The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Kwame Holman updates the Senate's struggle with the nuclear test ban treaty; Margaret Warner looks at the ongoing troubles in and between Pakistan and India; Gwen Ifill, with Jan Crawford Greenburg of the "Chicago Tribune," examine a states' rights argument before the Supreme Court today; Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to soprano Renee Fleming; and Spencer Michels reminds us how Wilt Chamberlain played basketball. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Senate moved toward a vote tonight on the nuclear test ban treaty. Democrats failed to have it postponed. Minority Leader Daschle blamed some Republicans for forcing the vote by rejecting a compromise. Defeat seems certain. Majority Leader Lott has said he's comfortable going ahead with a vote, calling the pact fatally flawed. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. On Pakistan today, Secretary of State Albright called for a return to constitutional democracy there. The military seized power from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif yesterday. In Pakistan, army leaders today did not disclose any plans for ruling. Streets in the capital of Islamabad were calm. Government offices, banks, and the stock exchange were closed. In neighboring India, Prime Minister Vajpayee said his newly-elected government was committed to dialogue with Pakistan, but he said Indian troops remained on high alert. We'll have more on the story later in the program tonight. Vice President Gore won the approval of organized labor today. The AFL-CIO, meeting in Los Angeles, officially endorsed him for President. He beat out his Democratic rival, former Senator Bill Bradley, who had sought to delay the labor federation's endorsement. Gore said this:

AL GORE: I want to work alongside all of you in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in every state, and from every member of this AFL/CIO and every official, I want to take this message right to the grassroots. I need every one of you to be with me, and I am not taking a single vote for granted. This is going to be a long, hard fight.

JIM LEHRER: Not all of the AFL- CIO's 68 unions backed Gore. The Teamsters and United Autoworkers declined. They said it was too soon to decide. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in an age discrimination case that touched on states' rights. The Justices will decide whether a federal law infringes on a state's immunity against being sued in a federal Court. We'll have more on the story later in our program tonight. Interior Secretary Babbitt has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing in an Indian casino investigation. The Independent Counsel investigating the matter said today there was insufficient evidence to indict Babbitt or anyone else. The case involved allegations Babbitt lied to Congress about why he refused to grant a gambling permit to three Wisconsin Indian tribes. Babbitt said in a statement he was gratified by today's decision. President Clinton issued an executive order today to protect 40 million acres of federally owned forest. He made the announcement in the George Washington National Forest in Virginia. The plan would permanently preserve some two-thirds of America's canyon lands and forests from logging, mining, and other development. The President said it would not restrict the U.S. timber supply.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Only 5 percent of our country's timber comes from the national forest. Less than 5 percent of the national forest timber is now being cut in roadless areas. We can easily adjust our federal timber program to replace 5 percent of 5 percent. But we can never replace what we might destroy if we don't protect these 40 million acres. [Applause]

JIM LEHRER: But Republicans in Congress said it could put small loggers out of business.

REP. GEOGE RADANOVICH, [R] California: The President has put 40 million acres of forest land at risk environmentally. And it may sound like a good thing, but unfortunately, when you leave man out of the management of many of these forests, they'll overload with underbrush and it makes them vulnerable to catastrophic fires, which occur regularly, especially in the West.

JIM LEHRER: The Forest Service said it would aim to implement the preservation plan in the spring. On Wall Street today, the stock market slid for a second day in a row. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 184 points to close at 10,232. The NASDAQ Index went down 71 points, more than 2 percent, to end the day at 2801. The nation's largest cigarette maker publicly acknowledged today tobacco is not safe. Philip Morris made its statement on its Internet site. It admitted cigarette smoking is addictive and a likely cause of lung cancer, heart disease, and other health problems. A company spokesman said the website is part of a $100 million campaign to communicate more openly with the public. The Nobel Prize for Economics was won by a Columbia University professor today. He's Canadian-born economist Robert Mundell. He was cited for his analysis of how exchange rates affect monetary policies. The theories contributed to the creation of the Euro, the European Union's single currency. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a test ban treaty update, Pakistan and India, a Supreme Court argument, a conversation with opera star Renee Fleming, and a tribute to Wilt Chamberlain.

UPDATE - NUCLEAR POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: The latest on the Senate and the nuclear test ban treaty from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Throughout the day, a small group of conservative Republicans refused to agree to postpone a vote that was sure to defeat the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE: You have to vote it down. You have to bring this up for ratification and reject it formally on the floor of this United States Senate. If you do anything other than that, it is to leave it alive and to force us to comply with this flawed treaty.

KWAME HOLMAN: Under Senate rules, it would take the unanimous consent of all 100 Senators to remove the treaty from the Senate's schedule. Oklahoma's James Inhofe was one of four conservative Republicans who resisted, rejecting Minority Leader Tom Daschle's written promise he would not seek to reschedule a vote if Republicans agreed to put off the treaty for now. The firm position of those few Republicans drew the fire of Democrats.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Mr. President, this is a no-brainer. It's an absolute no-brainer. It makes no sense, no sense whatsoever for the United States, in disregarding the views of the President of the United States, to bring up the comprehensive test ban treaty knowing it's going to fail.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: If we defeat this treaty this afternoon, as it appears we are heading to do, it could be one of the most single most irresponsible acts ever by the United States Senate.

