The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in Washington. We devote most of tonight's program to extended coverage of the devastating bomb blast in Oklahoma City, and we conclude with a conversation about affirmative action. Tonight, Charlayne Hunter- Gault talks with Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California's board of regents. FOCUS - SEARCH FOR CLUES

MS. FARNSWORTH: We spend most of tonight's NewsHour on the devastating bomb explosion in Oklahoma City. It has been described as the worst terrorist act ever committed on American soil. The confirmed death toll raised to 36 today. Among them are 12 children. More than 400 people were injured. Attorney General Janet Reno said arrest warrants are being issued for two white males. She spoke at a news conference in Washington late this afternoon.

JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General: Today the government is offering a reward of up to $2 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City. Although we have many hundreds of leads, we want to make sure that we have all relevant information that can lead to the conviction of all of those involved in this event. The reward will come from contributions from a number of federal agencies. The Treasury Department, which has done a great job and cooperated magnificently in this investigation, will be making a substantial contribution to this fund. As you know, we have hundreds of skilled agents from several agencies working to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City. We have just announced developments in the case. Investigators have identified a vehicle that was used in connection with yesterday's attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City. They have determined that two white males, each with a medium build, were associated with that vehicle. We will seek arrest warrants for these two men. Composite sketches of these two men have been prepared. We have copies here for everyone. Both of these men should be considered armed and extremely dangerous. Citizens should not, therefore, attempt to take any action against them. Anyone with information about these two men should provide it immediately to the nearest FBI office. They can also call phone banks the FBI has specifically established to have received this very information. We urge people with information to call: 1-800-905-1514. This information has been communicated to law enforcement at all levels, domestic and international. We continue to pursue every lead. Those who participated in this attack will be brought to justice.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In Oklahoma City, the FBI special agent in charge of the investigation, Weldon Kennedy, gave a further description of the suspects and took questions from reporters.

WELDON KENNEDY, FBI Special Agent in Charge: The first man is of medium build. He is further described as being approximately five ten to five eleven, weighing approximately a hundred and eighty to one hundred and eighty-five pounds, with a light brown crew cut, and he is right-handed. The second man is also medium build. He's further described as five feet nine inches to five feet ten inches tall, weighing approximately one hundred and seventy-five to eighty pounds, with brown hair, and a tattoo visible on his left arm below his T-shirt sleeve. He is possibly a smoker. Both of these men should be considered armed and extremely dangerous. Citizens should not, therefore, attempt to take any action against these men. We urge people with information to call: 1-800-905-1514. At this point, it's very early to tell, but we do believe that this explosive used in this consisted of fertilizer and fuel oil. Yes, sir. The question is: What kind of a vehicle and what is its origin? It is a truck, and I'll not describe it much further than that. And it was rented. We have determined where that vehicle was rented, and we're following up as we speak on that aspect of the case. Keep in mind at this point that while we are positive that this vehicle was definitely associated with this bombing and that these two individuals are, in fact, associated with that vehicle, we don't know a lot more about them that at this point in time. There could be any number of motives for it. It could be the fact that there's some revenge involved here against the federal government as an entity or specifically against one of the agencies housed in that building. But in that case, your guess is as good as mine. The question is: Have we ruled out any connection whatsoever with the New York bombing? And the answer is: We have not at this point ruled out anything. We're in very early stages of this investigation. We're exploring at every avenue and every lead as we receive it, so we have not closed any doors and will explore any lead to its logical conclusion.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Immigration officials in Britain stopped a man who was trying to enter London on a flight from Chicago today. They returned him to the U.S. for questioning in connection with the Oklahoma bombing. A leader of the Islamic militant group, Hamas, said today his organization was not involved in the bombing. Hamas has claimed responsibility for a number of bomb attacks in Israel, but he said, "the Islamic movement's field of action is against Israeli forces and there is no hostility between us and the American people." A Muslim sheik representing Islamic Jihad, another militant group associated with terrorist acts, issued a similar denial.

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton has ordered flags on all federal buildings and ships at sea to fly at half staff until Monday, and he asked Americans to pray for the Oklahoma City victims. Reporters asked Mr. Clinton about the situation during a joint news conference with the president of Brazil. It took place this afternoon in the White House Rose Garden.

TERRENCE HUNT, Associated Press: The bombing in Oklahoma City has left many Americans wondering if it can happen in the nation's heartland, can it happen in their hometown? What can you say to calm these fears, and in particular, what can you say to the nation's children, who have been terrified by seeing other children killed?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I would say first of all that we are working very hard to strengthen the ability of the United States to resist acts of terror. We have increased our efforts in law enforcement through the FBI and the CIA. We have increased our ability to cut off money used for such purposes. We have increased our capacity to track the materials that can be used to destroy people. I have sent the legislation to the Congress, as you know, that would increase this capacity even further. I have done everything I could, and our administration has, to bring home suspected terrorists for trial from Pakistan, from Egypt, from the Philippines, from elsewhere. We are moving aggressively. Today, I have ordered new steps to be taken to secure federal facilities throughout the United States. I would say to the children of this country what happened was a bad thing, an evil thing, but we will find the people who did it, and we will bring them to justice. This is a law-abiding country, and neither the leaders nor the citizens of this country will permit it be paralyzed by this kind of behavior. Helen.

