The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight the TWA 800 tragedy one year later, Margaret Warner debriefs the chief investigators, Robert Frances and James Kallstrom; Kwame Holman reports on today's Senate hearings on campaign money; Charles Krause interviews U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan; and Paul Solman runs a discussion about designating race on census forms. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The stock market continued its rise today. The Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed the 8,000 threshold for the first time, closing up 63 points at 8038.88. The move was fueled by more good inflation news. The Labor Department reported consumer prices rose .1 percent in June, making the annual inflation rate 1.4 percent for the first half of the year, the best six-month figure since 1986. There were confirmed reports today Defense Secretary Cohen has made another choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's Army General Henry Shelton, the current commander of U.S. military special forces. Shelton commanded paratroopers in the Persian Gulf War and led U.S. ground operations in Haiti in '94. President Clinton is expected to announce the nomination tomorrow and sent it to the Senate for confirmation. A second choice became necessary after Air Force General Joseph Ralston withdrew, following disclosure he had an affair earlier in his career. The Environmental Protection Agency adopted new air quality standards today. They would reduce currently acceptable ozone levels and would regulate airborne soot for the first time. EPA Director Carol Browner spoke about them at a White House ceremony led by Vice President Gore.

CAROL BROWNER, EPA Administrator: These updated standards will prevent approximately 15,000 premature deaths a year. They will prevent about 350,000 cases of aggravated asthma. They will prevent nearly a million cases of significantly decreased lung function in our children. And they will get the job done in ways that enable America's economic progress to continue because Americans will work together to harness the innovations and the technology advancements that reduce pollution in common sense, cost effective ways.

JIM LEHRER: The standards have been criticized by some industries as being too costly and by some municipal leaders as discouraging to business investment. Democratic fund-raiser John Huang got a top secret clearance without getting a full background check. That's what a Commerce Department security officer told the Senate committee investigating campaign contributions today. Another official said Huang received between three hundred and seventy and five hundred and fifty intelligence reports. Huang worked at Commerce before becoming a Democratic Party fund-raiser. We'll have excerpts from today's hearing later in the program. There may be a decision by tomorrow on whether American astronaut Michael Foale will help fix the Russian Mir space station. NASA officials today disputed reports it had been decided Foale would train for the space walk such repairs would require. Mir was rammed last month by a cargo ship, causing a loss of air pressure and electrical power. One module had to be sealed off. Foale would stand in for Mir's Russian commander, who's having heart trouble. A nationwide man hunt was underway today for Andrew Cunanan. He's the leading suspect in yesterday's shooting death of Italian designer Gianni Versace. He was shot twice in the head outside his Miami Beach home. A police official said Cunanan may still be in South Florida. He's suspected of killing four men in Minnesota, Illinois, and New Jersey since April. Overseas today, there was a 45-minute exchange of gunfire in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. South Korean officials claimed it started when North Korean soldiers violated the border. North Korean officials denied that trespass and reported several of its soldiers had been wounded. In New York today Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced a plan to transform the United Nations. He said the changes would cut the budget, consolidate programs, and allocate the savings to needy member nations. We'll have an interview with the Secretary-General later in the program. President Clinton today suspended portions of the Helms-Burton Act for another six months. The 1996 law allows American citizens to sue foreign films--foreign firms doing business in Cuba if they are profiting from U.S. property confiscated in Cuba's Communist Revolution 38 years ago. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the TWA Flight 800 investigation one year later, the Senate money hearings, U.N. Secretary-General Annan, and a change in the census count. FOCUS

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has the TWA 800 story.

MARGARET WARNER: On the night of July 17, 1996, a TWA 747, bound for Paris from JFK Airport in New York, exploded into flames off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people aboard.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC: [July 17, 1996] We now know that a TWA jet aircraft Flight 800 has exploded in midair, apparently landing in the Atlantic anywhere from ten to twenty miles South of New York's Long Island.

MARGARET WARNER: In the days and weeks that followed, divers recovered the remains of 220 bodies and more than 95 percent of the plane. From the outset, investigators pursued three theories about what caused the jumbo jet to explode. The three scenarios were: a bomb; a missile fired from a boat or shore; or mechanical failure. The two lead investigators are still on the case. James Kallstrom is an assistant director for the FBI. Robert Francis is vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Mr. Francis, what do you know now about what cause the crash?

ROBERT FRANCIS, National Transportation Safety Board: Well, I think that we've--we've learned and we learned this fairly early on--that we did have an explosion in the center fuel tank of the 747. We know that, or we believe that there was an environment in there that was conducive to an explosion. What we don't know is what caused the ignition of the fuel tank. And we're still working on that. As you may be aware, we've spent a year basically working on all of the facets of this, but we're particularly looking at the questions of fuel, temperature, pressure in the tank, the characteristics of what happens to the fuel, what happens to the air in there. And we're currently involved in some tests with a 747 off of--off of New York, which is giving us some more information that will enable us to use that, along with the tests that we're doing on the fuel.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Kallstrom, what do you consider the most likely explanations, or possible causes? What remain live theories, in your view, as to what caused this ignition? What caused the explosion to occur?

