The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight the affirmative action story in Washington with Senators Sessions and Leahy and in California with Ward Connerly and Mayor Willie Brown; Charles Krause continues his reporting from the Middle East, tonight: the pressures on Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat; and explore a newly found piece of biblical history. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Republicans celebrated victories in four high-profile races in yesterday's elections. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: New Jersey's Republican Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, pulled out a narrow re-election win last night. She beat Democrat Jim McGreavey by a margin of less than 1 percentage point. Whitman, who was elected four years ago on a pledge to cut state income taxes, lost support from many New Jersey voters angry about auto insurance rates and property taxes. In Virginia, Republican Jim Gilmore beat Democrat Don Beyer, the lieutenant governor, with a promise to repeal personal property taxes on cars. Gilmore led the way in a Republican sweep of the top three offices in the state.

REP. JIM GILMORE: The first time in the history of Virginia, at least in this century, the Republicans have won all three offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

KWAME HOLMAN: In New York City, incumbent Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani won with 57 percent of the vote, defeating Democrat Ruth Messinger. Giuliani was credited with curbing crime and became the first Republican to win back-to-back mayoral races in New York since 1941. In Minneapolis, Democratic Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton was re-elected, defeating independent Barbara Carlson, a former radio talk show host. This morning in Washington New York Republican Vito Fasella was sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives. He won the Staten Island seat vacated by Republican Susan Molinari, who became a CBS anchor woman. Elsewhere around the country voters considered several ballot initiatives. Oregon residents overwhelmingly decided not to rescind the nation's only law allowing physician-assisted suicide. Washington State voters defeated a measure that would have required handgun owners to buy a $25 license and take a safety course. The measure also would have required all handguns be sold with trigger locks. In Houston voters preserved an affirmative action program that gives a portion of city contract work to minority or female-owned firms. At the White House President Clinton said he was grateful for the Houston vote, and he responded to a question about yesterday's Republican victories. PRESIDENT CLINTON:I think the lesson of this year is that when the economy is up and crime is down, people believe the country and their states and their communities are moving in the right directions, and they tend to stay with incumbent candidates and parties.

JIM LEHRER: Mark Shields and Paul Gigot will offer their analysis of the elections on Friday night. Secretary of State Albright said again today that U.S. troops may need to stay in Bosnia longer than expected in order to enforce the Dayton peace accords. She spoke to reporters at the State Department. SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think it's important that people know that the President has not yet made any decision on this subject but that yesterday there was a very important meeting with probably about thirty to thirty-five members of Congress and that a consensus is developing that there will be or should be some form of U.S. military presence. And basically there is a consensus that we need to do whatever is necessary to implement Dayton, to make Dayton work.

JIM LEHRER: On the fast track front today President Clinton announced a plan to expand help to American workers hurt by increased overseas trade. It's aimed at House members opposed to granting him special authority to negotiate trade agreements. The House is scheduled to vote on that issue Friday. The IRS reform bill passed the House today by an overwhelming 426 to 4 vote. It creates an independent panel to oversee the agency with the IRS commissioner still being appointed by the President. The Senate's not expected to vote on the bill until next year. In economic news today U.S. factory orders rose .4 percent in September the Commerce Department reported. A demand for chemical and metal products was the main reason. In Iraq today negotiations began to resolve--began to resolve the stand-off over U.S. weapons inspectors. United Nations and Iraqi officials met in Baghdad. The U.N. people delivered a letter from Secretary General Kofi Annan to President Saddam Hussein. Iraq continued to refuse access to U.N. teams because they included American observers. Last night the U.N. canceled a U-2 spy plane flight after Iraqi threats to shoot it down. The U.S. U.N. Ambassador, Bill Richardson, spoke to the House International Relations Committee today about that situation.

BILL RICHARDSON, U.N. Ambassador: What their mandate is, Mr. Chairman, is to read Saddam Hussein the riot act; No. 2, to enforce the fact that there are U.N. Security Council resolutions that state very clearly that fully and unconditionally the U.N. inspection team must operate; that the Iraqis have no right to pick and choose what members of the inspection team can leave or stay; and thirdly, Mr. Chairman, that the U-2 flights are an integral part of this inspection, and that they must continue.

JIM LEHRER: In New York the U.N.'s chief arms inspector, Richard Butler, accused Iraq of taking advantage of the current disruption in inspections. In a letter to the Security Council Butler said Iraqis are hiding sensitive equipment and tampering with U.N. surveillance cameras. The government of Sudan today denounced the new U.S. trade and economic sanctions. A spokesman said the restrictions announced yesterday are designed to punish Sudan for defying American policy. They include bans on bank loans and American technology to Sudan and the seizure of Sudanese assets in the U.S.. American officials said they were taken because of Sudan's involvement in terrorism and human rights violations. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to affirmative action, the world of Yasser Arafat, and a new piece of biblical history. FOCUS - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

JIM LEHRER: The affirmative action story. Spencer Michels begins our coverage.