HELEN THOMAS, United Press International: Mr. President, despite the horror of it all and the assumptions that may or may not be true, don't you think that it's time now to warn against hatred and violence against Middle Eastern stereotypes just in case, since we do have strong laws in this country, I believe, against terrorism?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There were three Arab-American organizations which today condemned what was done. This is not a question of anybody's country of origin. This is not a question of anybody's religion. This was murder. This was evil. This was wrong. Human beings everywhere, all over the world, will condemn this out of their own religious convictions. And we should not stereotype anybody. What we need to do is to find out who did this and punish them harshly. That's what we need to do. I don't want anyone to assume that we are accusing anybody or anything today. We do not know. On the other hand, let me reiterate what I said yesterday. Whoever did it we will find out, and there will be justice that will be swift and certain and severe. And there is no place to hide. Nobody can hide anyplace in this country. Nobody can hide anyplace in this world from the terrible consequences of what has been done. This was an attack on innocent children, on innocent victims, on the people there in Oklahoma City, but make no mistake about it. This was an attack on the United States, our way of life, and everything we believe in. So whoever did it, we'll get to the bottom of it, and then we'll take the appropriate action.

MR. MAC NEIL: In Canada today, a pipe bomb exploded in the legislature building in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The legislature was in session at the time, and at least one person was injured. The building was evacuated. Police have no suspects in the incident. Back in the U.S., security has been enhanced at federal office buildings around the country. That was particularly evident in Washington, where bomb-sniffing dogs and giant mirrors were used to inspect cars at the Capitol Building. Additional security was evident at the White House. Streets were blocked near FBI headquarters. Barricades prevented cars from entering driveways at the State Department and other buildings. The search and rescue operations continued to be the main focus of efforts on the ground in Oklahoma City. Correspondent Betty Ann Bowser has our report.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Twenty-four hours ago this had been a scene of panic and confusion. But today there was an eerie quiet, punctuated by the sound of cranes and earth movers, shoveling debris in search of victims. At an early morning news conference, the city's fire chief said structural damage to the devastated building was a significant problem and with several hundred people still missing, could impact what so far has been a low body count.

GARY MARRS, Oklahoma City Fire Chief: They definitely have bodies that they know are either visible or they know where they're at that they have not retrieved from the building, so that count will rise during the day. We'll try to keep you updated. As I've reported yesterday, we will not report anything other than what comes out confirmed of the building to keep speculation down. They have stability problems they're addressing in the building. They've already shored up one of the foundation columns. They've got two others that they're addressing. They're going to do some beam placement and some shoring on those and some shoring on the floor levels to keep the floors above them stable. We are turning now to a very slow, tedious process, and they've got the most sophisticated techniques they have available right now. We have audio listening devices. We have the cameras, the small cameras, that can get in there. They're using numerous dog teams. From time to time they'll shut down operations to try to quiet the scene and send some of those dogs and people back through again. So we're using every opportunity we can to find any remaining people in the building.

MS. BOWSER: City officials say they're overwhelmed with the outpouring of support from the community. Some people stood in line for six hours to donate blood for the injured. Others literally saved a life. Rick Nelson is a surgeon from Muskogee who helped pull a 15-year-old girl to safety late last night.

RICK NELSON, Surgeon-Volunteer: It's very difficult, even as a surgeon, to get to help. I'm sorry I get emotional. So being frustrated, I was sort of on a triage team for a little while, but realizing we weren't triaging anything, we were just seeing dead bodies come out, so I got over and I figured the best likelihood of me being able to help find someone or help somebody would be to get into the dead body team. So I got on the dead body team, and we were there, what, excuse me, we were next in line to be bringing out some dead people, and some of the medicscame rushing out and said that we got a live one.

MS. BOWSER: What goes through your mind when you're in a situation like that, not only as a surgeon but as a volunteer?

RICK NELSON: Well, actually, while we're in there during the extrication process there's not a lot that goes through your mind, except, what's the next logical approach, because in the situation we were in in my, you know, I'm really -- I was not working as a surgeon last night, because where she was, I could not get to her to treat her. I couldn't start IV's, and it was several, it was an hour and a half before I could even get to her to get oxygen on her, because we dug through about four feet of rubble to get to her face. So what was going through my mind is: What can we cut, what can we move without bringing this down on her or the whole building down on us or the whole ceiling down on us? The team worked amazingly well together. I sort of told a fireman, well, I can get out of your way if you need to, but otherwise I'm digging, and they said, listen, none of us have experience, you know, this is America, we don't have terrorism.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Next, we discuss the threat of terrorism, a phenomenon once associated with distant countries, to the American Middle West. Today, the acting director of the CIA spoke of what he called the globalization of terrorism. Adm. William Studeman predicted more attacks on targets in the United States. We take up these issues with two former State Department counterterrorism officials. Morris Busby headed the State Department's counterterrorism office from 1989 to '91 and then served as U.S. ambassador to Colombia until 1994. He is now president of the BGI Company, a consulting firm specializing in security issues. Larry Johnson, a former official in the counterterrorism office, is now president of the Jamus Group, an international security consulting firm. Thank you both for being with us. Amb. Busby, let's start with what we know about the bomb so far. The FBI special agent in charge of the investigation said it was fertilizer and fuel oil and that it was a low-order explosive. What did he mean by that?