JAMES KALLSTROM, Assistant FBI Director: Well, you know, it's not a whole lot different, Margaret, than what you talked about at the opening. We've looked at this entire airplane now from a law enforcement standpoint. You know, the thing we have to answer, the question that the FBI and the law enforcement team has to answer, did this tragedy, did this fuel tank blow up because of a criminal act? Did someone put a bomb, a fragment of a missile, some sort of a device on there? We've seen no evidence of that in the last year forensically, and our investigation worldwide, which has been a huge investigation, has not turned up any evidence of that. And we're in sort of the final stages of looking at the mockup now, looking at all the holes for, you know, small devices, things that could have been put on there if people had access to the plane for a length of time. You know, our job is to really look at every option, no matter how remote, and to beat those down. So as we sit here tonight, you know, we really can't tell you. It's still one of the three. It looks less likely it's criminal because we haven't seen any evidence yet. But we're not quite to the end of that investigative track yet.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Francis, do you agree that the criminal possibility is not totally ruled out, but it seems less likely?

ROBERT FRANCIS: I think that's absolutely an accurate thing to say, and I think that the important thing is that, you know, we've been a team since the beginning between the NTSB and the FBI and the criminal aspects are their jurisdiction, they're their expertise. It's important always to realize that when we talk about looking at parts of the airplane, or whatever we're talking about, the fuel mixtures or whatever, that we are looking together at these things, and we'll continue to do so. But we're certainly satisfied that the FBI is in the best position to make the final determination on whether it was or was not a criminal act, and we will continue to work with them on that.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Mr. Kallstrom, of course, a missile could also be a criminal act. Where would you say that theory is in the sort of likelihood--barometer of likelihood at this point?

JAMES KALLSTROM: Well, I can guarantee you a missile would be a criminal act. I mean, from the very beginning, you know, that first night, the sketchy information, 747 in the water, big fireball, people saw things in the sky, communications from the cockpit were absolutely normal, you know, we thought, as the rest of the world thought, that there was a very good chance this was an act of terrorism. The next day at the second press conference Bob and I talked about the possibility that a missile could have shot down the plane, based on--at that time--close to a hundred eyewitnesses that saw things in the sky. We had two legs to that theory: friendly fire, you know, the old Pierre Salinger conspiracy theory.

MARGARET WARNER: The former ABC newsman who has promoted that theory, yes.

JAMES KALLSTROM: Right. And then, of course--

MARGARET WARNER: That it was--just to explain--that it was something the U.S. military was doing, exercises, and somehow gone awry.

JAMES KALLSTROM: Right. Right. And we put that up there because we needed to check that out, and, of course, the terrorists. We knew early on they would have been in the water in a boat, and we put a tremendous investment and from investigative resources, all of us, into looking at that. We said, look, it wasn't friendly fire. We did a comprehensive, independent investigation. We put an X through that. But was it a terrorist? I think what we're left with now, we have evidence of that; we have no collateral intelligence information that it was. But there's still a distinct possibility that some small fragment from a missile warhead could have exploded and penetrated the fuselage and the center fuel tank. That's what's sort of left on the board.

MARGARET WARNER: I understand from some reports--and maybe you could confirm this--that these test flights you're doing now, one of the things you're looking for is whether that area around the center fuel tank could have become so hot that it would attract a heat-seeking missile, is that right?

JAMES KALLSTROM: Well, I'm not going to confirm that particular test, but let me tell you that, you know, early on we knew we had to do a lot of testing on missiles. Luckily, for us in this country and the rest of the western world, we have not had planes shot down with missiles, although there's been a number of them around the world in Africa, the Middle East, and the old Soviet Union, so we did not have a large database forensically of what that type of damage would look like. So we've done a lot of testing for this tragedy and I think will serve us well and put us in good stead for any future tragedies we have to investigate.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Francis, let's go back to the mechanical theories you're exploring. And I know it's still preliminary, but can you be any more specific about what might have been different about this flight, a 747 going to Paris, that--what was the combination of circumstances that might have triggered something mechanical that would cause this?

ROBERT FRANCIS: I think that's getting a little speculative. I don't--you know, we're looking at this flight. We're obviously looking at anything else that any other explosive fuel tanks incidents that have happened around the world. We're looking for parallels. We're looking for differences, but I think it's fair to say at this point that there was nothing that we have found that was extraordinary about this flight. I think it's enormously important for us to remember--and I think that the "New York Times" in an editorial during this week came out with a statement to the effect that we've all got to realize that this is an enormously unusual event. We've got eleven or twelve hundred 747's that have been operating all over the world for the past 25 years, and millions of hours of service, and lots of them have taken off with hot center fuel tanks and hot weather, with air conditioners going, and all the other things, so I think that, you know, we look at this flight, we're looking at this aircraft; we're looking at the atmosphere and what was going on; but to speculate that there was something particular to this, or what it was is terribly difficult.