SPENCER MICHELS: Voters in Houston yesterday decided to keep that city's affirmative action program in place. About 54 percent rejected an effort to dismantle the city's program, which asked contractors to give 20 percent of city work to minorities and women. The Houston referendum was the first since voters in California approved Proposition 209, banning affirmative action last year. In California cities like San Francisco, with affirmative action programs in place, are coping with the new Supreme Court action essentially upholding 209 after a number of legal challenges. The measure--passed by 54 percent of voters--outlaws state and local government affirmative action programs. The Supreme Court's decision this week not consider a challenge to Prop 209 may put the future of existing programs in jeopardy, though on that there is disagreement. The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling, in effect, making Prop 209 the law. San Francisco has made a major effort in recent years to recruit minority police officers and firemen to make up for decades when the departments were the almost exclusive domain of whites. The city also passed ordinances to promote minority and women-owned businesses, giving them an advantage when they bid on city jobs and contracts. The court decision was a blow to James Jefferson, an African-American who owns a planning firm in San Francisco, which has won numerous contracts from the city helped, he says, by affirmative action.

JAMES JEFFERSON, Businessman: What it does is that it means that a company like mine is able to go in and compete for those contracts and feel like we have a chance of winning. Without that, it means that we are basically relegated to playing by rules we can never win by.

SPENCER MICHELS: Jefferson sees the court's decision as a setback for people like him.

JAMES JEFFERSON: I think in time you'll find that more companies will be going out of business because they are not able to get the contracts.

SPENCER MICHELS: Minority companies?

JAMES JEFFERSON: Minority companies. And women-owned companies.

SPENCER MICHELS: However, city officials say that contractors who do business with the city, like those repairing earthquake-damaged city hall, operate under an affirmative action rule already approved by federal courts and, in fact, mandated by federal law. Louise Renne is San Francisco's city attorney.

LOUISE RENNE, City Attorney: The courts have upheld our ordinance on the grounds that there was discrimination shown and that the ordinance was very narrowly tailored to deal with those findings of discrimination.

SPENCER MICHELS: Renne is not completely certain of future court rulings, but she is proceeding for now as though San Francisco's programs are legal. While officials in this politically liberal city deplored the court's refusal to strike down Prop 209, even though they said it probably won't have much effect. Some citizens welcome the decision. These ironworkers say they think it will ensure fairer hiring practices.

CHARLIE MELTON, Ironworker: You should be chosen to work strictly upon your ability. It shouldn't be race or sex, gender, or anything. It should be strictly ability.

SPENCER MICHELS: Even if there has been past discrimination?

CHARLIE MELTON: That's over and done with now, though. I mean, now they're getting carried away.

WORKER: As long as you're not discriminating now andyou're only hiring strictly on ability, I don't think you should have to have quotas.

SPENCER MICHELS: No one in city government admits to using quotas, but the police and the fire departments are under a court order to improve minority representation. Police Chief Fred Lau, a Chinese-American, says those programs probably won't be affected by the legislation in Proposition 209.

FRED LAU, Police Chief: I think the legislation--if I interpret it correctly--sticks to goals and set quotas. We're not that way. We're talking about entire and complete diversity with our police department as--and I don't think that flies in the face of the legislation at all.

SPENCER MICHELS: Nevertheless, California's governor, Pete Wilson, said the Supreme Court action means it is time for those who have resisted Proposition 209 to acknowledge equal rights under the law, not special preferences, is the law of the land. In Washington yesterday the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee cited affirmative action as the reason for his opposition to the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, Chairman, Judiciary Committee: [yesterday] Those charged with enforcing the nation's laws must demonstrate a proper understanding of that law and a determination to uphold its letter and its spirit. Unfortunately, much of Mr. Lee's work has been devoted to preserving constitutionally suspect, race conscious public policies that ultimately sort and divide citizens by race. To this day he is an adamant defender of preferential policies that by definition favor some and disfavor others based upon race and ethnicity.

SPENCER MICHELS: Bill Lann Lee's nomination didn't seem to be in danger when he testified before Sen. Hatch's committee two weeks ago. Lee is the son of a Chinese immigrant who worked in a New York City laundry. As an attorney for the NAACP he has been a staunch defender of civil rights programs, as well as affirmative action. At the hearing Hatch asked Lee, who is a Californian, about Proposition 209.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: I come from a position here where I want to support the President and I want to support your nomination. But this is not some insignificant itty-bitty issue. This is one of the most important issues in our country.

BILL LANN LEE, Assistant Attorney General Nominee: I recognize the importance of this question. This is an issue in which people have disagreed. If I am confirmed as assistant attorney general, the Department of Justice, civil rights division, will enforce the law as the courts have decided.

SPENCER MICHELS: All eight of the Democrats on the Senate committee back Lee, but he needs an additional two votes to get a majority. President Clinton yesterday defended his nominee, saying he was superbly qualified.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: How can anybody in good conscience vote against him if they believe that our civil rights laws ought to be enforced? That is the question that we will be pressing to every Senator, without regard to party. I had thought there was a bipartisan consensus in the United States for enforcing the civil rights laws of America. I still believe there is in the country, and I think there ought to be in the Senate.