MORRIS BUSBY, Former State Department Official: Well, what he means is that opposed to plastic explosive, which is a high energy explosive, this is something which burns, it doesn't actually burn but it explodes with a force which is really designed to move earth, to move buildings, to move massive structures. And it's became a favorite tool of terrorists around the world. When I was in Colombia, we saw a number of bombs that were constructed just this way.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What does it take to build a bomb like that, Mr. Johnson?

LARRY JOHNSON, Security Analyst: It takes probably about a week or two of training. You're using materials that are readily available in Colombia -- or Colombia -- Oklahoma in this case: fuel oil, fertilizer. You put them together. You need a high energy charge, probably commercial dynamite to do it, a military explosive, a blasting cap. And it -- Amb. Busby correctly noted it packs a powerful punch, moves it about 10,000 feet per second compared to 25,000 feet per second for a high explosive like Detcort.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about planning and coordination for this whole operation though? It takes some planning and coordination, doesn't it?

MR. JOHNSON: You would think that this would probably take about a week to put together, because you just don't run out to the local hardware store and say I want a thousand, two thousand pounds of fertilizer. You assemble the fertilizer and the fuel oil. There obviously was some coordination. It was not just a long walk. I think one of the things to point out here was the choosing of Oklahoma City as a target -- I think we should dispel the notion that terrorists were just driving down the freeway and got off at the interstate and said, this looks like a good place. To me, it suggests that they had to have some base of support there, whether or not folks directly involved with terrorism, but, nonetheless, some knowledge about the area that made them choose that target.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay, one more question, Mr. Ambassador, on the bomb, itself. Where can people get the kind of training to build a bomb like this?

AMB. BUSBY: Well, that's an interesting question. People will tell you that you could read this is an encyclopedia, you can get it out of military manuals, and I think that's probably true, but if you look at the rest of what is required to put together an operation like this, and this one unfortunately seems to have been carried out very well, the coordination that's needed to select the target, to do the intelligence, to put the bomb together, to put it on target, to plan an escape route, if it was a domestic group, some careful planning went into it, if it was an international terrorist group, then clearly they needed some kind of support.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Before we leave this, any other conclusions you can draw about the bomb and about this operation from looking at the damage and from what you know so far?

AMB. BUSBY: Well, it's very difficult to say. The images that came to my mind after seeing the, the TV pictures of this building, I remember Beirut, I remember the Israeli embassy in Argentina, and unfortunately, some of the bombs that we saw in, in Colombia. And I think that these large car bombs have become the weapon of choice for terrorists around the world. It's a tragic thing.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And why do you think Oklahoma City was chosen? Mr. Johnson got into that. I want to ask you about that too.

AMB. BUSBY: Well, that's hard to say, because we don't really know who did this, and I think that is a very open question, but I -- I would say that terrorists always go for the softest target and the one which will create the most political stir, which will cause the most terror, and apparently, this building in Oklahoma City, and in that particular place, fit those criteria.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you see the signature of any group in this?

AMB. BUSBY: No. I think it's difficult to say that with any certainty whatsoever. What you do see is that it is a weapon which we are seeing with increasing frequency.

MS. FARNSWORTH: How about you, Mr. Johnson, do you see the signature of any group in this?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, when you look at -- there are four groups that have carried out attacks like this and the ambassador has noted. You've seen the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, Hezbollah; you have seen the IRA use bombs --

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Irish Republican Army.

MR. JOHNSON: The Irish Republic Army -- they've not -- used fuel oil and ammonium nitrate. You've seen the vast terrorist organization, and then there's Amb. Busby well knows, there were the bombs in Colombia by the drug cartel. You have to start with that, and you also have to leave open the fifth possibility of an unknown group that has not demonstrated this capability in the past.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But do you see any similarity between this and any of those group's bombs in the past?

MR. JOHNSON: Of those groups I mentioned, I would lean toward the Islamic groups.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Why?

MR. JOHNSON: Again, the -- when you compare the pictures with what happened in Argentina, with what happened at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, beliefs are that the group, Islamic fundamentalists were involved in both incidents. The pictures looked very, very similar, as Amb. Busby noted.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Amb. Busby, do you think that there are significant similarities between this and the World Trade Center?

