suicide bombers blew up two buses earlier this year. And now, as next week's election approaches, the government has warned Jerusalem's residents that the city may once again be the target of a terrorist attack. Nimrod Bichler is an amateur tennis player who recently completed his military service.

NIMROD BICHLER, Tennis Player: I was born in Jerusalem, and I can't say that I feel as safe as I used to when I was younger because the last year there was a big increase of the terror. Right now it's, it's frightening to go on buses on the public places like malls, and you have to look around and really be a detective, to see if there is anybody suspect, and the security level is much lower now.

MR. KRAUSE: Ronit Amsalem is a young mother who works for the Israeli government.

RONIT AMSALEM, Government Employee: [speaking through interpreter] I feel that I should always be looking over my shoulder to ensure that there's no threat behind me. That is not a secure feeling. I also don't feel safe letting my little girl walk around on the streets because it's dangerous, dangerous because terrorists might blow up a building or bus. Or they might do more personal attacks, like the stabbings that have taken place not far from here.

MR. KRAUSE: To counter the fears and the threat of another suicide bombing, police and security forces in Jerusalem were placed on maximum alert late last week. Specially trained rapid reaction units now patrol the city's streets. Soldiers and undercover agents guard bus stops and busy intersections wherever a bomb might explode or a terrorist might strike. [siren] Jerusalem's bomb squad is dispatched to check out unattended parcels or packages some forty to fifty times a day, while specially trained police dogs search buses for explosives. Outside Jerusalem, Israel's border with Gaza and the West Bank has been temporarily closed. Only Israeli citizens and Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem are now allowed to cross the so-called green line from the territories into Israel proper. The stepped up security will remain in place at least through next week because Israeli intelligence is reported to have evidence that Hamas and other terrorist groups backed by Iran will attempt another deadly attack before next Wednesday to try to influence the outcome of the election. The terrorists' goal, according to Ehud Sprinzak, a political science professor at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, is to slow down or stop the Middle East peace process by turning Israelis against Prime Minister Shimon Peres and his government.

EHUD SPRINZAK, Hebrew University: The Israeli intelligence community is almost unanimous in the conviction that the Iranians are very disturbed by the peace process.

MR. KRAUSE: Sprinzak and most other Israeli analysts say Iran would like nothing better than to seePeres, the architect of the peace process, defeated and thrown out of office, in favor of a new more conservative government led by Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations, Likud Party candidate Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's campaign slogan is peace with security, and he's promised to slow down the peace process by taking a much tougher line with Israel's Arab neighbors if he's elected. Peres continues to hold a slight lead in the polls, but Sprinzak and most other analysts say that Israeli voters would almost certainly blame Peres and elect Netanyahu if there were another terrorist attack.

EHUD SPRINZAK: A major issue right now in this election is the issue of personal security. If people in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem do not feel secure, even within small Israel, they then don't see a point in supporting the peace process. There is also an issue of expectations. When Peres brought the Oslo agreement to the Knesset, he promised the Israelis hundred years of peace. He said no more war. It's not working like that. And the expectation is being disappointed, and this is why people now emotionally are moving after every bombing to the right.

MR. KRAUSE: Politically, what Peres must avoid is a repeat of the suicide bombings that occurred in Israel last February and March. More than 60 Israelis were killed and many others wounded in a period of just nine days, and as a result, Peres's approval ratings plummeted by nearly 20 percent.

SHEILA BRULL, Retired Worker: People have had enough. One more bus bomb, one more any bomb, and it will swing the election.

MR. KRAUSE: Sheila Brull is an Israeli citizen born in England who says she's decided to vote for Netanyahu because she doesn't think Peres cares enough about security.

SHEILA BRULL: He wants peace, which is a wonderful thing, but he's blinding himself to the reality. You cannot trust the Arabs. The Arabs won't be satisfied till we're in the sea.

DAVID ROTH, Bank Employee: You have to understand the psyche here.

MR. KRAUSE: David Roth, who moved to Israel 10 years ago from the United States, says it's impossible to forget the savagery of the bombings that occurred earlier this year.

DAVID ROTH: It is just so severe and so, umm, hard to accept the severity of the incident that it will cause certain, certain people who are undecided to take another look at maybe we just have to take a different, a different route. It's like an Oklahoma City. It is that severe that it can change what the outcome of this election will be.

MR. KRAUSE: Although there have bene no more bombings so far, there have been signs of increased terrorist activity in Jerusalem over the past several weeks. Two suicide bombers, one of them staying at this hotel in East Jerusalem, blew themselves up before they were able to strike in what the Israeli press calls work-related accidents. Then just last Friday, Israeli soldiers captured Hasan Salameh. Salameh is said to be a top Hamas operative engaged in recruiting young Palestinians for suicide missions inside Israel. Ehud Olmert, Jerusalem's mayor, has direct access to sensitive intelligence and meets regularly with top government security officials. The terrorist threat he says is real, and Jerusalem is one of the terrorists' primary targets.