MARGARET WARNER: So what you're saying is that even the combination of factors--many people have made a lot out of the fact that the center fuel tank was almost empty--that those--that that combination has existed many times. There's nothing you can point to that, ah ha, this was a strange confluence of factors?

ROBERT FRANCIS: The center fuel tank being empty happens hundreds of times every day in 747's all over the world.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Kallstrom, back to the possibility of a criminal act, of course, as we know, as an American public, we also strongly responded to that possibility, and there was a lot of airport security measures put in place. In retrospect, do you--as an investigator, I mean, do you think that was an overreaction, or was it still a good idea to have?

JAMES KALLSTROM: No. I think it's a great idea. I think the security measures the Gore Commission recommended and the subsequent action of the Congress in appropriating money on these for new technology and new training and a whole host of things are things that are very wise to do and that we should do. I mean, we live in, you know, a very different world today than we lived in 20 years ago, and we've seen acts of terrorism around the world. And certainly we should take prudent steps at every choke point of the system to protect ourselves.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Francis, do you think that there are any safety changes that should be made in the mechanical area in advance of coming up with the cause?

ROBERT FRANCIS: Well, I think we've made some recommendations to the FAA to look in a number of different areas. And as a result of that, the FAA has come out with a request to the public at large, and that's the worldwide public, and particularly the technical community, for anybody's thoughts on, you know, No. 1, what could have happened, No. 2, how it could have happened, and No. 3, what might be prudent things to do to avoid it happening again in the future. But I would repeat that whenever you start changing things in an aircraft that's been designed and operating with an enormously safe record over years and years and years, that you've got to be very careful that you know what you're doing, because when you start changing the design of an airplane or how you operate an airplane, you may end up buying yourself more problems than what you're solving.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think it's conceivable, Mr. Francis, that we'll never know the cause of this crash?

ROBERT FRANCIS: Conceivable, yes, but I would say that it's going to be a very, very long time before the NTSB is going to be in a position to say we cannot find out what happened to TWA 800.

MARGARET WARNER: And Mr. Kallstrom, what do you think? Do you think it's possible we'll never know?

JAMES KALLSTROM: Oh, I think I agree with Bob totally. I think it's possible. But I think the FBI and the law enforcement team will reach a conclusion on the question was it criminal, and I think the science that NTSB has, the best brains in the world, the national laboratories, many of the universities, people from around the world. I think they certainly will find the answer.

MARGARET WARNER: Great. Well, thank you both gentlemen very much.

JAMES KALLSTROM: Thank you.

ROBERT FRANCIS: Thanks. SERIES - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman reports on today's Senate campaign fund- raising hearing.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee continued to hone in today on former Democratic party fund-raiser John Huang and his ties to another former employer, the multi- billion dollar Asian conglomerate called the Lippo Group.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON, Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee: It seems apparent that Mr. Huang was involved and served as a conduit for several illegal campaigns during the last election cycle. We learned yesterday that Mr. Huang arranged for illegal contributions to be made from Lippo.

KWAME HOLMAN: In the early 1990's John Huang was a Democratic Party supporter while working as a top U.S. executive of the Lippo Group based in Indonesia. In 1994, Huang was hired for a job at the Commerce Department. Gary Christopherson handled legions of recommendations to fill such so-called political positions in President Clinton's first administration.

GARY CHRISTOPHERSON, Former White House Official: To fill these many positions I and other associate directors relied heavily on various constituencies to recommend candidates. For example, outreach groups from the Hispanic, Native American, Asian American, African American, disability, women's, and many other ethnic communities would bring to my attention--qualified--many of them highly qualified candidates. John Huang was one of those candidates. I was not aware of John Huang until he was brought to my attention by the Asian outreach effort. Our Asian outreach effort advised me that he was a qualified candidate, and that he was an important symbol to the Asian community.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Huang also was recommended for the Commerce job by his former employer, the Lippo Group, founded by Mochtar Riady. The Jakarta, Indonesia-based conglomerate is heavily involved in joint ventures with state-run companies in China. Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran quoted a letter from a Lippo consultant urging Huang be hired at Commerce.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN, [R] Mississippi: This letter talks about John Huang being the Riady family's top priority for placement, and in that letter on page 7, I think, is the part where John Huang-- or page 6--John Huang is discussed. And it describes his qualifications.

GARY CHRISTOPHERSON: I see that.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN: Mentions that he's a good friend of Ron Brown; John's appointment would be highly endorsed by the Chinese business community, which has made heavy contributions to the campaign, as well as the grassroots political activists. Did these factors come to your attention when you were reviewing his qualifications in your effort to try to match him to a particular job? Is this one of the reasons why the Department of Commerce came to your mind as a possible place where John Huang would fit in?

GARY CHRISTOPHERSON: There are two parts t that response. One is this is not familiar to me, and it would be not unusual for me not to see these kinds of things. It's important to understand John Huang's interest and value to me and the reason why I pursued him was because I was trying to put an Asian candidate in, and so John Huang's interest was really not his political connections; it was the fact of his Asian background and his potential fit in Commerce.