AMB. BUSBY: Well, I think there are similarities in that the type of device is the same. As I remember, it was an ammonium-urea combination that was used in the World Trade Center. This apparently was ammonium nitrate, the same basic compound. The use of a large car bomb is also a similarity. Positioning of a weapon where it would do the most damage, again, but beyond that, I think it's very difficult to draw any conclusions from this at all. We need to go where the evidentiary trail leads us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, why do you think that the acting head of the CIA, William Studeman, called this the true globalization of the terrorist threat?

AMB. BUSBY: Well, I think that he is absolutely right about that. If you look at what has happened in Japan, if you look at what has happened here, two massive attacks in the last three years --

MS. FARNSWORTH: And you're talking about the gas in the subway in Japan?

AMB. BUSBY: Yes, I am, and it seems to me that in today's world, increasingly, we are seeing these kinds of attacks taking place, and I think it is a significant threat. It is a significant problem that requires some serious action on our part.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Johnson, the globalization of the terrorist threat?

MR. JOHNSON: I see the, the threat a little differently. It's become narrower in a sense. It's focused more upon Islamic groups. Right now, three years ago, the bulk of terrorist activity was out of Latin America directed against the United States. The number of international terrorist incidents have fallen from say 600 when Amb. Busby was there, and as a result of policies that Amb. Busby had to implement, terrorist incidents are now down to 321 for last year.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What kind of policies helped reduce those incidents?

MR. JOHNSON: Putting pressure on state sponsors, enforcing the rule of law, training assistance to foreign countries. At the same time, we've seen the number of terrorist groups decline from over sixty-five that were active three years ago to around forty-one, forty-two right now. Yet, we've seen this increased activity on the partisan Islamic groups in Algeria, in Egypt, in Israel, in Pakistan, and in the Philippines. Frankly, this is -- this strike in the heartland of America is probably the Pearl Harbor of terrorism for this country. It's one that's going to resonate with us in ways that even the takeover of the embassy in Tehran never did.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Amb. Busby, I've also read that there are more groups that are disparate, smaller groups that are carrying out terrorist acts. They may not be state-supported, is that true?

AMB. BUSBY: Well, I think that's true to a certain extent. The - - it's difficult to get -- to get a handle on that particular aspect of global terrorism, but certainly I think the use of terrorism as a weapon is unfortunately gaining increasing acceptance and being used by a number of smaller groups. That's true.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And yet, fewer people died, am I wrong about this, last year from terrorist acts than in prior years?

AMB. BUSBY: No. I think that statistically is correct.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So there are, there are improvements in some ways, that in other ways the situation's worse. That's what's hard to understand.

AMB. BUSBY: Well, I think that's true. I'm not so sure that that is inconsistent. I think that, that one of the things that has happened here is that we because of the success of some of the -- of some of the policies that we've put in place have somewhat let our guard down, and in the past, we were attacked but we were by and large attacked overseas. Because we put so much pressure on the state sponsors of terrorism and because we were able to form some, some alliances with, with our partners, we had a major impact on overseas terrorism, and what you're seeing now is I think the first tentative steps of people who would attack us are coming directly to this country.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Are Americans particularly at risk? I mean, there was almost no security, minimal security at the federal building in Oklahoma City, and that's probably true at many federal buildings, so are we particularly at risk because of the way we function?

AMB. BUSBY: Well, I think that there are some very specific challenges in this event for our leaders. We have always considered ourselves to be immune from this, and the reason for that is because we have very good security services. We're the freest country in the world, but we still have very good internal security. And secondly, the American people have never condoned terrorism. We have been strong against terrorism almost as a moral matter throughout our society. And the question now is going to be: How do we strike a balance in order to protect ourselves more? And you can't just simply lock everyone behind a wall to do that. How do you mobilize the American people? How do you mobilize the inner feeling that we all have that this is wrong and we're not going to put up with it? And I think that is going to require some significant leadership and some initiatives on the part of the leadership.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Johnson, what do you think about that? Are we particularly at risk here?

MR. JOHNSON: There is a vulnerability because we have not, I think in part because our system is threat-driven. On the one hand, it's not practical to ask everyone to have your own private Secret Service detail. On the other hand, we don't need to go to the opposite extreme of saying let's get rid of all security. We need to bring together safety being proactive and security being reactive and find a middle ground, and I say reactive. In the past, we've generally functioned on, if we believe we have information that there's a threat, we will respond, and yet, all the major incidents that have come up against the United States, we've never really had advanced warning of those. It's always after the fact, and we find ourselves trying to play catch up. I think if we take the same approach to national security against terrorism that we do to try and protect our homes or do to aviation security overseas, take a proactive preventive approach, that that can be a more positive, have positive benefits for us as a people.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And I want to ask one final question about the, the reward that Attorney General Reno offered. Do you think that's a useful thing to do right now? I want to get both of you on this, please.

MR. JOHNSON: I think we're seeing the fruition of this. When I first went to work for Amb. Busby, he gave me the task of saying let's figure out a way to get the rewards program working. We started a television, radio campaign that featured the actors Charlton Heston, Charles Bronson, and Charlie Sheen. Those ads were translated into eight different languages, and there's an aggressive campaign between the office of the coordinator for counterterrorism and diplomatic security. I think we're starting to see the fruits of that.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Amb. Busby, have you -- in the past has the offering of a reward helped?