KWAME HOLMAN: Democratic supporters of the test ban treaty were far short of the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty, but they still had one last procedural motion available to them. Since the Senate put aside the treaty last night in order to debate an agriculture spending bill, a simple majority of 51 Senators was needed to resume debate on the treaty. Consequently, the Senate's 45 Democrats needed only six Republicans to prevent that from happening.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. President, I...

SEN. TRENT LOTT: I now move that the Senate resume executive session in order to resume consideration of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty...

KWAME HOLMAN: Late this afternoon, once the agriculture bill had been approved, Majority Leader Trent Lott did in fact request that the Senate resume debate on the test ban treaty. The Senate proceeded to vote on Lott's request.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Baucus.

KWAME HOLMAN: Over the past few days, several Republicans, including Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, had recommended the test ban treaty vote be delayed to be considered at another time.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Warner, Mr. Wellstone.

KWAME HOLMAN: But this afternoon, given the chance to join Democrats in preventing the treaty from being brought back to the floor, none of those Republicans took it.

SPOKESMAN: On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 45, and the motion is agreed to.

KWAME HOLMAN: With that straight party line vote, the Senate resumed debate on the test ban treaty.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Mr. President, I cannot vote today either to approve oar to reject the ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty. I will do something that I have never before done on the Senate floor in my 41 years in the United States Senate. I will vote present. I will do so in the hope that this treaty will some time be returned for consideration under a different set of circumstances in which we can fully and dispassionately explore the ramifications of the treaty and any amendments, conditions, reservations, or statements in regard to it.

KWAME HOLMAN: Nevertheless, a vote certain to kill the treaty is expected later tonight.

FOCUS - COUP IN PAKISTAN

JIM LEHRER: A military coup in Pakistan, a new government in India. Our coverage of these nuclear neighbors begins with a report from Saira Shah of Independent Television News.

SAIRA SHAH: A day after Pakistan's army seized power, the cricket continued in Islamabad. There's little sense of anxiety in the capital, except perhaps at the score. 18 hours earlier, in a seamless operation it's said they planned weeks ago, troops were taking over the television station and government buildings. The country's new ruler addressed the nation.

GEN. PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, Pakistani Army: Dear brothers and sisters, your armed forces have never and shall never let you down. We shall preserve the integrity and sovereignty of our country to the last drop of our blood. I request you all to remain calm and support your armed forces in the reestablishment of order to pave the way for a prosperous future for Pakistan.

SAIRA SHAH: Voters watched the former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, become the most potent in Pakistan's history, as he curbed powers of the judiciary, president, and parliament. When he finally took on the army, it stepped in. Today the government was on hold. The army declared a bank holiday, and with peculiar tact, there may have been fewer soldiers on the streets than at any time in Pakistan's history. Little groups of curious Pakistanis gathered outside the empty parliament to argue about who is ruling them. "Look, there's a flag on top of the parliament. It's martial law," he says. "No, no, it can't be," they say, "we've still got a president." This is the most dramatic military intervention since General Zia Ul-Haq seized power in 1977. Pakistan still lives under his shadow, but now even the country's democratic opposition thinks the country's moved on.

FARHATULLAH BABAR: Mr. Sharif has not proclaimed martial law; he has not proclaimed himself as chief martial law administrator. Civil liberties have not been curbed. Political parties have not been banned. So in that sense, it is a qualitatively different military intervention than the one which was done by the previous government.

SAIRA SHAH: This evening the army postponed a promised statement on its plans for the future, which may include martial law or an interim government, or even new elections.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And for more on the coup in Pakistan and its implications we turn to Shahid Hussein, a former World Bank vice president, who served as special adviser to the Pakistani government in 1976/77; Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker and nuclear physicist -- his father was a founder of the Pakistani nuclear program; and two American citizens born in India, Pranay Gupter, editor of the "Earth Times," and a columnist for Newsweek International, and Sumit Ganguly, a visiting fellow at Stanford University specializing in regional security in South Asia.

Mr. Ijaz, there have been all kinds of descriptions about General Musharraf. What can you tell us about him?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Well, he's a professional soldier. I think he's a man who has a relatively hawkish stance when it comes to foreign affairs, particularly vis- -vis India. I don't think he cares too much about how the American government views what he has done in Pakistan. But I think he is well respected, and he represents sort of the last of the class of professional soldiers that are running the Pakistan army today. It's very important for the viewers to understand one thing about Pakistan's army, and that is there has been a slow creep of what I would call the urban middle class Islamists, if you will, people that have a more than Islamic mind set, and I think part of what he was doing before the Kashmir problems occurred this summer was presiding over an army that --

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking now about the --

MANSOOR IJAZ: The Kargil--

MARGARET WARNER: -- Kargil -- the guerrillas that went into the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir.

MANSOOR IJAZ: Exactly.

MARGARET WARNER: Appointed by the Pakistanis.