KWAME HOLMAN: Paul Buskirk was in charge in checking the backgrounds of Commerce employees like Huang, who were cleared to receive briefings on classified material. Committee Republicans wanted to know if Huang's background check, conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, included checks with people Huang knew overseas.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN: You mentioned that OPM did a full field investigation prior to the Department granting a final top secret clearance. My question is: Do you know whether OPM conducted an overseas background check on John Huang, and, if not, why not?

PAUL BUSKIRK, Commerce Security Director: Senator, I know that they did not conduct an overseas investigation because I've read the report. I do not know why they didn't conduct an overseas investigation.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN: Did this trouble you at all? Were you concerned about it? Is this something that bothered you in any way?

PAUL BUSKIRK: At that time, no, sir.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN: You mentioned in your deposition on page 60, you specifically said because now we have an issue that if we had gone to Hong Kong and done the neighborhood checks, we probably would have picked up or possibly would have picked up some issues that we didn't pick up in the investigation. Is that something that you think should have been done, now in retrospect?

PAUL BUSKIRK: Senator, in hindsight, there was a rock that was not turned over.

KWAME HOLMAN: The committee next heard from Former Commerce Undersecretary Jeffrey Garten. Garten was overall head of international trade and superior to John Huang's boss, Charles Meissner.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Is it accurate to state you had reservations about Mr. Huang's ability to handle substantive matters?

JEFFREY GARTEN, Former Commerce Undersecretary: In the Commerce Department, under Sec. Brown, we set a very fast pace. It was extremely dynamic. We were extremely focused, and I felt that Mr. Huang did not have the requisite experience for policy matters. That's not to say that he didn't have it for other--for other issues, but in terms of the most important policy issues, I did not feel he had the right background.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Was it your feeling that Mr. Huang could adequately serve as, more or less, and administrative assistant to Mr. Mizener? Is that a fair characterization of the nature of the duties?

JEFFREY GARTEN: That is a fair characterization, yes, of the nature of the duties.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: What did you understand would have been his permissible involvement with any issues regarding China?

JEFFREY GARTEN: Well, as I said in the disposition, in my view, he should not have been involved with China in any way at all.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: You told Mr. Garten--I mean, you told Mr. Mizener that Huang was to have nothing to do with China, didn't you?

JEFFREY GARTEN: Yes.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: There is evidence demonstrating that even though Mr. Huang was walled off from China, China policy by you, that he visited the Chinese embassy at least six times and received a number of calls from Chinese embassy officials. Does that surprise you?

JEFFREY GARTEN: Yes, it does.

SEN. CARL LEVIN, [D] Michigan: You decided that neither Mr. Mizener nor Mr. Huang should have jurisdiction over the China desk, is that correct?

JEFFREY GARTEN: Yes, that is.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: And the reason relative to Huang had to do with his--what you considered to be his personal experience--did that have anything to do with any connections with Lippo?

JEFFREY GARTEN: No. The issue--

SEN. CARL LEVIN: What was--he wasn't aggressive enough--what was the--

JEFFREY GARTEN: We created a real high performance team. The only people that, in my view, were qualified to deal especially with China, given its enormous significance and sensitivity, were people that had a lot of experience in the policy arena.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today's afternoon session featured Central Intelligence Agency officials responsible for giving classified economic briefings to John Huang and other Commerce Department officials. Two of the officials sat behind a screen to protect the identity of one of them. Under questioning by Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, CIA Officer John Dickerson said John Huang temporarily kept possession of a dozen intelligence reports, among hundreds of intelligence documents the two men reviewed together.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: And obviously you don't know what he did with those 12 finished intelligence reports, which he had in his possession at that time?

JOHN DICKERSON, CIA: He--Mr. Huang had a secret clearance, so he- -and he had a need to know, and he had a certified safe for storage of those classified documents. My assumption is that he kept them there, and that he used them properly. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, you say he had a need to know. Did you make independent determination that he had a need to know?

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, he--according to his boss, Charles Mizener- -was Mr. Mizener's Asian specialist, and Mr. Mizener specifically requested that I provide him with foreign intelligence on Asian countries, so that he would be aware of what was going on in those countries.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: But once he had possession of those finished intelligence reports, you had no knowledge as to what he did with them from the time you gave them to him, he signed the receipt till the time you got them back.

JOHN DICKERSON: I'm assuming that he used the information properly and that he kept them locked up in the safe.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, then I repeat my question. You had no way of knowing whether he--

JOHN DICKERSON: But I had no way of knowing.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: --did that or not.

JOHN DICKERSON: I have no way of knowing, no.

KWAME HOLMAN: The committee adjourned its public session late today in order to hear more from the CIA in closed session. The committee's open hearings resume in the morning.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight reforming the United Nations and who are we? NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Charles Krause has the U.N. story.