AMB. BUSBY: Yes. And I would particularly point to the experience that I had been I was ambassador in Colombia, when we were helping the Colombian government track down the drug kingpin, Pablo Escobar. We worked with the Colombian government, they put out a rewards program, and it was very, very successful, and played a major role in the downfall of that individual.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Johnson, thank you so much for being with us. SERIES - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, we continue our series of conversations on rethinking affirmative action. President Clinton has called for a complete review of the government's affirmative action policies. So have others in and out of government. Tonight, we hear from Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents and the owner of a management consulting firm. Charlayne Hunter-Gault spoke with him recently.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ward Connerly, thank you for joining us.

WARD CONNERLY: My pleasure.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think affirmative action should be continued?

WARD CONNERLY: I think some portions of it should. I think that as our country agonizes over the relationship between the races, as we try to determine how we're going to renegotiate the civil contract between us that it would be a mistake for us to cold turkey stop all affirmative action. I think that we need a period in which we can phase out of what we're doing now and trying to evolve something that is appropriate to the 1990's and to the 21st century.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But basically, as a principle, you don't have a problem with it?

WARD CONNERLY: As a principle, I do have a problem with it, but the practical side of me says that we're not yet ready to abandon it entirely. The principle is, it seems to me, that we have developed an elaborate matrix, if you will, of programs and policies that essentially accord benefits to people on the basis of their group identity, which is a far cry, in my view, from the whole notion of equality of opportunity for individuals. And I think that we have fundamentally put in place the whole notion that we want to obtain group parity. As you look at all of the statistics that people bring out of the closet to talk about the justification for affirmative action, it is always on the basis of what group has the most and to compare the groups, rather than individuals. And so I want to see it move in an entirely different direction from that, but we can't do that overnight. It's going to take some time to do it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you reject the argument that 200 years of racial discrimination aimed at black people as a group is not justification enough for trying to fashion remedies that take that group's identification, its race, into consideration?

WARD CONNERLY: I don't think I, as a matter of principle, reject that premise. I think that in 1965, when we were looking at the problem of black people who had just endured one of the greatest blights of this nation, and we were trying to hasten their integration into American society, there was justification in 1965, to do what we did, but it is no longer a question of doing this for black people. It is now women and minorities. So the whole landscape of stakeholders has changed radically, plus the fact the role of black people in American society is no longer today what it was in the 1960's. It has changed dramatically.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Meaning that blacks have achieved parity or what?

WARD CONNERLY: Not achieved parity necessarily but I think you have to understand that in my view, affirmative action is basically a political remedy. It is not a civil right; it is not an entitlement; and it can only endure as long as there is a measure of support for it in the body politic. When people wake up in the morning and they look at TV and they look at the sports community, they look at politics, they look at the arts, they look at education, it's hard to persuade Joe and Jane Six-Pack that there is the level of discrimination out there today against black people that there was in the 1960's.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But is that perception the reality?

WARD CONNERLY: I think to some extent the perception is the reality. There is still discrimination, yes, to be certain, but I don't think that it is of a nature that warrants the system of preferences. And that's a word that a lot of people don't like, but that is a realistic word, to justify the system of preferences that we put in place in the 1960's. It isn't -- it isn't at that level.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you see harm being done as a result of affirmative action being continued in the way that it has been practiced in the past?

WARD CONNERLY: I think there is harm, Charlayne. And it's -- and it comes in many forms. It's the classic argument that white males are victimized because we are discriminating against them in order to benefit someone else. I think there is some of that, but I think that is overstated candidly, just as is the fact that many people say I wouldn't be here today without affirmative action. That is very difficult to prove. It's like discrimination. You hardly know sometimes when it occurs. And so I think that the level of discrimination has subsided tremendously. The level of reverse discrimination is not as great as some would say. Now, on your question of whether there are, there are people who are harmed, yes. One, I think that there are people who are discriminated against on the basis of their race, whites at the university, Asians. I think that black people are also harmed in the process. The whole stigmatizing argument, it's real, the fact that many black people aren't certain in many cases whether or not they have been given a job or given admission to the university because of race.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, those who say that this is important to do in spite of the fact that maybe some students perhaps are harmed is that for so long the preference went in the other direction, the good old boy network in which white males were the beneficiaries of the contacts of their fathers and so forth and so on, so that there's always been preference.

WARD CONNERLY: I accept the notion that the good old boys network has been in place. It is still in place. I think that that also suggests that if it is going to remain in place, that we have to recognize that in order for people in management to move up into that management hierarchy, they have to work within that good old boys network. As a member of the California State Chamber of Commerce, I know that when you force relationships in management, you can get people in the door, but you do, in fact, impose that glass ceiling if they feel that their peers are not equal to them, and so I think that one of the things that we have to recognize is that we need to allow the relationships in companies and in, and in bureaucracies to naturally develop for people to feel that they're dealing with their equals. That is what causes that good old boys network to allow people to move up in management.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said earlier that you felt that affirmative action ought to continue, even though you had some problems with it, it wasn't yet time to totally dismantle it. What elements of it do you think still need to be continued?