MANSOOR IJAZ: Exactly. And I think he was presiding over an army that was beginning to show signs of fracturing internally, and part of the reason for going up to Kargil was to give them a rationale and a reason d'etre, if you will, to exist in terms of what they were doing.

MARGARET WARNER: And, of course, the now deposed prime minister ordered him to pull back.

MANSOOR IJAZ: Yes. With consequences.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that in terms of General Musharraf, what drives him, what he's about?

SHAHID HUSAIN: I have met General Musharraf socially, and I know that in his group of army officers he had been the regarded as the brightest.

MARGARET WARNER: As the brightest?

SHAHID HUSAIN: As the brightest. He belongs to a generation of people which has seen a steady decline of Pakistan society, economy, institutions, and above all, tremendous amount of program corruption. To the extent that a large number of Pakistanis and so on -- is a failing state, and Musharraf, like many others in the army, is intensely patriotic. They have sat and watched the decline and decay of our system, political system, economic system, and my guess is that this has been a fundamental motivation in what he has done.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think, Mr. Ijaz... I know you said you don't think he cares much of what the West thinks of what he has done, but this was a democratically--elected government. Do you think that was a difficult hurdle for him to get over? Do you think that...for instance, he has not imposed martial law, as somebody in the taped price noted, which means he hasn't suspended parliament or constitutional government. What does that tell you about him?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Well, first of all, let's be clear about what democracy is. Democracy is reputation by the people, number one. In Pakistan's last three elections, no more than 17 percent of the total population has voted. And you have a...and at that, the elections are effectively bought off at the polling booths where the graft moneys that are taken each time one of these corrupt leaders comes into the turnstile -- so I don't think that anyone can rationally argue that Pakistan is a democratic state in that sense. So that hurdle I don't think existed in his mind. The hurdle that probably did exist is that the military has become increasingly reticent in recent years to interfere in civilian affairs to, try to let a government serve out a full term in office. The trouble is that Nawaz Sharif chose this at this point in time, why we still don't know, to interfere in the internal politics of the army. I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back in this particular case.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Husain, what do you think he's likely to do next? Again, I think the piece pointed out, he's got a number of options from a pure military government to a sort of government of tech democrats that's military backed to really an interim government and quick election?

SHAHID HUSAIN: My view is that a quick election with the same cast of characters, Nawaz Sharif, Benzair Bhutto, others, would lead to more of the same. And I think there's a large majority of people in Pakistan who don't want that. They would like to see a period of reform and reconstruction construction and accountability, two to three years, in which basically you would go and let the judicial system bring to justice people who have robbed the treasury, who have been responsible for massive corruption, including the two leaders, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto -- reconstruction of institutions which have decayed - so it may take two or three years. And if Musharraf does these things, I think he will have support of the people.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Mr. Ganguly in New York, now, General Musharraf has quite a reputation in India, as well, does he not?

SUMIT GANGULY: He does indeed, and particularly he's seen in India rightly or wrongly as the principle person responsible for the Kargil fiasco of this summer when Pakistani troops supported Islamic guerrillas - the Mujahadeen -- to make incursions at three places in Kargil and two others at altitudes of about 14,000 feet and occupied significant portions of territory. And in a television interview, I believe with the BBC, at one point later once this missed a venture had gone awry, he actually admitted that the Pakistani military had conducted what he referred to, and I quote, "as aggressive patrolling" - and as a consequence thereof may have crossed into Indian territory. This is about the closest admission he made that the Pakistani troops had actually intruded into what India deems to be its territory, or at least is the... territory subject to an international dispute. So he's not exactly held in particularly high stead in India, though he is seen as someone who is a potential troublemaker and possibly a fairly formidable adversary.

MARGARET WARNER: So Mr. Gupte, does this lead people in India, or does it lead you to think that Pakistan is going... we're going to see renewed and perhaps more aggressive sort of hostilities between the two countries in a military sense?

PRANAY GUPTE: Margaret, I don't know about the renewed hostilities. I think that the military will have to be a little concerned in Pakistan to take on India again. What would be the benefit? Would they really expect to take over Indian territory? My concern really would be, if I were in the military, in Pakistan, that concern would have to do with how the world perceives me as a failed state. For 50 years now or 52 years, Pakistan has shown itself totally incapable of running itself, totally incapable of developing instruments of good governance, totally incapable of turning out leaders who could run this country in the modern enlightened fashion that the world community expects. That's what I would be concerned about, even though I may be a commander seizing power from a civilian.

MARGARET WARNER: But Mr. Ijaz said in his view, thisgovernment really probably won't care what the west thinks. Can it afford not to?