CHARLES KRAUSE: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's reorganization plan aims to streamline the U.N. bureaucracy to make it more efficient. Unveiled this morning in New York, the plan is detailed. But in many cases the changes it recommends can't be implemented without approval from the U.N.'s 185-member general assembly. The plan outlined today proposes creation of a cabinet to reduce the number of senior officials reporting directly to the secretary-general, and the new deputy's position to further streamline the U.N.'s top administration, consolidation of three economic and social development offices into one, the merger of two human rights offices, and a new office in Vienna to deal with drug trafficking, money laundering, and crime prevention programs, also a new disarmament agency in New York to prevent nuclear and other arms proliferation. The office would also attempt to monitor and control the flow of weapons into areas of conflict, and finally a new $200 economic development fund to be paid for with the administrative savings that result from the new plan.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Joining us now is Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Mr. Secretary-General, welcome.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. Secretary-General: Thank you very much.

CHARLES KRAUSE: How would these new reforms that you've announced today change the United Nations?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: I think it will change the way we do business. It will change the way the organization is led, and it will also encourage us to focus on our priorities. And I listened to the issues you listed, but there's another important area in the economic and social. In addition to the consolidation of the three economic departments into one, we have brought together all the development agencies, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, and to some extent a welfare program--into an economic development program that will work together, that will pool their efforts, discuss their programs and priorities, and eliminate duplication. And that U.N. development group, by pulling their efforts, are definitely going to make a greater impact on the ground. And at the field level we are requiring all the U.N. agencies to work as a team under one leadership, under one flag, and in one building, and to pool their efforts and also join in common services to save money that can be applied to economic and social development. So I see the net result of our effort in creating an organization that is not only coherent, that is not only better managed, but an organization that is much more responsive in the dynamic and constantly changing world.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Are these changes--do you think they're sufficient to convince people like Sen. Helms and others in the U.S. Congress that the U.N. must change?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: I hope so. I think it will convince most member states and all those who would want to see the U.N. strengthened, who would want to see the U.N. adopt a culture of change, and a constant search for excellence. And I think those who share their objective that the U.N. need to be strengthened, the U.N. has to be made more effective and relevant will be happy with a package we've put together. But those who have other dreams and other ambitions and who have different vision from that, I'm not sure I'll be able to convince easily.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Have you had any reaction yet from a Senator or from the administration for that matter about your plan?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: Not directly. I did read a comment by Sen. Grant, who thought it wasn't sufficient. But, by and large, the comments by the member states have been supportive and very encouraging. And of course, the media and opinion leaders who are reading the report I hope will also conclude that we do have a story to tell and that we are making a genuine effort, an effort that has not been made before in the 52-year history of this organization. The reform proposals I maintain and I think once you read them you will conclude they're both extensive and far reaching.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What would you point to--one or two changes-- there are these--one or two of these proposals that really illustrate the kinds of reforms, bold reforms, you say, that you are trying to undertake?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: Okay. I think I have talked about economic area, but in the work of the general assembly we have made proposals that the general assembly, which has 168 agenda items, should review its work and restructure its operations along the eight main priority areas we have all agreed on in the medium-term plan, and that, in time, they should adopt a theme for each general assembly, a theme like development financing. It could be any other topic, but for the first week, when the health of state and government are here, and the ministers are here, we can focus on an issue that is important to the entire international community. And if they did restructure their activities the way we are proposing, I think it ought to be possible to reduce the duration of the general assembly by about three weeks.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But, of course, the criticism in the Congress has more to do with money basically, and the claim is that the U.N. has wasted all this money, and the Congress doesn't want to continue to pay for it. What can you point to in your plan that will save money and will answer those critics?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: I think in the plan we have cut a thousand posts; we have reduced paper by 30 percent, which saves millions. We have indicated that we are going to reduce our administrative overhead by a third and apply those savings to economic and social issues. We are making extensive use of communication using teleconferencing to prevent people--to avoid people having to travel around the world to conferences, when we can do it electronically. And over the period, as we continue to streamline, there will be other savings down the line. But my plea is that we should not be judged so much by what we cut; we should be judged by what we do. The assistance we give to the needy, the poor, the relief we give to 25 million refugees, I think those kinds of substantive activities and the attempt to come up with a program that will encourage the member states to band together to fight those problems--the problems like drought, terrorism, international crime--are very important, and I hope one would concentrate on some of these constructive efforts, rather than cut, cut, cut. Cutting is not necessarily reform. We will cut where we can--we see opportunities for cutting. But the objective which the member states have agreed on, and I share this with them 100 percent, is to strengthen the organization, make it relevant, and position it for the 21st century.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, one of your proposals, one that's gotten quite a bit of attention, is to use a savings of $200 million or so for a new development fund. Now, do you think--can you run this by Sen. Helms or others in the administration, or Congress, to see whether the United States is likely to go along with this proposal of yours?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: I hope they will go along with it, because it makes sense. Not only does it make sense, we have been better--we have been more with less, and we are giving everybody better value for their dollar. If we squeeze $200 million out of administration costs through rationization and further computerization and apply the savings to the essential area of economic and social activities, I think one should see the sense in that--and I hope it will be supported.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you--the Senate passed a bill last month which would--in return for paying the money--the $800 million, which the United States owes to the United Nations--would setas a condition of that, that the U.S. allocation or as part of your budget be reduced from 25 to 20 percent. Now, that's not in today's proposal. Why is that not there?