WARD CONNERLY: Academic outreach. I'm persuaded that we're not doing an adequate job at the K through 12 level to prepare young black kids to come to the University of California, and as a result, when they get there, we kind of gloss over the inadequacies that are there. The reality is that -- and this is what worries our administrators -- if we dismantle affirmative action, we're afraid that the pool is not going to be large enough for us to draw from that pool to have a sufficient number of blacks and chicanos at the University of California. That, to me, is a telling argument that we haven't been doing the job.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You're a businessman, and some of the figures for the extent to which minority businesses are participating in mainstream activity are not much better than they were ten years ago or fifteen years ago but certainly somewhat better, and proponents of affirmative action would say that even those small gains would not have been possible without minority setasides.

WARD CONNERLY: Well, I think that that is probably the worst area for us to be tinkering around with giving people preferences. People go into business because, one, they have the capital, more importantly, they have the energy and are willing to work eighty to a hundred hours a week, put their mortgages -- mortgage their homes and the kids and the dogs in order to raise the capital to, to operate a business. That is not something that I think that the government really ought to be doing and setting aside contracts for people. Everyone has obstacles. For some of us, it's race. For some of us, it's color. We should not lump all the problems together. And the worst thing that we're doing in this whole area of, of affirmative action is we're, we're not saying it's a black problem or, or that it's a racial problem, it's women and minorities. And we presume that everybody's obstacles are all the same.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: One of our issues with affirmative action is it's gotten too broad, that it should have been focused --

WARD CONNERLY: It's too broad.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: -- it should have kept the focus on just minorities or just blacks?

WARD CONNERLY: I think that if the issue was that the question was put to the American people was, do you believe that blacks have sufficiently progressed to eliminate affirmative action, preferences, if you could then prove that we have not, you might argue to people let's leave it in place five years, ten years, whatever, but when you fuzz it up with women and minorities and people see that blacks are out there participating in most venues of our life, and then it's also women, it takes on a whole new dimension.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: On the other hand --

WARD CONNERLY: It loses that political support that I've talked about.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: On the other hand, if you look at most of the statistical measurements, I mean, for example, women are still excluded from the top ranks of management in the Fortune 500 companies. I mean, they're still --

WARD CONNERLY: It seems to me that the justification for affirmative action has been, has to be institutional discrimination. I'm not convinced that the problem for women has been persistent discrimination as opposed to a cultural attitude, a cultural bias about the role of women in our society.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Clinton has called for a review of affirmative action programs. Do you think that's a good idea?

WARD CONNERLY: I don't think he has any choice. When you have a country in which half the people are standing on the sidelines seething with anger, I don't think the President has any choice but to call for a review. I just hope, however, that he really understands the full dimensions of the problem. I was really disappointed when in Sacramento, the President sort of characterized this as the angry white male sitting across from the dinner table trying to explain to his family why he didn't get a raise or why his job was in jeopardy. And while that certainly may be part of the problem, this issue is far more complex than the angry white male versus the rest of society. In our state, the voters by a two to one margin want to go in a different direction. Males, even those that are not angry, only constitute about 34 percent of the population. And many of the white males also support affirmative action. So arithmetically, this is not just a phenomenon of angry white males. And anyone who tries to characterize it in that fashion is grossly missing what the debate is all about. I think that there is fundamental difference in affirmative action as it was conceived by President Johnson when he talked about training programs, and when he talked about Head Start, and he talked about bringing people to the starting line and helping them to compete. That was preparing people for the competition. President Nixon in his Philadelphia plan or whatever it was really talked about awarding the contracts on the basis of group identity. There's a fundamental difference there, and I think that we have to examine whether we want to go back to President Johnson's approach of preparing people, regardless of their color. That's the way I want to go.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Ward Connerly, thank you for joining us.

WARD CONNERLY: Charlayne, thank you. FOCUS - TOUGH CHOICE

MS. FARNSWORTH: Next tonight, screening for prostate cancer. We have a report on the agonizing choices some men have to make when they and their physicians suspect prostate cancer. The reporter is Rod Minott of public station KCTS-Seattle.

ROD MINOTT, KCTS-Seattle: When he retired, 63-year-old Gerald Larson looked forward to spending days at sea, sailing his yacht. The former Boeing executive never dreamed the threat of a fatal illness might shatter those plans.

DOCTOR: Was there any bleeding or anything?

GERALD LARSON: No.

MR. MINOTT: Recently, Larson found himself confronting a killer of older men, prostate cancer.

DOCTOR: You're a young, healthy guy, at least from the perspective of prostate cancer, and it's a man like you that we would want to make a diagnosis of prostate cancer at an early stage, when if we found a cancer, we could cure you.