SPENCER MICHELS: Today, with Lee at her side, Attorney General Janet Reno urged the Senate to confirm the nominee.

JANET RENO, Attorney General: We need Bill Lee's leadership at the civil rights division to carry on the fight for Americans who just want an equal chance at the American dream; people with disabilities, who are looking for a job; minority families, who've been turned away by a discriminatory landlord or mortgage banker; women who are looking for a workplace free of sexual harassment. Make no mistake, this nomination matters for this nation.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the Lee nomination tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: And we join the Bill Lann Lee debate now with two members of that Senate Judiciary Committee: Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat. Sen. Sessions, you are opposed to the Lee nomination, is that correct, sir?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, [R] Alabama: I have decided to oppose his nomination regretfully. He's certainly a fine person of good legal ability, but two reasons led me to that. As Sen. Hatch just said, this is not an itty-bitty issue, this California civil rights initiative. It was passed by the people. It mirrors the 14th Amendment. It mirrors the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 9th circuit, the most liberal circuit in America, just ruled that it was plainly constitutional, and the Supreme Court has refused to review that decision. Mr. Lee continues to believe it is unconstitutional and file a lawsuit to have the court declare it so. He also personally opposes the recent Supreme Court decision in Adarand, which eliminates set asides basically in most federal programs as being in violation of the Constitution. This is a seminal opinion, and he has indicated he opposes that. So the chief civil rights officer should, as the President said, enforce the law. The problem is his belief in the law and the President's is contrary to the certain state of the law.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Leahy, what's your view of the Lee nomination?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, [D] Vermont: Well, I think that somehow the Republican caucuses decided to make Mr. Lee a trophy to the ultra right. The fact of the matter is Bill Lann Lee is one of the most qualified people ever to become before the Judiciary Committee, certainly in the 20 years that I've been there--far more qualified than people who are routinely confirmed. He's also the--one of the very few Asian-Americans to come before the committee but certainly the most qualified. It's an amazing thing what's happening. They say, well, we have to hold him back because he supports Proposition 209. Well, that ignores two things. One, he has said that he will not get involved in anything with 209; he'll recuse himself. Secondly, it's a moot point because the Supreme Court has ruled against that. The other thing is today the same Judiciary Committee with Seth Waxman comes before it for Solicitor General, taking virtually the same positions as Bill Lann Lee, and they say, he's fine, he can go through. Bill Lann Lee is saying that he will support the position of the President of the United States. The President of the United States won the election. I'm afraid that some of my friends on the Judiciary Committee haven't gotten over the fact that not only did Bill Clinton win once; he won twice, and he is entitled to have people who support his position.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Sessions, what about that? Sen. Boxer and Mike McCurry, the President's spokesman, have made the same point; that Bill Lann Lee's views are identical with the President of the United States, for whom he will work. What's the problem?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Well, I think the people first have not come to realize that the President of the United States on the most flimsy legal basis actually has sought to overturn the California civil rights initiative. I think this issue does reflect a public policy question. It's not an itty-bitty issue. What does the Senate of the United States believe about the current state of the law, and do we believe the nominee for the civil rights division ought to be willing to enforce that law as written? And I think there's serious doubt about that in this nomination. And that's why it went from a very positive thing prior to his testimony to, I think, doubtful at this point.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Senator, did it--yes, go ahead, Sen. Leahy.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: I was just going to say if the--if those on the Judiciary Committee really feel this is the case, then let the whole Senate vote on it. What you have is a handful of white males sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee saying this Asian-American is not qualified, even though he's one of the most qualified people to come forth. Why is he not qualified? Because he supports the President of the United States, who is going to appoint him. He has also said under oath he will uphold the law. This is a man who has been praised by even people who have been on the other side of court cases from him because he always tries to seek consensus, but that is because--that is why they don't dare let it go to the full Senate because they know the full Senate would vote to confirm him. They would not allow this travesty to happen.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Sessions, is it your position you do not believe Mr. Lee when he says he will uphold the law as interpreted by the courts?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Well, I think he says he opposes the Adarand decision, and his definition of the holding in Adarand is different from the decision, itself. Adarand--the court says you must meet the strictest of scrutiny before you can have a racial set-aside. In his testimony he dismissed that and defined that away as not a very significant ruling, almost as if it was an insignificant ruling. But it is a historic ruling. We need the 250 lawyers in the Department of Justice to be working in accord with the current law, not conducting a rear guard action to try to maintain failed policies that have been rejected by the court.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Sessions, what would you say to those who suggest that in order to meet that criteria, the President would have to nominate somebody who disagrees with his own policy, is that right?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Well, first of all, I think we are dealing with the President's policy. The Senate has the right to confirm or reject a nominee for the disposition. And I think the policies, we are sending, in effect, a message to the President. At least, I feel I am with my vote that this is not a good policy and you need to have attorneys on your staff who will enforce the law.