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: That is an issue for the member states. There is a committee of member states discussing that issue. The scale of assessment has been under discussion for several years now. And I think the U.S. will have to make its case to the other member states. We are an organization that lives through the contribution of its member states. And the member states, themselves, have established an objective criteria for assessment. That objective criteria is based on GDP and population. And it is for that reason that China, for example, pays much less than the U.S., because of the population factor. And so if the conditions are going to be changed, the U.S. has to negotiate it with the other members and get the rules changed. I think ideally if the member states were to decide that no one member should pay more than 20 percent, and that will be a political decision agreed to by all, that is fine. But if they do not come to that conclusion, then the U.S. will have to negotiate with them. And while we are on that, this is where we have--we already have a conflict with the U.S. on the peacekeeping budget. We assess them 31 percent. The U.S. unilaterally reduces assessment to 25 percent, and that in some way explains the differences in figures. When we say they owe $1.3 billion, Washington maintains that they owe less, because they are calculating on the basis of 25 percent, and we under our rules calculate on the basis of 31 percent. And I hope we will not get into the same struggle over the regular budget, and that they will try and convince the other member states to go along.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Secretary-General, we'll have to leave it there. I want to thank you very, very much for joining us.

SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN: Thank you very much. FOCUS - WHO ARE WE?

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, counting who we are. Betty Ann Bowser begins.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Kathleen Hom, David Williams, and their daughter represent one of the fastest growing segments of the population; they are a multi-ethnic family. Hom is Chinese. Williams is white. Their daughter is both. But when Melinda has been asked to identify herself by race, frequently she has had to choose either white or Asian. But now under a new administration proposal when the year 2,000 census is taken, Americans would be allowed to choose more than one category when they fill out the form. In the 1990 census form, there were 16 boxes for racial identification, including one labeled "other." A person was instructed to circle only one box. In the proposed new form, a person is allowed to mark one or more categories to indicate what race they consider themselves to be. And the "other" category is deleted.

DAVID WILLIAMS, Parent: I've thought about this for Melinda. If a child is choosing one or the other, in some sense the child is choosing which parent, and that's, I think, a very, very difficult thing to do. And the way it's been too, with the remaining category "other," I mean, your whole identity is a phrase "other". I mean, this is--I think that's really demeaning.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: When the 1990 census was taken about 10 million people identified themselves as "other" or of mixed race. Over the past thirty years the number of mixed marriages has grown from about 150,000 to more than one million--and the number of racially mixed American children has quadrupled to 2 million. After a lengthy study, a 30-agency federal task force unanimously agreed those numbers merit a new approach to the census form. It recommended the new proposal, which the task force says will more accurately count the population. Kathleen Hom thinks its a good idea.

KATHLEEN HOM, Parent: We're finally taking down the "You must fit in one box." We're finally saying, "You, as an individual, with all these different things that make you individual, all those things count." And for my daughter, as my husband said, it's not having to choose; not having to say I'd rather be this or I'd rather be that, because I must choose one thing.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: More than a head count of the American people is at stake. Census data is used to determine how the federal govt allocates money--for everything from education to housing, medical research, and affirmative action. But equally important, the census is also used to decide how the House of Representatives and state legislatures across the country are apportioned. The proposal is a defeat for those who have been pushing for a new all-purpose category on the census form, a new box that would say "multiracial." People who support this concept say they don't belong in any of the existing categories. Last summer they held a demonstration in front of the capitol to show their support for the multiracial category. But the task force said a "multiracial" box would "create another population group and no doubt add to racial tension and fragmentation of our population".

JIM LEHRER: Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston has more.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, what should the Census Bureau do? To answer that question, we're joined by Harvard Sociologist Orlando Patterson, who has just completed a book on race: "Ordeal of Integration;" Charles Byrd publishes "Multiracial Voice," an Internet journal on mixed race issues; Carlos Fernandez founded the Association of Multiethnic Americans and teaches law at Golden Gate University. And we're trying to get his signal. We've had some trouble with it. And demographer, Linda Jacobsen, works for Claritas, a consumer database firm and also advises the Census Bureau. And welcome to you all. Mr. Byrd, should there be a multiracial box on the census form, as we've just seen some talk about?

CHARLES BYRD, Internet Journal Publisher: [New York] Yes. Well, actually the name of my publication is the "Interracial Voice," not multiracial. But, yes, we've been advocating for a separate multiracial category for a number of years now. We're not terribly happy with the OMB decision. We don't think it's a great compromise. It's a step forward towards this nation recognizing multiracialialty, but it's not a huge one. The same check all that applies format could fit very easily underneath a multiracial header. What we have--what OMB has essentially recommended--

PAUL SOLMAN: OMB--you're referring to--

CHARLES BYRD: I'm sorry. The Office of Management & Budget.