PRANAY GUPTE: Well, of course it's going to have to afford what the West thinks. I mean, after all it depends on the West. Pakistan is a creature primarily of the United States. It's a creature of aid each year to this day. It gets something like $600 million in foreign aid -- aid from this Scandinavians, from a variety of multilateral sources such as the World Bank, U.N. agencies. It gets technical aid. Of course it cares. It also cares because, irrespective of what the world's perceptions are, the fact is that any government in Pakistan has to deal with social issues, education. For example, only 25 percent of women in Pakistan, and we're talking about the population of, what, 150 million people, only 25 percent of women who represent more than 50 percent of that population are literate. Now, this is 52 years after independence. One other point, Margaret, that, you know, something like 60 percent of Pakistan's population is under the age of 25. For them, there are no adequate jobs. Think of the rising expectations, think of the kinds of promises that the government will have to make and keep.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Mr. Ganguly back in here. Go back to the relationship with India and the fact that both these countries now have nuclear arsenals and India also has a newly reelected government. I mean, what do you anticipate in terms of relationship between the two countries?

SUMIT GANGULY: Well, the Indians, I think, are going to act with a clean circumspection in all senses of that word, in the sense that they are not about to again make another -- offer another olive branch to the Pakistanis any time in the foreseeable future because the so-called Lahore process, which was a meeting of the two prime ministers, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who thought he has again come back after a fairly resounding victory, when Mr. Vajpayee actually went to Lahore to meet with Mr. Sharif in the wake of the nuclear tests to diffuse international concern about the possibilities of yet another Indo-Pakistani war...and there's a real sense, and I think I can understand why the sense would exist, of injured innocence in New Delhi - that here we offered Pakistan the olive branch, and then what befell us but this crisis in Kargil that we were literally not only stabbed in the back, but stabbed very directly in the chest.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ijaz, do you think that not only India, but the rest of the world has to be concerned about either renewed or intensified hostilities between India and Pakistan and/or the control of a nuclear arsenal in Pakistan?

MANSOOR IJAZ: On the nuclear arsenal front, I don't think so. I mean, the nuclear arsenal has by and large always been under the control of the army in Pakistan, and the political leaders that that country has had have had some say in how things would manifest themselves in that regard, but not very much. Number two is that it's important for everyone to remember that this Kargil operation was approved by the prime minister. This was a politically approved operation. It is the army's job in Pakistan to suggest these kinds of operations every year. That's what they do. And this year for the first time since a civilian government was elected in Pakistan, the prime minister finally arrived one of these. Why did he do that? He did that because the Islamists in the streets were trying to look for some sort of satisfaction from a government in which they had no reputation in parliament. 75 percent of the vote was his. And he could do whatever he wanted.

MARGARET WARNER: So you mean you're saying you don't think India really needs to be concerned that General Musharraf has tremendously hostile designs?

MANSOOR IJAZ: I think that General Musharraf is most concerned right now about getting Pakistan's internal house in order, and I don't think he's going to go and play any games up in Kargil or any other part of Kashmir right away. I just don't think that's in the cards.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly, Mr. Husain, do you agree with that?

SHAHID HUSAIN: I agree with that. In fact, I would like to remind the audience that the decision to explode nuclear devices in Pakistan and India both were made by political governments, not by military governments. And the best relationship between Pakistan and India was in the times between 1977 and '88.

MARGARET WARNER: During a military government.

SHAHID HUSAIN: During a military government.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all four very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, today at the Supreme Court, Rene Fleming, opera singer, and Wilt Chamberlain, basketball star.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

JIM LEHRER: Gwen Ifill has the Supreme Court story.

GWEN IFILL: The Supreme Court today heard arguments in three related age discrimination cases, from two states, all posing the same question: Do public employees have the right to sue state governments for violations of federal law? Thirty-six professors and librarians, a senior corrections officer in Florida, as well as two professors from Alabama, say yes. The lead suit, brought by current and former employees of Florida State and Florida International Universities, argues that schools didn't move quickly enough to close gaps in pay between older and younger workers. Senior professors and librarians earned less than younger faculty members hired more recently at higher, market-driven salaries. One of the plaintiffs in that suit, Daniel Kimel, a physics professor at Florida State University, has been teaching there since 1966.

DANIEL KIMEL: I am not a real expert on the law, but I am very, very hopeful after hearing this case that what will be found is the states will not be able to discriminate against people without some accountability through the law. My feeling about it is that something involved with something as sensitive as discrimination should be something that is reached on a national consensus, with a federal law, and to my feeling is that something like that should be dealt with with a federal law rather than state law.

GWEN IFILL: But lawyers for state employers said allowing such suits would violate states' constitutional rights.

JEFFREY SUTTON, Lawyer for State Employers: The freedom you would be repealing in this instance is the whole notion that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. The federal government - it's worth noting -- does not allow federal employees to bring state law claims under state law in state Court against the federal government. That seems to be the exact same position we have got here.

GWEN IFILL: The case will be decided before the Court's current term ends next summer.

GWEN IFILL: For more on the Court's activities today, we turn to NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, national legal affairs correspondent for the "Chicago Tribune."

Jan, the Court has generally ruled that when there's a conflict between the states and the federal government, that the states win. How did that play out today?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the Justices picked up right where they left off last term with a theme they've become increasingly passionate about -- and suggested that once again perhaps Congress went a little too far in imposing its will on the states and authorizing private citizens to sue states under federal law.