JIM LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Sen. Leahy?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, what has happened is that they don't really believe this. I mean, Bill Lann Lee has become a trophy for fund-raising letters of the ultra right on this issue. The fact of the matter is even the most senior member of the United States Senate--Sen. Strom Thurmond--before this said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary that he felt that the whole Senate should vote on such questions that there's a controversy. In fact, he said, "I think the Senate's entitled to the recommendation, given an opportunity, whether it's a majority or minority, to send the nomination to the Senate." All of a sudden, he said, whoops, doesn't fit with the fund-raising letters; we can't do that, sorry, Bill Lann Lee , next guy maybe will fit our profile better.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Sessions, is this a trophy to the ultra right?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: No, it's not. I think there was a feeling before the hearings that Mr. Lee would probably be confirmed. There were going to be some questions about these issues, and I think as the hearing developed, it became a strong feeling that he was out of the mainstream of the current law in America. It's certainly not a racial thing. We had a lady from--a Chinese-American testify very strongly against Mr. Lee, stood very aggressively against his positions. We had a lady earlier on in the year testify--Chinese-American in San Francisco--told about how her child could not go to a certain school because he was Chinese-American. He met all the other qualifications, but they said there were too many in that school. And that is not the way we need to--

JIM LEHRER: All right. Don't go away. Gentlemen, we'll be back to you in just a moment, but first I want to broaden this out a little bit and to go to the California view of affirmative action that comes from Ward Connerly, a member of the California Board of Regents, who was chairman of the Proposition 209 campaign, and Willie Brown, who is the Democratic mayor of San Francisco. First, on the Lee nomination, Mr. Connerly, do you have a position on that?

WARD CONNERLY, Proposition 209 Proponent: I sure do, Mr. Lehrer, and I think that the confirmation should be denied. This is about civil rights, and civil rights are individual rights. They're not rights for groups, as Mr. Lee seems to characterize them. He opposed Proposition 209 on the grounds that the 14th Amendment was for women and minorities. And that, no matter how qualified he is, represents a point of view that is totally at odds with where the courts are going and what the American people believe, and what fundamentally this nation stands for.

JIM LEHRER: Mayor Brown?

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN, San Francisco: I believe that the Lee nomination should be confirmed. You're only going to get from Bill Clinton people that followed Bill Clinton's policies. This government is organized so that if individuals are otherwise well qualified, you would expect them to carry the views of the administration that appoints them. I don't understand why anybody would think that Bill Clinton would ever appoint Ward Connerly, or, for that matter, Mr. Sessions. That just would not happen. You wouldn't expect George Bush or Ronald Reagan to appoint Willie Brown. Why would you expect Bill Clinton to appoint one of those persons, inconsistent with his views? These people are just disguising what they really believe in, and that's Plessey Vs. Ferguson--separate but equal.

JIM LEHRER: Is that what you're doing, Mr. Connerly?

WARD CONNERLY: No, sir, it is not. If we accept Mr. Brown's philosophy here, the Senate becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp; whomever the President sends up, put him in. Mr. Lee's philosophy is the wrong philosophy. Mr. Clinton's philosophy is the wrong philosophy; and if the Senate confirmation process is going to be worth diddly squat, they need to exercise their responsibility and to vote thumbs down on him.

JIM LEHRER: Well, there's been--

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: Mr. Connerly is totally wrong, Mr. Lehrer. He knows he's wrong. How could you have a government that elected Bill Clinton president if then Bill Clinton was going to turn around and abandon his views and appoint people that have views contrary to his? He could never do the job that he was hired to do. The Senate's evaluative process simply reviews whether or not persons have the qualifications--not what they believe in--but the qualifications. And that's the way this thing ought to be. It should not be a litmus test on whether or not they agree with Ward Connerly.

JIM LEHRER: Let's move from the Lee nomination, gentlemen, to what's happening in California on 209. Mayor Brown, what does the Supreme Court decision not to review the case mean for you and the way you're going to operate in the city of San Francisco?

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: Well, in the city and county of San Francisco it means very little. We don't make decisions based on preference. We don't make decisions based on quotas. We make decisions based on whether or not somebody has been discriminated against on the basis of race, on the basis of age, on the basis of gender, on the basis of sexual orientation. Those are the bases on which we make our decisions. And we will continue to make those decisions. Every court decision has always said, if there is discrimination, you have a right to fashion a relief. And that's what we do in the city, and it works very well.

JIM LEHRER: And 209 isn't going to change anything?

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: Not at all.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Connerly, is that a correct reading?

WARD CONNERLY: If that is the case, I don't know why the mayor's fighting it then; if it isn't going to change anything and if all the mayor is doing is practicing equal opportunity, if you apply that to 209, which says that the state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment, the mayor ought to be a cheerleader for 209, because that's all it's doing. But I think that's the way the mayor's interpreting it.

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: It's very clear, Mr. Connerly, that the end result of 209 in the bigger world--one example, the University of California Law School at Berkeley--those administrators have viewed their policies as being one that fit your description of what they are. And the end result has been fewer racial minorities, as a matter of fact, dramatically fewer racial minorities. In San Diego County, with reference to the contract in process, it's gone down to nil as a result of the existence of 209. So why would I be interested? Not so much from San Francisco's standpoint, Mr. Connerly, I'm not that narrow; I'm far more interested in what happens to the whole world. I know--

WARD CONNERLY: So am I, Mr. Brown.