MAYOR EHUD OLMERT, Jerusalem: They choose the point which is the most sensitive for the other side. It's the logic of the entire attitude of the Palestinians, so since Jerusalem is the most sensitive point, and they know that this will cause the greatest pain, although, of course, when you suffer casualties, it doesn't matter where they are, they are casualties, and it causes a great deal of pain for everyone, but there is always an additional dimension because this is Jerusalem, this is the heart of the country, this is the capital of Israel, and so many people across the world care for Jerusalem. [siren]

MR. KRAUSE: It's often said that terrorism is a war that takes place in the shadows. If that's so, then the man whose responsibility it is to ensure that Jerusalem does not suffer yet again from another shadowy attack is the city's police chief, General Arieh Amit. Young and supremely self-confident, Amit commands a force of some 3,000 men and women ranging from cops on the beat to highly sophisticated counterterrorism units directly engaged in Israel's continuing struggle to maintain control in Jerusalem. We spent several hours with Gen. Amit last week, driving from his headquarters in West Jerusalem past the gate of the old city to neighborhoods where Jews and Arabs live virtually side by side.

GEN. ARIEH AMIT, Jerusalem Police Chief: Well, no one can ask me to put a fence in the street, in the middle of the street, because we don't have any here any border. We have to give feeling to everybody that this is a normal city. This is not prison, and this is not some place near the border. This is simply a city with special problems but still the capital of Israel.

MR. KRAUSE: And finally, Gen. Amit took us to the heart of old Jerusalem, where the passions and hatreds that have separated Muslims, Christians, and Jews for centuries come together in an area about half the size of Central Park.

GEN. ARIEH AMIT: I simply like to be here. I feel closer to God.

MR. KRAUSE: It was here in front of the Wailing Wall that we asked Gen. Amit about the terrorist threat and his efforts to try to prevent another major incident before next week's watershed election.

GEN. ARIEH AMIT: It is not a secret that Iran is anxious to succeed in a very big terrorist act in Israel and naturally in Israel, when they are talking about Israel, they are talking about Jerusalem, including, of course, this place because we know we have intelligence reports from time to time that the Hamas will try to make the act here because they know that if there is a place that will hurt all the Jewish people, this is the place.

MR. KRAUSE: For Israel, for the PLO, for the United States, for Shimon Peres, for Yasser Arafat, for Benjamin Netanyahu, and for Arieh Amit, the stakes couldn't be higher. With Israel's borders now split almost evenly down the middle, just one bomb on one bus could decide the outcome of next week's crucial election in Israel, an election which could, in turn, decide the future of peace throughout the Middle East.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In the past, Israelis have voted for political parties running for seats in parliament. On Wednesday, for the first time, they will cast separate votes for prime minister and for members of the parliament or Knesset. UPDATE - TROUBLED COUNTRY

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, an update on the troubled African nation of Burundi. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Clinton administration was sufficiently worried about the growing ethnic tensions and violence in Burundi that it sent a high-level mission there last week. The delegation was headed by the President's National Security Adviser Anthony Lake. Mr. Lake's deputy for African affairs, Susan Rice, was part of the mission, and she joins us now. Thank you. Why did the administration send such a high-level delegation to Burundi?

SUSAN RICE, National Security Council Staff: Well, Charlayne, we're very very concerned about the situation in Burundi at the moment. Hundreds of people, we estimate, are dying each week. There are assassinations of government officials on almost a daily basis. There are refugee flows into neighboring countries, and we feel we're on the brink of a potential disaster there. We don't think it's too late, but we think it's definitely on the edge.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your boss and colleague, Tony Lake, described it as past the brink of chaos. Can you elaborate on that.

MS. RICE: Yes. I think what he meant is that the killing is at such a level already that it is already a disaster. We can't minimize the significance of what's already happened, but we also realize that it could get a great deal worse. And it's almost as if we've fallen over the cliff and we--the Burundian people can still reach back and grab a branch and pull themselves back over the edge to safety but they have to do it quickly, and they have to do it with the assistance of the international community.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Okay. I want to talk about that in a minute, but as you look at the situation today, if it continues as it is, could we see another genocide, as we saw in neighboring Rwanda, which used to be a part of Burundi?

MS. RICE: Well, in fact, Rwanda and Burundi are actually quite different circumstances, but, yes, in a worst case scenario, umm, precipitated by coup or, umm, by the insurgents attacking the capital, we could see a very dangerous situation that spirals into potentially tens of thousands being killed and perhaps hundreds of thousands of refugees.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the cause?