GWEN IFILL: In this case, how does that apply? Is it age discrimination law?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. At issue is a federal age discrimination law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. And as the piece mentioned, several professors and faculty members sued under that law, maintaining that the state had discriminated against them. Now, the states responded in the lower Courts that they were immune from these kind of suits under the Constitution's 11th Amendment.

GWEN IFILL: What is the 11th Amendment?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: The 11th Amendment once was thought to be a pretty obscure amendment that protected suits... states from lawsuits in federal Court. And Congress had been able to get around it and impose laws on the states. But the Court, the Supreme Court has in recent years made it more difficult for Congress to get around the 11th Amendment. And in this case, the lower Courts said the 11th amendment prohibited these private lawsuits under the federal Age Discrimination Act. And that's what the Court, the Supreme Court took up Tuesday.

GWEN IFILL: So the real question here is who has the power to make these laws and to enforce these laws, the federal government or the states?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, right. I mean, at bottom this is a case about power: Congress's power over the states, Congress's power to interpret the Constitution, perhaps in ways that the Supreme Court would not.

GWEN IFILL: This is not the only example of that this term. We have heard the 5-4 conservative, liberal, however you want to split it up, members of the Court have always sided with the states. This is not the only case where we'll see this played out.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: No. This is the first of four cases that the Court already has scheduled this term. And the other cases raise even or as important questions about the scope of Congress's authority to get involved in areas that the states have traditionally been concerned with. For example, one of the laws that the Court will review later this term involves the federal Violence Against Women Act. The states argue that that's... the law prohibits or allows victims of gender-based discrimination to sue their attackers, and the states say, look, this is an area of the law that we should have responsibility for, and Congress should just butt out. So the Court will take up some of those issues, and today's just the first.

GWEN IFILL: The Court almost seems to have a little bit of disdain towards the way Congress has acted in a lot of these case, but what is the practical effect if say the Court were to decide that you cannot sue your state government under federal statutes on something like age discrimination? What would happen?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: In the short term, the immediate impact is it answers a pretty simple question. And that's will the three million or so older state employees across the country be able to turn to federal law and sue if they believe the state has discriminated against them based on their age. But as you said, I mean, the impact of today's case could be much broader. And it touches on a host of complex issues that get to issues of congressional power. And it could affect numerous other federal discrimination statutes, fair housing laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act. So the stakes are incredibly high.

GWEN IFILL: As a result, was it a vigorous argument today, or a lot of questioning?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It was. I mean, the Justices were very engaged. But it was a very intellectual argument because these are, as I said, very complex issues, though as today's case shows, with very real, real-life consequences. And I think that some of the splits became evident at the argument today. Some of the more conservative Justices, Justice Scalia, the chief justice, expressed concern that the Congress had gone too far, that they lacked the power to impose these private lawsuits on states.

GWEN IFILL: We always watch Justices O'Connell and Kennedy to see where they're going to go. Where did they seem to be leaning?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: They, as well, raised questions about the authority of Congress to pass this law. Justice O'Connor made the point, don't states have these laws? I thought that states had their own anti-discrimination laws? Isn't that true? And the lawyers were forced to concede, yes, states have their own discrimination laws that they are bound by. But a lawyer for the Justice Department today said that sometimes those laws are very weak.

GWEN IFILL: Now this would have never reached the Court if it had been about race or sex discrimination because they're explicitly protected in the Constitution.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Some people would say, and that's why they're so closely watching this case, that they're just not sure how far the Court is going to take this issue, but yes, Justice Scalia today said, look, race is really not what we're talking about here. We have always said that race is entitled to heightened protection under the Constitution, and therefore Congress is justified when it comes in and tries to enforce anti-discrimination provisions under the Constitution's 14th Amendment and hold the states accountable. So right. I mean, race seems to be off the table. Sex, the Court has never put on the same level as race. It's maybe a little lower than race. But the lawyers...the lawyer for the states today suggested that sex would not be affected, as well.

GWEN IFILL: Speaking of accountability, if you are a state employer who feels that you have a grievance under age discrimination law and the Court were to say, no, you can't take...get any kind of relief was a of the federal law, where do you go?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that's... the lawyers today, particularly the lawyer for the states, were careful to stress that you could still sue under your own state law, that all 50 states prohibit age discrimination and they include themselves in those prohibitions. And you still could also look to this federal law. For example, you could sue the state official in charge of, you know, your department to stop the discriminatory behavior or the federal government could step in and sue on behalf of the workers and maybe in terms of a class action. Lawyers for the employees say those remedies just aren't enough. The AARP, which has filed a brief in this case, emphasizes that some of the laws are very weak. For example, the federal law gives you the right to a jury trial that might be a more favorable reception for your claims, whereas state laws don't always do that.

GWEN IFILL: As it stands, are there state laws which apply to this in all 50 states?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Yes. There are. The lawyers - the lawyer for the state said yes, and he made that point very clear today. In fact, he said, "look, states when Congress amended this Act in 1974, presumably to include the states, half the states had those laws in place at that time." He said that was evidence that Congress should not be doing this, that it needed to stay out of it because states could handle it and there was no evidence that states were going out and discriminating against its employees anyway. A lawyer for the Justice Department today said, no, the fact that states have these laws on the books shows congressional action is necessary. Private citizens should be able to turn to federal law to sue the states.