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: I know how Willie Brown got to where he got. Willie Brown got to where he got because somebody recognized the potential talent in Willie Brown, and even when there wasn't affirmative action, someone affirmatively reached out and said, give him a chance; enter him into the university system and I think he can perform. And I did, and the rest is history.

JIM LEHRER: Let me--

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: That's what I want to happen all over the state of California, contrary to what people and how people are interpreting 209.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mr. Connerly, how do you believe 209 is going to affect things as of tomorrow already in the state of California as a result of what the Supreme Court did?

WARD CONNERLY: Initially, to the extent that we're giving preferences, Mr. Lehrer, the numbers are going to go down. At Boalt Hall we're not discriminating against blacks and Latinos. The sad reality is that in the past we have been giving a major preference to students. Once we take that preference away obviously the numbers go down. But if we believe that everybody is capable--every group is capable of competing, without the benefit of preferences, then eventually all of us, all of us are going to be able to participate. I have faith in that. I believe that that will happen.I don't think that black people or Latinos need a preference in order compete.

JIM LEHRER: Excuse me just a minute, Mayor. I want to nationalize this a little bit before we go. There was a vote in Houston yesterday, Mr. Connerly, on set asides which went the other way. The first vote like that to--how do you read- -do you read that as a setback for your movement?

WARD CONNERLY: I think it's a minor setback. We had a lot of momentum. It would have been nice if we had won that, sir, but the fact is that the language, itself, which the mayor of that city and the city council changed to reflect the way the polls were showing the voters were leaning, the outcome of that language had a lot to do with the election; also the demographics of Houston are radically different from what they are in California as a whole. So yes, it was a setback, a minor setback. But in the total scheme of things it really doesn't matter very much long-term.

JIM LEHRER: Why? Because you believe you have the momentum, doing away with racial preferences?

WARD CONNERLY: Mr. Lehrer, I have no doubt that in 20 years we'll look back on this and wonder why it took so long. The courts are going this way. Time after time after time it's clear that the American people don't want preferences, and no matter how much we fuzz up the debate and say this is just about equal opportunity, or that it's about affirmative action, the reality is we're talking about preferences And that's what 209 was about. And that's what the Houston civil rights initiative was about.

JIM LEHRER: Mayor Brown, do you agree? Go ahead. Do you agree that--

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: No. I disagree with him.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: I think the Houston vote was a very significant vote frankly for America, not just for the issue of 209. I believe that when Houston said, "We know outreach. We know an understanding of what has been previous in terms of your history. We know all of that represents a level of racism that's unacceptable in this state and in this city. That's Texas. And I'm glad that they did that because maybe just maybe it will be instructional to California. It took from the time of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation till 1954 for America to come to grips with these pious words as being totally meaningless from the standpoint of being able to make any movement. From 1954, when Earl Warren wrote his famous Brown vs. The Board of Education, a Topeka, Kansas, decision, till the present day, incredible progress has been made. We've had the Voting Rights Act; the Civil Rights Act; and a whole series of things.

JIM LEHRER: Let me--

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: All of that represents something that's positive. Mr. Connerly and his crowd would like to go back to pre-1954.

WARD CONNERLY: No, sir, we would not. That's ridiculous!

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask the Senators real quickly--Sen. Sessions first and then Sen. Leahy. You heard what Mr. Connerly said; that 20 years from now this will seem like a blip; there will be no more racial preferences or affirmative action. Do you agree, Sen. Sessions?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: I tend to agree. I think the Supreme Court has looked down the long road of American history, and they are moving us away from dispensing goods and services in America based on race. They know that's not a principle that will stand the test of time. And I believe he's correct, and I think we're going to have a healthier America; and we're going to have less competition and hostility among the races also.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Leahy, like it or not, is that where the movement is?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Mr. Connerly said everybody ought to have an equal chance, but yet, he prefers a situation where nine Senators--nine--can block the Bill Lann Lee nomination. He's unwilling to see it go to the floor of the United States Senate. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate, but they are unwilling because they want to make a trophy out of him, they are unwilling to allow them all to vote for him. And, you know the fact is if they really feel this way, let 'em go forward. They're unwilling--the Republican leadership is unwilling to bring their own affirmative action legislation forward. 209 is a moot point, so how do you make some point? Well, you do your best to stab Bill Lann Lee. And that's exactly what they've done.

JIM LEHRER: But, Sen. Leahy, what about to the broader point of where the movement is now on affirmative action, how do you read the wins?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, we obviously, I read the win in the Senate that a small handful are afraid to let the whole Senate vote on that issue, and they're using Bill Lann Lee to stop it. They seem to be afraid of the issue coming before all Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about the wins of the public and the courts?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, you see, the court upheld 209--made a moot point out of 209--and then the Houston voters went the other way, and then the Supreme Court goes yet a third way, saying that narrowly, narrowly drawn affirmative actions are okay. And I think that's probably where we're going to end up, in that last point.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Connerly, why did you make the prediction--your 20-year prediction--that--why do you believe that you've got the wind behind you?