PAUL SOLMAN: Which is what this--

CHARLES BYRD: Which is part of the Executive Branch and which issued its recommendation last week concerning Census 2000.

PAUL SOLMAN: Okay. Great. So go ahead.

CHARLES BYRD: We don't particularly--a lot of us in the multiracial community don't like this because it's essentially a scheme where the government is saying, listen, you have to parcel out a portion of your identity to this group and to that group. The thing is, there's absolutely no consideration or understanding on the part of the government that a great many of us don't view these existing racial categories as valid in terms of identity oraffiliation.

PAUL SOLMAN: Explain what you mean. What would be invalid about checking off several different boxes, for example?

CHARLES BYRD: Well, I consider myself to be an individual of mixed race, as we construe race to be. First of all, it's an artificial construct. It doesn't exist, except in our minds. But as we construe race to be, I'm an individual of mixed race, and I personally prefer just to leave it at that, without associating myself with these abstractions called white and black, because, after all, have you ever seen a white person, or a black person? They don't exist really. They're usually pink and brown. So I prefer just a stand-alone category with multiracial, but I do understand that a great many individuals of mixed race do prefer do check all that apply. So my ideal scenario--until we do get to the day in this country where we can just scrap all racial classifications--give us a multiracial category and below there an optional section to check all that apply. The Charles Byrds of the world could check off one. Other individuals could check off more than apply, but you have to have an icon, a symbol that is representative of an individual of mixed race who identifies as other than mono-racial.

PAUL SOLMAN: Okay. Well, Ms. Jacobsen, I mean, how do you look at this? Do you like the check-off provision that is now the proposal before us? How do you respond to this idea of the multiracial box?

LINDA JACOBSEN, Demographer: Well, I think the difficulty with the multiracial box is that it provides less rich information and less detail about the composition of that group that Charles is describing as being multiracial. And it also has some disadvantages in the sense that it provides less of a link to historical data on race and ethnicity, as well as providing a disadvantage, for example, to health researchers, who know that certain health conditions or health problems are linked to particular races, such as sickle cell anemia, for example.

PAUL SOLMAN: Play that out for a second. Exactly how would it work with sickle cell anemia if you did or didn't have a multiracial box? I mean, what would happen?

LINDA JACOBSEN: Well, for example, if an individual who say was black--had one parent who was black and one parent who was white- -and then checked the multiracial box, they would be indistinguishable from say another individual who was multiracial, checked the multiracial box, and was say of Asian and white parentage. So a health researcher would not be able to count or to categorize those with any black heritage who might be at risk for sickle cell anemia.

PAUL SOLMAN: I see. So, Mr. Byrd, isn't that a fairly persuasive argument against having a multiracial box?

CHARLES BYRD: Well, I understand the health concerns. I just don't think they're paramount. I don't think that they are--they override the primary concern of self-identification, an individual being able to name self and to describe self, and along those lines there are some of us who are still going to pursue passage of HR-30, which is the bill presented in the House of Representatives by Congressman Petrie of Wisconsin. That bill, if passed, would mandate a multiracial category on all government forms since this included that request of racial self-identification.

PAUL SOLMAN: Okay. So, Professor Patterson, you've heard both of these proposals, if you will, where you come down on this multiracial box, checking off more than one?

ORLANDO PATTERSON, Harvard University: I don't think we need a racial box at all. And I noticed that Byrd said that race is a social construct, something we invent, an identification, partly imposed on us, partly what we select and choose. I agree with that. The only problem is that there's another term, another category which is exactly like that, is the ethnic ancestry category.

PAUL SOLMAN: Ethnic ancestry category in the census form.

ORLANDO PATTERSON: Ethnic identification, yes, in the form, in the census form, and the racial box is, therefore, redundant, and we hear talk about racial identification. The question is what's that and how is that different from ethnic identification, and the only function it serves is to validate the notion that race is somehow something distinct and different from this thing we called ethnic identification. But if you--if you explore what exactly people say racial identification is--apart from professional racists--such as Charles Morry and so on--they will say it's a form of identification, a construct. But that's exactly what ethnic identification is. And we don't lose information on the ethnic question because, for example, people are asked to check on their ancestry whether they're Afro-Americans and so on, so people concerned--medical concerns about sickle cell will get their data anyway.

PAUL SOLMAN: You mean, you write in--on the form you write in what your ethnic identification is?

ORLANDO PATTERSON: Yes. You're asked, yes, to give your ethnic ancestry, in addition to being asked your racial ancestry. And my question is, having learned that someone is Afro-American, Filipino-American, Chinese-American, why the devil do we need to also ask what's your race.

PAUL SOLMAN: So Mr. Byrd, what about that? I mean, if you can already put in whatever you choose, why do you need this extra box?