GWEN IFILL: Thanks a lot, Jan.

FOCUS - DIVA IN DEMAND

JIM LEHRER: Now, the life and career of a top opera soprano. Spencer Michels begins our story.

[RENEE FLEMING SINGING]

SPENCER MICHELS: Renee Fleming has become one of the world's most sought-after soprano's. At the San Francisco Opera, she recently perform the title role in a new production of "Louise" by French Composer Gustave Charpentier. It's a 100-year-old work, whose highlight is Fleming's solo, "Depuis le Jour." [Singing opera]. The critic for the San Francisco Chronicle called Fleming's performance "heartfelt and heavenly." [Fleming singing] Fleming is praised regularly for her warm, seamless lyric soprano voice sometimes described as creamy silver. She is often called the diva without a diva's temperament, easy to work with, funny, and warm. She balances her demanding role as an international opera star with her duties as a recently separated single mother of two young daughters. Fleming says she was a shoo-in for a musical career, since both her parents were music teachers who pushed her to perform as a child. She grew up talking music at the dinner table every night in Rochester, New York, and sang a lot of jazz while attending college. She still listens to jazz, and recently recorded some tunes by Duke Ellington.

RENEE FLEMING: [singing jazz] .. Pay no attention...

SPENCER MICHELS: But it is the world of opera, with its passionate fans and harsh critics who grade her every note, where Renee Fleming shines. [Singing opera] Last season, in San Francisco, she played Blanche DuBois in Andre Previn's new opera, "Streetcar Named Desire," a performance shown on public television.

RENEE FLEMING: [singing] I can smell the sea air....

SPENCER MICHELS: Fleming hopes to take "Streetcar" to the Metropolitan Operation in New York, where last year she performed in Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro." That performance will be shown on PBS stations this winter. Her popularity is high. She and a mezzo Cecilia Bartoli are ranked as the top-selling soprano CD artists in the world.

RENEE FLEMING: How are you?

SPENCER MICHELS: At this autograph session, adoring fans bought her new best-selling CD in which she sings heroines in operas by Ricard Strauss.

MAN: I was on such a cloud for so long, the next day they were still trying to pull me down.

RENEE FLEMING: Good. Where did you come from?

MAN: Kansas city.

RENEE FLEMING: Oh, my goodness. We're not in Kansas anymore.

WOMAN: Her voice is incredible. What she does is she floats her high notes, and that's very different from a lot of the sopranos which really hit it strong just to show that they can, you know, pull off that high note.

ANOTHER MAN: My last days on earth, I want to have her standing over my deathbed singing an aria for me. That would be a happy way to die.

SPENCER MICHELS: Fleming won a Grammy Award this year for her CD, "The Beautiful Voice" and has won numerous other prizes. After leaving San Francisco, Fleming performs in Chicago, Rochester, Quebec, and at a New Year's Eve gala at the Met in New York.

JIM LEHRER: And Elizabeth Farnsworth talked with Renee Fleming recently at San Francisco's War Memorial Opera House.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Renee Fleming, thank you very much for being with us.

RENEE FLEMING: My pleasure.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let's start with "Depuis Le Jour", the aria from "Louise." The day I saw you perform, the audience loved this aria. There were many, many bravos, much applause. They were very enthusiastic. What were you trying to achieve with it, and what were the key difficulties that you faced?

RENEE FLEMING: The aria is so beautiful and so sensual, it's the only set piece in the entire opera. No other character has an aria. So, in a way there's a lot of pressure, because that's the moment a lot of people in the audience are familiar with and the one they're waiting for. It's a quite difficult aria, as well.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Tell me specifically, why is it difficult?

RENEE FLEMING: Well, vocally speaking, it has a very high tessatoro, and the tessatoro is - that's an Italian word which means where it lies, which you would say where the average range of the piece is. It sets up there, and then there are these pianissimi, which is - you know, all of the things that are risk-taking in opera are the things that's most exciting. It's the tenor's high C, it's the soprano's high C, it's the high soft note. These are the things that make opera thrilling, that make the human voice thrilling to hear under these circumstances.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Can you tell us specifically something about it that you really had to work hard to perfect?

RENEE FLEMING: Well, maintaining that range comfortably is difficult, and I have to say is not an easy approach. It's got a big, wonderful, long high note that everybody waits for at the end. [Fleming singing opera] Part of the problem is it's very exposed, and, you know, singing exposed means that there's not a lot of accompaniment. You're basically out on your own. It's a very naked feeling because you think, wow, if I crack, you know, if the tone isn't right or the pitch isn't right, everyone will hear it. And of course, the problem... the difficulty in opera is that everyone in the audience has performances of the last 100 years in their ears that they're comparing this with. I'm being compared with 20 other sopranos who've sung this role, unlike a pop singer that can come up with original material and not be compared to anybody.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's really like baseball...I was thinking about this as I watched the opera...in that baseball players are there with all this history behind them. And they remember when a shortstop played this, this way. It's a little like baseball.