WARD CONNERLY: Well, sir, everybody that I talk to--not everybody but clearly wherever I go, whether it's Ohio, whether it's Texas, California, you talk to most people, black, white, Latino, and they generally say, we recognize that preferences are wrong and we know that a lot of the affirmative action programs have been wrong. Maybe we want to amend it. But in the final analysis I think most of us have come to the conclusion that this is wrong, and we can't go on doing this forever. And so I think it's just a matter of time before we reach consensus, and I even hold out hope that someday Mr. Brown will see the light and say these programs have to be changed; they have to be eliminated where they are like San Francisco; and I think it's just a matter of time.

JIM LEHRER: Matter of time, Mayor Brown?

MAYOR WILLIE BROWN: No. I think Mr. Connerly is wrong. Time is against those of us who seek equal opportunity. Mr. Connerly is aware of that. It demonstrated itself at the University of California--Boalt Hall. It's demonstrated itself in San Diego. It's demonstrated itself all over the nation. Mr. Connerly is conscious of that. And to say 20 years from today there will be fewer racial minorities holding any position of significance in this nation because this nation is basically steeped in a long history of discriminating, discriminating on the basis of color, on the basis of age, and on the basis of gender. And that process doesn't lend itself to anything, except affirmative action.

JIM LEHRER: Well, we have to leave it there, gentlemen. Thank you all four very much. FOCUS - POLITICS OF PEACE

JIM LEHRER: Charles Krause is in the Middle East now, and tonight he looks at the pressures on Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat; caught between the Israelis and his own hard-liners.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Four years after Yasser Arafat's historic handshake with Israel's late prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, the Oslo process continues. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are meeting again this week in Washington. But here in the Middle East there's a growing sense that the Oslo process has run its course because of the security issue. The Israeli government no longer accepts Arafat's word that he's doing all he can to stop terrorism inside Israel. Yet, since 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed, nearly 150 Israelis have been killed and more than 800 wounded by Palestinian suicide bombers. The most recent terrorist attack took place just two months ago in Jerusalem. Once again, the radical Islamic group, Hamas, claimed responsibility and once again Israel's government blamed Yasser Arafat. David Bar-Ilan is Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's director of communications.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Is Arafat unwilling or unable to stop the terrorists?

DAVID BAR-ILAN, Netanyahu Adviser: Frankly, it makes very little difference. If he's unable, then there is a very big question about whey we are negotiating with him. He's supposed to be the ruler of the Palestinian people and their representative. But we tend to believe more that he is unwilling for the simple reason that he has the largest police force per capita in the world to--for him not to be able to handle a terrorist problem is, I believe a little difficult to--to accept.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Marwan Kanafani denies Bar-Ilan's charge. An elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Kanafani is Yasser Arafat's principal spokesman.

MARWAN KANAFANI, Arafat Adviser: President Arafat did everything humanly possible to stop violence, to put those people who constitute a threat not only to the Israelis but also to Palestinians in prison, to punish the people who were proven to be a part of violence, but Yasser Arafat cannot do the job alone He needs help to help the Israelis.

CHARLES KRAUSE: As with so much else in the Middle East the questions that define the security issue are difficult, filled with anger and emotion on both sides. Is Yasser Arafat committed to non-violence? Can he control Hamas, and are the Israelis deliberately demanding a level of security cooperation they know he could never deliver? There is no better place to try to evaluate the security issue and to try to understand the pressures and the politics of pace from Arafat's perspective than Gaza City in the Gaza Strip. Home to more than a million Palestinians, most of them still living in squalid refugee camps, this teeming sliver of territory was turned over to Arafat three years ago by the Israelis as part of the Oslo Agreement. But because of the continued terrorism and Netanyahu's general distrust of Arafat's intentions, Israel has not allowed the Palestinians to open a new airport that's already been built. The Israelis have also delayed implementation of a safe passage agreement, another part of the Oslo Accords that would allow Palestinians to travel freely between Gaza and the West Bank. Coupled with border closings every time there's a terrorist incident, the delays have contributed to a 1/3 drop in Gaza's per capita income since the peace process began, according to the United Nations. Today half-completed buildings provide tangible evidence that economic development has stagnated and with it support among Palestinians for the peace process. Aown Shawa, Gaza City's mayor, blames Netanyahu and his government.

AOWN SHAWA, Mayor, Gaza City: Their policy is just to keep the Palestinian people as poor and as weak asthey could and also keeping the Palestinian Authority weakened. But this is not good for peace and not good for Israel.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Why not?

AOWN SHAWA: We believe in peace. We still do believe in peace. But if this pressure continues, I can't say when will we--just burst.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What worries Shawa and other Palestinian moderates is that if the situation here continues to worsen, it will almost certainly be exploited by Hamas. Known throughout the world primarily for its terrorist attacks against Israel Hamas is also a fundamentalist Islamic charitable organization that runs kindergartens, medical clinics, orphanages, and sports clubs here in Gaza and on the West Bank. But according to Israeli intelligence the schools and sports clubs also serve a more sinister purpose: it's here, they say, that Hamas operatives identify and recruit potential suicide bombers.