MR. MINOTT: Early tests showed an abnormal lesion on Larson's prostate gland. Now he faced a second biopsy, and if that confirmed cancer, surgery to remove the tumor might be next.

DOCTOR: The nerves that give -- allow men to have an erection go right next to the prostate. And if we cut the nerves on both sides, you won't have natural erections.

MR. MINOTT: It's an operation that might save Larson's life but one with significant risks that could leave him sexually impotent and cause him to lose control over urinating, side effects he found very troubling.

GERALD LARSON: Concern about having to have either some artificial control of bladder and that sort of thing I felt like that would have been difficult to live with.

MR. MINOTT: It's a dilemma that's part of a growing debate over the wisdom of detecting intruding prostate cancer early. On one side are advocates for early screening like Dr. Michael Brawer, a Seattle urologist.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER, Urologist: I believe in my heart that early detection and treatment of prostate cancer works. I also believe that we have to do something to stem the tide of the rising mortality associated with this malignancy.

MR. MINOTT: On the other side are skeptics like Dr. Matthew Handley, a family physician.

DR. MATTHEW HANDLEY, Family Physician: I think avoiding detection is another important option.

MR. MINOTT: Dr. Handley says possible harm from early detection may outweigh any benefits.

DR. MATTHEW HANDLEY: We don't know if the cancers that are found will act in a malignant fashion. We know that most of them will not, and we're unsure of how effective the operation is, and we know it has a lot of complications. So it's not nearly so simple as we should find all cancer and treat it.

MR. MINOTT: According to the American Medical Cancer Society, in 1994, 200,000 American men learned they had prostate cancer. Thirty-eight thousand were killed by it, a disease that's now the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men, after lung cancer. The prostate is a wallet-sized gland located below the bladder. Part of the male reproductive system, it produces a thick fluid, semen, that carries sperm. The gland also surrounds the top of the urethra, the tube that carries urine from the bladder to the penis. Often the gland swells in men after age 50, squeezing the urethra and triggering symptoms described by Dr. Brawer.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: Frequent urination, nocturia, getting up at night to urinate, occasionally burning with urination, and then there are a whole host of symptoms that are related to obstruction of the flow of urine.

MR. MINOTT: This benign enlargement may also signal cancer of the prostate, which is far more of a threat. The cancer can spread beyond the gland to lymph nodes, organs, and bones throughout the body. That cancer diagnosis is frightening.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: What we're looking for, areas in the prostate, in the posterior portion of the prostate, this portion here.

MR. MINOTT: For many men, finding the disease early and treating it aggressively would be their first thought. But prostate cancer is different from other cancers. And as amazing as it sounds, some medical experts say the best choice may be doing nothing at all.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: We're going to go ahead and do the biopsy, and we're going to take a total of six, okay.

MR. MINOTT: They point up prostate tumors are usually very slow growing and may take years to spread and cause trouble.

DR. MATTHEW HANDLEY: More men die with prostate cancer than from prostate cancer. All of us die that live long enough with prostate cancer. About 6 to 8 percent are probably symptomatic. In other words, they know they have cancer because they're having trouble from it, but only 2 1/2 percent of men die from it.

MR. MINOTT: Because those deaths number more than 30,000 a year, many doctors, hoping to save lives, feel compelled to find prostate cancer as early as possible.

OLDER GENTLEMAN: [referring to blood being extracted from his arm] So it's three tablespoons, is that about right?

CARE GIVER: Three tablespoons,that's pretty close.

MR. MINOTT: So more physicians are turning to a fairly new blood exam to spot those tumors at a very early stage. It's called PSA, or Prostatic Specific Antigen. The test measures the prostate sheds into the bloodstream, but according to critics, it's not foolproof.

DR. MATTHEW HANDLEY: PSA may be a sign of cancer, but PSA is more commonly a sign of other things, either an enlarged prostate gland, an inflamed prostate gland, or for no obvious reason. Most men with an elevated PSA do not have prostate cancer.

MR. MINOTT: Even so, PSA advocates say the blood test, when done in conjunction with a rectal exam, is a valuable tool for detecting cancer in the prostate.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: The cancers we find with these tests tend to be, we believe, cancers that are more likely to cause a problem for the patient.

HEALTH CARE GIVER: And you know, I think we're going to need to have him scoot up on the table.

MR. MINOTT: According to critics, an elevated PSA can trigger a string of costly tests and risky treatments that may be unnecessary. 70-year-old Bill Fogleman now regrets the decision he made to have surgery for his prostate cancer. Even though he had no symptoms, rectal and PSA blood tests spotted possible trouble during a routine check-up. A biopsy later confirmed cancer that had not yet spread.

BILL FOGLEMAN, Prostate Cancer Patient: Every time you use that big old "c" word, that got my attention in a hurry -- get it out of there. And surgery seemed to be the best way to do it.

MR. MINOTT: Surgery to remove the prostate is done only when the cancer is still confined to the gland. It offers the best hope for long-term cure, but there are those severe side effects, including loss of bladder control and inability to get erections. Medical experts say some new surgical techniques may reduce those complications. Fogleman admits he acted too hastily without thinking about the side effects of surgery. He now suffers from incontinence and must wear adult diapers to absorb the urine he leaks.