MS. RICE: Well, the cause is--goes back to the history with the majority Hutus and the minority Tutsi, uh, engaged in a conflict for power, essentially a struggle over scarce resources, and the conflict is driven by a tremendous amount of fear. The Tutsis fear, as the minority, that they may be exterminated by the Hutus, and the Hutus, who have been kept out of power, fear that they will continue to be disenfranchised. So that is the root cause of the conflict. What we're seeing now is yet another round of fighting. Really, this is arguably the sixth round of serious killing that we've seen in Burundi over the last couple of decades.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How did it get to this point? Because people in the international community, activists, academics, scholars have been screaming ever since Rwanda that Burundi was going to be next unless something was done.

MS. RICE: Well, in fact, a great deal has been done by the United States, by the international community, by the Burundian people. The fact that we have not had yet another genocide, despite the fact that Burundi's president was also on the plane that got shot down that precipitated the Rwandan genocide is a tribute not only to the people of Burundi and their leadership, umm, but to the efforts of the international community aimed at preventive diplomacy. So the purpose of our trip was to advance those preventive diplomacy efforts to indicate that the international community is watching what is going on in Burundi and that those who might try to come to power by force would be held accountable and isolated by the international community.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any evidence that your message was heard?

MS. RICE: Yes. I believe it was. We had constructive meetings with leaders of all types inside of Burundi with Hutu leaders, Tutsi leaders, army leaders and others, all of whom are tremendously fearful at the moment. They were receptive to our presence. They viewed us as their shoring up what is the moderate government center, trying to hold the line against the extremists on the other side, and I think they find reassurance, we've found over time, in such high-level visits, and this was one that came at a crucial time in the political equation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So what specifically can be done now, and what are you trying to prevent?

MS. RICE: We're trying to work with the Burundians to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Obviously at the end of the day, it's for the Burundian people to decide their own fate, but what we can do is several things. We can shore up the moderate center, encourage those who want peace to stay in power, and to persevere.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you do that?

MS. RICE: Umm, by showing that they are supported, by providing material assistance, diplomatic assistance, and by indicating to the extremists, who are, in fact, their enemies on either side that there's no future for them if they come to power by force. They will be isolated, they will be sanctioned. Umm, the other thing we can do, and we are doing is to work with countries in the region. Neighboring countries, particularly Zaire, could play a far more constructive role in stopping the arms flow into Burundi and ceasing their territory being used for extremists waging attacks into Burundi, and we're working very hard on that side of the ledger as well.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you're calling for an arms embargo?

MS. RICE: We're calling for countries in the region to stop the arms flow. An arms embargo is one way to do it, but in and of itself, it's not necessarily enforceable.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You visited with President Chirac of France on your way back. What do you want France to do?

MS. RICE: Well, France has a long history in this region, and we feel very strongly that it's important that the United States work with countries like France and Belgium and others in the international community to bring collective pressure to bear on the situation in Burundi and to show that, that the consequences of a crisis will be, umm, noticed by the world at large, not simply by one country or the countries in the region.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I mean, do you want France to commit troops? I mean, is there any talk of any kind of international intervention force? Because I read in the wires that privately France was complaining that the U.S. was trying to get them to commit troops for an intervention force, and the U.S. didn't want to commit any. Is there anything to that?

MS. RICE: Well, France has made very clear that it's not prepared to put its ground troops into Burundi. And we understand that. That's essentially our view, but we believe there's a great deal that we can do to prepare for the possibility that our preventive diplomacy efforts fail and that there needs to be an international humanitarian intervention. The United States has taken the lead going back a year ago to begin contingency planning in the context of the United Nations encouraging other countries to come together with us so there is a plan, so we can recruit countries to participate in a force. And the United States--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you said a humanitarian force.

MS. RICE: A humanitarian force.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean just to deal with the refugees, not to prevent the fighting.

MS. RICE: Not to prevent the conflict but to respond in the event that there is a conflict and to protect civilians who become at risk as a result. And the United States can play a crucial role, umm, logistically by providing strategic airlift, flying forces in rapidly, which no other country in the world can do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Does a Burundi dissent beyond the chaos that it's already in threaten the U.S. interest or affect U.S. interests in any way?

MS. RICE: Well, clearly, we have a humanitarian interest in preventing a repeat of the situation in Rwanda. We all remember it too well, and we don't want to see it again. We also obviously have an interest in the region as a hole. This is a region that involves Zaire, Uganda, other countries with whom we have economic and political interests, so we have a definite interest in regional stability and preventing refugee flows, as well as our humanitarian interest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Ms. Rice, thank you for joining us.

MS. RICE: Thank you very much. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, the House of Representatives voted a 90-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage. Approval of the bill came after the House rejected a Republican proposal to exempt millions of workers from wage and overtime laws. And federal law enforcement officials announced one of the biggest seizures of illegal weapons in U.S. history. In San Francisco, agents confiscated 2,000 AK-47 rifles made in China. We'll be back tomorrow night with Shields & Gigot, among other things. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.