CHARLES BYRD: Well, first of all, I read Prof. Patterson's op-ed in last week's "New York Times" and it's a great--there's a large area of agreement between the two of us. I appreciated him coming out with it. I think academics need to do more of this. I think they've fallen short over the decades in terms of trying to challenge this rigid system of racial classification. I think that Prof. Patterson will have to recognize that the civil rights community would fight him vigorously if there was a serious proposal to drop all racial classifications and merely identify ethnically. So he's got a point, but will it--when will that become a reality? When will we as a society become sufficiently enlightened to do away with racial classifications? I don't think it's going to be done overnight. It might be a hundred years, it might be five hundred years. So all--my stance all along has been saying until you get to that day where you no longer ask the stupid question what race are you. Allow those of us who are construed to be of mixed race or mixed ancestry or mixed descent, give us a viable option to these rigid mon-racial categories.

PAUL SOLMAN: And civil rights groups would fight it and have been talking against it, why--against his position--for what reason.

CHARLES BYRD: Well, in America is part black is considered all black according to the one drop rule. And--

PAUL SOLMAN: The one drop rule is--

CHARLES BYRD: The one drop rule being that if you had at least one African for bearer going back as far as you can possibly track it down, you are black in America, even though you might be as white-looking as Bill Clinton or George Bush.

PAUL SOLMAN: One drop of blood, in other words?

CHARLES BYRD: One drop. Well, it has nothing to do with blood, but historically, it's been associated with that. So the black political leadership in this country is fearful that their numbers- -that the number of "official blacks" will drop if people identify themselves honestly and accurately as multiracial, instead of-- instead of black. And they fear diminishment of their crude political power because of that.

PAUL SOLMAN: Oh, I see. Is that true, Mr. Patterson?

ORLANDO PATTERSON: First of all, I think he's correct, but I think it's really unfortunate that people should insist on perpetuating racial categorization because of their own concerns about their constituents and their jobs. Second is they're misinformed. The census, itself, has done studies about what the effect would be on the constituents that a number of people who identify themselves as Afro-American--from that, it would affect less than 1 percent of people who now define themselves as Afro-Americans, so it's an unnecessary concern.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, Ms. Jacobsen, do you agree? Is that true? Is it an unnecessary concern? Are people arguing over nothing here?

LINDA JACOBSEN: I don't think it's an unnecessary concern, and let me just make one additional response to Dr. Patterson's previous comment. The difficulty with substituting ancestry for race is that the ancestry question is only asked on the sample form of the census, not on the 100 percent form that's sent to all households. So were we to substitute that, we would lose that information on racial identity from the sample that's sent to all households. And as everyone may be aware, there is considerable congressional debate right now over whether or not they even intend to fund the sample or long firm in Census 2000. So we may not have any information about ancestry in 2000 as it currently stands. My second point would be--

PAUL SOLMAN: Yes, please.

LINDA JACOBSEN: --that whether or not we like it, whether or not we think that should be the case, historically certain population and specifically racial groups have suffered discrimination on the basis of their race and ethnicity. And if we can--if we discontinue collecting that information, we don't eliminate discrimination, we really eliminate our ability to measure it and to monitor compliance with civil rights laws such as Mr. Byrd suggested.

CHARLES BYRD: Well, could I just add one thing. I think this fear of hurting the official minority communities is really nonsense because if they lose "numbers," due to the establishment of a multiracial category, then, in fact, they have been claiming all along individuals who they had no right to claim. If I opt--if I opt for a multiracial identifier, I find it offensive that you would still want to lump me in with the black category. Nothing against blacks, but let me identify the way "I" want to, and Prof. Patterson is absolutely correct. Census sampling data suggests that only 1 percent of the population would avail itself of this category if it were available. So it's nonsensical to say that a large chunk of individuals who have heretofore identified as black would shift over to the multiracial category. That's an unconscionable scare tactic that the black political establishment has been perpetrated.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, you use the word nonsensical. Ms. Jacobsen, would you like to respond to that? We have only a little time left.

LINDA JACOBSEN: Yes. I would just note that the beauty of the current proposal of allowing individuals to mark more than one race is that that doesn't make any predetermination about how that data will be tabulated. The OMB right now is putting together a working group to advise them specifically on those kinds of tabulation guidelines. So I think Mr. Byrd is reaching conclusions prematurely in terms of how that data is tabulated. If you allow people to mark both black and white and et cetera, you can tabulate the data a number of different ways. And secondly, I would just note that while he likes the multiracial category, in essence, that implies that it is a homogeneous or uniform group, and there are a number of individuals potentially who say they are, you know, American and Asian, or white and Asian, who don't want to be lumped together with black Puerto Ricans, or something along those lines.

PAUL SOLMAN: Okay. We have to end it here. I only got through half my questions, and we're sorry, we couldn't get Carlos Fernandez either. But thank you all very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the stock market chartered new territories. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 8038.88. Defense Secretary Cohen reportedly recommended Army General Henry Shelton to President Clinton to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Environmental Protection Agency adopted new air quality standards to reduce ozone levels and regulate airborne soot. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.