RENEE FLEMING: Exactly this same thing. We're doing the same moves. It's the same high note. Everyone's memory, of course, is extraordinarily generous to the past. And I think that's human nature, too, the golden ages. There have been phenomenal singers.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You've said you don't consider yourself "one of those singers blessed with a natural technique." What did you mean and how did you get so good if you didn't have a natural technique?

RENEE FLEMING: Well, what it means... I had a phenomenal upbringing musically speaking, because my parents were both high school vocal music teachers, and as a result, I performed a lot at a very early age. And what happened to me then in my late teens was that I was singing with a very mature sound, too mature perhaps for my age. So I had to unlearn and relearn a lot of things that I had been doing basically naturally. And I couldn't, for instance, sing high naturally. I couldn't even sing above the staff. I had to learn it. I couldn't sing soft. I couldn't sing with ease. I had a lot of tension. So I'm very lucky. I'm grateful for this. In retrospect, at the time...

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Stop for a minute. What did you have to do to learn, what did you have to do to the muscles in your voice to do that? I think that's what people don't understand and I certainly don't.

RENEE FLEMING: Well, we barely understand it. The reason why is the muscles we use too sing are all involuntary. So everything we learn about singing has to do with imagery -- things that it's... sing so that you're singing low when you're actually singing high -- think that you're driving the sound to the back of the house -- no, not driving, leading the sound to the back of the house. It's so much about imagery and about... it can be supported by physiology, but it's an extraordinarily intangible thing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Because you're actually forcing these muscles to do things that they wouldn't naturally do, is that's that what's happening?

RENEE FLEMING: I think singing it when it's done well is extremely natural. It feels great. I think singing is one of the most natural things that human beings do, but it's difficult. What we're doing is so cultivated, it's such a sophisticated form of singing, we have to be able to sing for three hours without amplification. We are now the only singers in the world in -- certainly in the western world -- who perform without amplification. I wish people would remember that. We are the power lifters, I think, of singing. We have to have enormous strength, enormous stamina...three hours long without a microphone. Give me any of the pop divas, and I will tell you they'll have hard time with that. It's difficult.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is harming your voice an ever-present danger, and how the do you keep from harming your voice?

RENEE FLEMING: It is one of the largest fears that we live with, because there are so many singers who are enormous stars one day and they disappear the next, and their voices are gone, seemingly irreparably, and nobody really knows why. It's a mystery. And even now we can only guess. Maria Callas is the most famous example of great singer, perhaps - and some say -- the greatest singer of the century, who had a phenomenal career one day and really practically overnight at a very young age, her voice went into decline. And some people say it was because she lost so much weight so quickly. Some people say it was because of her emotional distress. It was because perhaps that she... her technique wasn't balanced enough to deal with both of those other issues at the same time. And we only guess. We can only guess. It's not like a tennis player who has tendonitis and can go be treated by a doctor.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Can you show us something here that will help us understand, for example, how you protect your voice, what kind of exercises you do?

RENEE FLEMING: Well, any time I'm preparing for a performance or even a rehearsal, it's as if in a way, like any other athletes, these are muscles that support the vocal cords which are just I believe cartilage. It demands a kind of constant warming up and a constant feeling of where is the voice today. For instance, I might start with a lot of scales. And I'll do these on different vowels and try to get the tongue warmed up and the jaw and get everything going. And then this whole thing which allows me to have dynamic control -- and all of these things are based on kind of an Italian school of school. It's where the voice starts very softly and gets bigger and gets soft again. [singing] We do all kinds of crazy things. People would listen. I mean, some of them you sound like a siren, you know. [singing] It's just to kind of get everything lined up. It's a very internal kind of process. You have to feel your way. Every day is different. The body is different every day. But it's enormously intuitive along with the training that you have in order to keep your vocal health. And it's kind of precarious.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Speaking of the pressures, how do you have a family life and perform the schedule you're performing? You're very busy, you've said that you're booked for what, five years?

RENEE FLEMING: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How do you manage to have a normal life at the same time?

RENEE FLEMING: Well, the biggest challenge is really the balance issue. When you say five years, we're literally scheduling performances for me - we're thinking in terms of 2004. It's difficult. I mean, if you can imagine trying to figure out what it is you'll be doing on a day five or six years in advance -- it's a skill that I certainly haven't acquired yet. It's a work in progress. And you now, as far as the family goes, it's worked out phenomenally in the past because my daughters have been on the road with me since the beginning, and because I mainly sang opera and we had the opportunity to make a home for six weeks in whatever city I was in, we were very comfortable with that. Now of course that they're in school, it's a challenge.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what about this issue, so many people say you're very nice for a diva, that you're very easy to get along with. Is this something you've had to work on? Did you work on it because divas have in the past had reputations for being difficult?