MAJOR GEN. MEIR DAGAN [Ret.], Israeli Counter-Terrorism Bureau: This is the place that those terrorists are indoctrinated.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Gen. Meir Dagan is the head of Israel's Bureau of Counter-Terrorism.

MAJOR GEN. MEIR DAGAN: And they are recruited, and the money for the terrorist activities are coming from there to achieve what they are calling the Jihad.

CHARLES KRAUSE: It was to work and proselytize among Gaza's poor that Sheik Ahmed Yasin founded Hamas a decade ago. And it was here to Gaza that he returned last month, after spending eight years in an Israeli prison. Since his return to Gaza, Yasin has made any number of contradictory statements to the western media, talking about a truce with Israel one day, threatening renewed violence the next. But in front of the mosque several of the sheik's followers told us that for them the message is clear.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you think people here could accept that there is an Israeli state?

MAN ON STREET: For a small time, like this sheik said, for ten years it is possible but in the future we will--we will continue our fight to go to--to return to our land, all of our land.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Is that what the sheik is telling you?

MAN: Yes. All Palestinians say that and even the leader, Yasser Arafat, says this.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What Arafat says in Arabic and how it's interpreted is a matter of some dispute. According to the Israelis, Arafat has said publicly more than once that despite their differences over tactics, he and Hamas have the same goal; the return of all Palestinian lands and the eventual destruction of Israel.

DAVID BAR-ILAN: He wants to keep this terrorist option open. He wants to be able to threaten us with violence and he does. Terrorism and peace negotiations cannot coexist. It is one or the other.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But other, less passionate observers believe Arafat has a far more complex and often ambivalent relationship with Hamas. On the one hand, he's fearful of appearing too close to the Israelis, especially now that the peace process has stalled. He's also said to be afraid that an all out attack on Hamas could result in a civil war he might not win. So recently Arafat has attempted to improve relations with Hamas, including a very public meeting with Sheik Yasin. For now the effort appears to be succeeding. Abdul Aziz Al-Rantisi helped found Hamas a decade ago and is Sheik Yasin's second in command.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you view Chairman Arafat as your enemy, as your ally, or how does he relate to Hamas?

ABDUL AZIZ AL-RANTISI, Hamas Leader: And We believe in spite of what he did against Hamas--we believe that they are our brothers in home and they would continueso in spite of everything. And we will not go with them in conflict by any way, and we will be patient all the time because we have a big goal, the liberation of our land and the continuation of Israel against our enemies, our enemies, the Israelis, who came from here and took our land.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Yet, despite their current good relations, Arafat has moved against Hamas when necessary. After the most recent suicide bombings in September, for example, he closed 16 Hamas-affiliated institutions in Gaza. One of them was the Al-Rasallah Newspaper. Ghaza Hamad, Al-Rasallah's editor, does not deny that he's a member of Hama. In fact, he says that's why his paper was closed and also why he's been arrested and tortured five times over the past two years by Arafat's secret police.

GHAZA HAMAD, Hamas Newspaper Editor: I don't know how to describe it, but I think it is a painful way, and sometimes they use electric--to beat on all parts of your body.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And what kind of questions, do they--what do they want to know?

GHAZA HAMAD: There are no questions.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There are no questions?

GHAZA HAMAD: No, no, no, no, no.

CHARLES KRAUSE: They just torture you without asking you questions?

GHAZA HAMAD: See that you are members of Hamas, that's all. Sometimes they told me that we have to beat you because you are members of Hamas, but there is no charges, there is no accusing.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The Israelis say that what happened to Hamad is typical. When Arafat wants it to appear that he's cracking down on Hamas, he orders the arrest of relatively junior members of the political wing. They're beaten, then let go. Meanwhile, members of the military wing, many of them wanted by the Israelis, remain free, according to Bar-Ilan. What particularly angers the Israelis that as part of the Oslo Agreement they agreed to let Arafat create his own police and intelligence services. Today the Palestinian Authority, Arafat's government, reportedly has more than 30,000 men under arms. At police headquarters in Gaza they set up the special training exercise for us to demonstrate their ability to carry out their mission to fight terrorists, but the Palestinians say the kind of security cooperation the Israelis are demanding and that's envisioned in the Oslo agreements is no longer possible. The reason, they say, is the series of decisions Netanyahu has taken since his election last year, opening a tunnel in the Arab part of East Jerusalem, for example, that led to rioting, and giving the go-ahead for a new housing project in an area called Harhama that led to protests. The Palestinians say that Netanyahu continues to provoke them and complains about the security problems that result. Kanafani says since coming to office Netanyahu has deliberately undermined the peace process.