BILL FOGLEMAN: It's been totally embarrassing. Whenever I go to a friend's house or something, I've got to make sure that I'm properly protected. And even when I go out now, I've got to excuse myself to go change the -- I call it the diapers. It's when I get up and move around is when it becomes a problem, and especially if I'm playing volleyball or softball or even walking sometimes. It's a real problem.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: They withdraw the air from around the penis and allow blood to flow into the erectal bodies.

MR. MINOTT: There are ways to correct both urinary and sexual dysfunction artificially, but they're not ideal. This vacuum pump helps with impotence.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: A rubber band is placed around the base of the penis, and the penis withdrawn, and the patient can go on to have sexual relations.

MR. MINOTT: Doctors say with or without the devices, it's still possible to enjoy organisms and in some cases even ejaculation. To avoid embarrassing side effects, many men are now considering another option, doing nothing. That's what 63-year-old Fritz Hanson is trying. It's known as watchful waiting. Recent studies like this one published in the New England Journal of Medicine support watchful waiting as an alternative to surgery or radiation for some patients. Hanson was diagnosed in 1991. His doctor suggested surgery but Hanson decided not to seek treatment, and so far, he has no regrets.

FRITZ HANSON, Prostate Cancer Patient: I think it was a good decision to not go ahead. I'm not big on getting cut up. So I just decided that I would wait and see what the further PSA's readings would tell.

MR. MINOTT: Right now, those readings are normal, but Hanson continues to monitor his PSA blood level and remains concerned his cancer could still spread.

FRITZ HANSON: I'm certainly concerned. That's why I'm paying attention. This can go very slowly and can, can pass away by other means or become involved by other means, or sometimes, depending on who you are or what your makeup is, it can all of a sudden move on rapidly.

MR. MINOTT: Dick Swanson's prostate cancer has already moved into bones and his hip and pelvis. Doctors now given the 65-year-old dentist no hope for cure. Swanson says had the PSA test been available before his diagnosis in 1984, he could have caught and treated his cancer early enough to prevent its spread.

DICK SWANSON, Prostate Cancer Patient: PSA will give you six months, maybe a year's head start on this thing before the disease is detectable by other, by other means. So, again, it's a very curable disease if you get it early on. It's not necessary to go through what I've had to go through.

MR. MINOTT: Even so, doctors remain badly divided over whether PSA does more harm than good.

DR. MATTHEW HANDLEY: There's no evidence to date that shows it saves lives. These tests end up, figuring all the costs of the cascade of intervention, costing up about $1600 per test, per man screened. For an uncertain benefit, that's an enormous cost, in the United States anywhere from 11 to 27 billion dollars in additional health care costs for uncertain benefits and possibly more harms than benefits.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: If I think a man is going to live at least 10 years, then I think, in general, he will derive benefit from early detection, and if cancer is found, treatment.

MR. MINOTT: Dr. Brawer admits there is no evidence early screening and treatment ultimately save lives. He says that proof won't be available until a study by the National Cancer Institute is completed.

DR. MICHAEL BRAWER: The studies are just now getting underway where we're critically looking at does our treatment work. Unfortunately, we will not know the results of these studies for ten to fifteen years.

MR. MINOTT: Meanwhile, some labs, like this one near Seattle, are developing tests that may help doctors predict which tumors of the prostate are likely to spread. This one uses a computer to count blood vessels and tissue samples of prostate. A high number could be a sign of trouble. Eventually, Gerald Larson escaped having to decide about treatment. His biopsy came back negative.

GERALD LARSON: I was relieved that it was negative and I wasn't going to have to have another biopsy, and, of course, I was relieved about the, the fact that I would not need surgery.

MR. MINOTT: Today Larson may be cancer free, but he still worries, so he keeps testing his PSA level once a year. He knows that may yet lead him down an uncertain path of additional tests and treatments, but right now, Larson says, it's worth the risk. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: In other news today, U.S. and North Korean negotiators broke off nuclear talks in Berlin without reaching an agreement. They were discussing how to implement a nuclear accord that was hammered out in Geneva last October. In the Philippines, six men with alleged ties to those accused in the World Trade Center bombing were arraigned on illegal weapons charges. The judge entered a plea of not guilty on their behalf and ordered them held without bail. In Bosnia, the French peacekeepers' barracks in Sarajevo was hit by a mortar bomb. There was some damage but no injuries. The French have threatened to pull out of Bosnia if security is not tightened. General Motors reported first quarter profits of $2.2 billion today. That's a new record, and more than 150 percent higher than a year ago. Corporate executive J. Peter Grace died late yesterday from cancer. He was the former chairman of his family's chemical business, W.R. Grace & Company. He also headed the Grace Commission under President Reagan, a two-year program to root out government waste. J. Peter Grace was 81 years old. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good night, Robin. We'll be back tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you, and good night.