RENEE FLEMING: You know, it's funny because that's something that a lot of people expect from an opera singer. And all I can say is I am the person I am. I have not changed with the accomplishments. I've remained the same. If I had changed, great. You know, but I haven't. And I really think that a diva is on the stage. And Lee Jean Price said to me recently, and I love her, and I admire her singing so much - she said, "This is diva." And she said, "Diva is what's in your throat and what it does to people in the audience. If they're moved by it, then you're a diva."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And finally, is the jazz singing that you do, whatever opera singing, non-opera singing you do, is it a relief? Is it a way to break some of the tension?

RENEE FLEMING: Oh, yes! You know, it's my hobby. Call me a dilatant. I love jazz. I love it as an art form. I think it's underrated in this country. It's our music. It belongs to Americans. Unlike most of the Western European music I sing. And I just adore it. I listen to it all the time. I'm very excited to be cooking up a terrific jazz project so people can hear that side of what I do, as well.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, Renee Fleming, thanks for being with us.

RENEE FLEMING: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: An FYI note about our friend, Elizabeth Farnsworth: She is still very much with the NewsHour as a senior correspondent based in San Francisco -- only her duties have changed somewhat -- at her request: she will do less daily news interviewing and more long-term projects, including things like Renee Fleming interviews and also she'll be doing some reporting from overseas.

FINALLY - KING OF THECOURT

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, remembering Basketball Star Wilt Chamberlain, who died yesterday in Los Angeles. Again, Spencer Michels reports.

SPENCER MICHELS: He was called "the big dipper" in part for his signature move, maneuvering over and around his defender, then gently laying the ball into the basket. He was also basketball's first celebrated dunker, slamming the ball with force over his opponents. At 7'1" and 275 pounds-- though some people said he weighed more-- wilt chamberlain was an unstoppable giant. By some accounts, he was the most dominant basketball player ever.

WALT FRAZIER: I think he's the only superman, for sure, to ever play in the NBA, a guy that could go out and do what he wanted to do.

SPENCER MICHELS: Chamberlain was so invincible that pro basketball changed the rules, widening the lane near the basket, for example, to make it more difficult for a big man like him to score. Sportswriters nicknamed him "Wilt the Stilt," a name he detested. Wilton Norman Chamberlain grew up in Philadelphia, played basketball at Overbrook High, and attended the University of Kansas for three years, where he starred on the basketball team. He left to spend one year, 1958, with the Harlem Globetrotters, then over the next 14 years, he played for three NBA teams. First, the Philadelphia Warriors, who later moved to San Francisco, then the Philadelphia 76'ers, a team he led to an NBA championship in 1967, and finally for the LA Lakers, the team he was on for his second championship in 1972. He had the highest scoring average in a season, 50 points per game; grabbed the most career rebounds, almost 24,000; and he was one of two players, along with Kareem Abdul Jabbar, to score 30,000 career points. Astonishingly, in more than a thousand games, the Big Dipper never fouled out. Basketball fans loved the rivalry between Chamberlain and the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell. Today Russell called Chamberlain the greatest offensive player he'd ever seen, and said "the fierceness of the competition bonded us as friends for eternity." Chamberlain had mixed feelings about his own career, in which his teams won just two NBA championships. He said he was disappointed that some people viewed him as a loser. And on his size, he said "Nobody roots for Goliath." A highlight of his career was the 100-point game he had in 1962. In his last interview, recorded in April, Chamberlain spoke of that magical game against the New York Knicks.

WILT CHAMBERLAIN: The magic only started to happen when I got into the 70's, and when I got in the stands, which was around 4,000-some-odd people, which were a lot of people back in those days in that arena. They just started chanting "We want 100."

SPENCER MICHELS: Chamberlain remembered falling asleep while riding home after the game with some New York Knicks players.

WILT CHAMBERLIN: I kind of wake up and I can hear them saying, "can you believe that SOB got 100 points on us?" And the whole conversation for an hour was them calling me names about "can you believe that SOB got 100 points against us?" So finally they dropped me off at my house first, and I got out of my car and said, "Hey fellows, thanks for the lift, and I am so sorry about that 100 points."

SPENCER MICHELS: He retired in 1973 and entered the Hall of Fame five years later. By then, parts of the NBA record book were essentially his personal scrapbook. Chamberlain received a lot of attention for his 1991 biography, in which he bragged of his sexual exploits, a boast he said later he regretted. But on the court, his legacy is indisputable.

MAGIC JOHNSON: There will never be anybody like him. They always say that about Michael, they always say that about other players, but there will never, ever be another Wilt Chamberlain.

ELIGIN BAYLOR: It's just mind-boggling to think what he accomplished as an individual, aside from winning the championships, when you look at some of the records and things he did. I don't think it will ever be duplicated.

SPENCER MICHELS: Yesterday, Wilt Chamberlain died at his Los Angeles home, possibly of a heart attack. He had been diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat; he was 63 years old.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday: The Senate moved toward a vote on the nuclear test ban treaty. Democrats failed to have it postponed. Defeat seemed certain. And the AFL-CIO officially endorsed Vice President Gore for President. A follow up before we go: On Monday, Paul Solman reported on a gambling vote in Alabama. The governor wanted a state lottery to help fund education, but church groups and others were against it. And the proposal was rejected by voters yesterday by an eight-point margin. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.