MARWAN KANAFANI: The peace process is dead, and if there was a chance for the peace process to work under the labor government, there is no chance now with this individual, the prime minister of Israel. He takes, you know, the issue, the important issue of security, as a pretext not to go ahead with the peace process.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But in Israel's parliament and among Israeli voters security is of primary concern. Bar-Ilan says it's not a pretext and that Arafat must deal with Hamas if the peace process is to continue.

DAVID BAR-ILAN:

MARWAN KANAFANI: takes, you know, the issue, the important issue of

DAVID BAR-ILAN: Obviously, what we want is for the Palestinian Authority not to endorse terrorism, to glorify and lionize the terrorists, to abetterrorism by calling for Jihad, and for the continuation of the struggle against Israel by every and all means, and above all not to engage in terrorism, themselves.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But by asking that Arafat eradicate Hamas, including alleged Hamas sympathizers in the Palestinian police force, it could be that the Israelis are demanding the impossible. Kanafani says Arafat will simply not risk political suicide or civil war to satisfy Netanyahu.

MARWAN KANAFANI: Let me tell you this thing very frankly. We are not going to go after Hamas. Hamas, in its majority, as a political party, is not connected to violence. We are not going to go against anybody because he does not believe in Oslo Agreement, because my belief in Oslo Agreement is shaky now. We are not going to go after anybody because he doesn't like Mr. Netanyahu or because doesn't like Mr. Bar-Ilan, or because he believes that the peace process is not good for us. And I'm telling you it's not only Hamas, a lot of the people who were for the Authority, including myself, is facing a new circumstances that is forcing him to rethink the peace process.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is in crisis, and the peace process, if not dead, is today barely alive. At border checkpoints security remained tight, and Israel has tied any future withdrawals from the West Bank, as required by the Oslo Agreements, to an end of terrorism by the Palestinians. It's one of the issues being discussed this week by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Washington. But there's little optimism for peace or security here in the Middle East.

JIM LEHRER: Charles Krause is preparing a similar report on the pressures on Prime Minister Netanyahu. ESSAY

JIM LEHRER: Our earlier discussion on affirmative action ran over tonight so we're unable to bring you our story about a newly-found piece of biblical history. Instead, essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers things that are invisible.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: "Things invisible to see;" that's a line from a poem by John Dunn suggesting the paradoxical, near impossible act of seeing objects that cannot be seen, yet are there, nonetheless. Actually, it happens a lot. Infrared and ultraviolet light are present but invisible, radio waves the same. Now, only a little while ago, scientists have told us there's a star we cannot see. Not just any old star but a lollapalooza of a star--the brightest star ever discovered smack in the middle of the Milky Way. So hidden is this star by dust clouds that it cannot be made out. And the so-called photograph took of it is of infrared radiation. Yet, it is there all right, exceptional as daylight, up there with the rest of them and huge, burning with the brilliance of 10 million suns, as big as the entire space within the orbit of the Earth. "If thou beest born to strange sights," wrote Dunn, "things invisible to see," the implication being that one would have to show an amazing mystical capacity to do that. All the astronomers needed to see the Pistol Star, as it was named, was computers. But even without high-tech machines the feet of seeing invisible things is not that great. We do it all the time. All stars are in a sense invisible because we see them as they once burned millions of years into the past. The past is visible, though we cannot see it. You live in it every hour of the day, plain as the invisible nose on your face. In a way the most intriguing things in life are both omnipresent and invisible. Romantic love, for instance--one sees manifestations of romantic love--hugs, kisses, blushes, flowers, candy, dancing in the dark, but these are like the photo of the Pistol Star, symbolic evidence exposed by an emotional infrared detector. "Where is love?" goes the song. There it is, as large as the Earth in orbit and completely obscure. And time, that's vast and invisible too. We can see clocks and sun dials but not time--and genius--and the imagination--and truth. Where's truth? And nature--a tree here, a bug there, but where is nature itself? And the soul. [music playing in background] A great deal of human energy--all of religion is concerned with the soul, which is believed to be so big that it comprises the only valuable part of our being. Seeing is believing but not seeing is also believing, which lends the idea of invisibility as special--to use an astronomer's term-- aura. Ralph Ellison named his hero "invisible man" because, in fact, he could be seen clearly but white people chose not to acknowledge his humanity. It is possible that there are certain objects in the universe we choose not see and so evolved physical limitations to cooperate with desire. Would you really want to see God, if that were possible? Who would wish to lay eyes on death? And then, of course, there is that astonishing stellar entity, bigger than anything around, ourselves. Here you have been all the time, bright as a star in a galaxy over your head and thoroughly invisible. Are you there? Freud said that it helped for people to see themselves as all others, sharing the same weaknesses and fears. Perhaps. But equally perhaps people do not wish to see themselves and so look and see and do not see. [music in background] Thanks to astronomy we may now gaze up toward the Milky Way at a point of darkness that's huge and blazing and invisible--just like us stars. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday Republicans celebrated victories in four high-profile races in yesterday's elections. Secretary of State Albright said again U.S. troops may need to stay in Bosnia longer than expected, and the Irish reform bill passed in the House by an overwhelming vote. It creates an independent panel to oversee the agency. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.