The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight full coverage of the dismissal of the Paula Jones suit against President Clinton; a Newsmaker interview with Secretary of Defense William Cohen; and the perspectives of four top Californians, including Governor Wilson, of the drop in minority college admissions. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton was dismissed today. Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright threw out the case in a ruling issued from her chambers in Little Rock. She agreed with the president's motion, which claimed the Jones case fell short of the standards of outrage required under the law. She said Jones also failed to demonstrate she had been harmed by the sexual advance Mr. Clinton allegedly made when he was governor of Arkansas; she was a state employee. Her lawyers argued she was placed in a dead-end job after refusing Mr. Clinton's advance, but Judge Wright said the plaintiff failed to demonstrate there were any genuine issues for trial. The president's lawyer, Robert Bennett, said he was very, very pleased with the ruling, as was the president.

ROBERT BENNETT: I think we were very strong on the facts and very strong on the law, and I think it is clearly the right decision. And I think Judge Wright should be complimented on her courage to make the right decision, not withstanding all of the political atmosphere surrounding the case. She is right on the law. She is right on the facts. And the opinion speaks for itself. Thank you.

REPORTER: Does the president know? Can you tell us that? Does the president know?

ROBERT BENNETT: Yes. I spoke to the president just a few minutes ago, and I--

REPORTER: What was his reaction?

ROBERT BENNETT: Well--and the obvious, he's quite pleased. Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: The president traveling in Africa was quoted by his spokesman, Mike McCurry, as saying he felt vindicated. Paula Jones said through a spokeswoman that she was shocked. One of her attorneys said Jones would appeal if the grounds were doing so were tenable. John Whitehead said, "As far as we're concerned, the case is not over." We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Earlier today President Clinton praised the peacekeepers in Africa. He said the United States would help them keep the continent free of war and ethnic violence. He spoke in Senegal, the final stop on is 11-day African tour. The president of the West African nation welcomed Mr. Clinton. They reviewed Senegalese troops being trained by U.S. Army special forces. Mr. Clinton said he was committed to helping Africa improve its own security.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Our purpose is not to dominate security matters in Africa or to abandon America's role in Africa's security, but, instead, to build on existing efforts, including those of African nations, the Organization for African Unity, the United Nations, France, Britain, and others to strengthen the capacity for preserving peace here. America will continue to be involved on this continent as long as African nations desire our assistance and our partnership in building a safer future.

JIM LEHRER: The president's trip ends tomorrow. He will fly back to Washington after visiting the one-time slave trading depot, Garay Island. In the Middle East today there was violence between Palestinian youths and Israeli soldiers in the West Bank town of Bethlehem. It followed news a suspected bomb maker of the Islamic militant group Hamas had been shot and killed. His remains had been found alongside a blown-up car on Sunday. The Palestinian planning minister accused Israeli intelligence of accomplishing what he had attempted to do to Hamas leaders in the past. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu denied that. Palestinian Leader Arafat said he would not comment until the investigation was completed. Back in this country the House of Representatives voted today to reverse a Supreme Court ruling. It passed a bill to allow federal credit unions to expand their memberships. The vote was 411 to 8. The high court ruled recently that tax-exempt credit unions were expanding illegally at the expense of the banking industry. Also at the capitol today House Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke about Social Security reform. He said he would support private retirement accounts called Social Security Plus accounts.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: If you could take your entire Social Security, 10.3 percent, the tax that goes to Social Security, if a 20-year-old could take that tax, put it into a modern personal account and have it build up interest, the power of compound interest is such that at 7 percent interest, which is what the stock market has averaged since 1920, at 7 percent interest when you retire, that 20-year-old at average income, never going above average, would have over $975,000 in the bank, would withdraw, would be able to earn about $65,000 a year in retirement income, while keeping that capital for nursing home or medical emergency. And if they passed away without having a debilitating illness, they'd give their children almost a million dollars.

JIMLEHRER: Gingrich made his remarks before the House adjourned for a two-week holiday recess. At the University of California at Berkeley today officials reported a 61 percent drop in the number of minority students they will admit for the fall semester. The drop was 36 percent for UCLA. It's the first undergraduate class to be affected by California's Proposition 209 that banned racial preferences in state university admissions. We'll have more on this later in the program. In economic news today the Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose .4 percent in February, while the Commerce Department reported construction spending increased for the third straight month, as did manufacturing at a 1.5 percent rate. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Paula Jones dismissal; Secretary Cohen; and minority admissions in California. FOCUS - DISMISSED

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has the Paula Jones story.

MARGARET WARNER: In dismissing the civil lawsuit Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright said Paula Jones hadn't met the legal standard for proving sexual harassment, nor the other charges she'd alleged. In a 39-page ruling the judge said, "Although the governor's alleged conduct is true, it may certainly be characterized as boorish and offensive. Even a most charitable reading of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of criminal sexual assault, as there is no alleged conduct that could be characterized as forcible compulsion." White House Spokesman Mike McCurry, traveling with the president in Senegal was asked how the president received the news.

MIKE McCURRY: I can tell you the president got a message to call Mr. Bennett, his lawyer, which he did. He called him a little bit after 9 o'clock. The president got the news from Mr. Bennett. He asked if it was, in fact, an April Fool's joke that Mr. Bennett was playing on him, and assured that it was not, the president thanked Mr. Bennett for his fine work, said he appreciated everything that the attorneys had done in this case, and obviously, the president was pleased that the judge agreed with the very detailed arguments that the president's attorneys have put forward in this case, and I think he believes that the court's ruling speaks more eloquently than he could have.

REPORTER: But he must be relieved by this, don't you think? Was he relieved?

MIKE McCURRY: The president was pleased to hear the news.

REPORTER: How is Mrs. Clinton handling this right now?

MIKE McCURRY: The president shared the news with the First Lady after he got it from Mr. Bennett. And I think both of them were pleased to get the news, and at the moment they're doing some shopping. I think the president is pleased to receive the vindication he's been waiting a long time for.

MARGARET WARNER: Paula Jones Spokesman Susan Carpenter McMillan spoke to reporters this afternoon in Los Angeles.

SUSAN CARPENTER McMILLAN: I'm shocked. I'd be less than honest if I didn't tell you I was completely blown away by this decision. I think Judge Wright made a wrong decision. But, in all due respect, it hasn't been the first time she's made a wrong decision in this case. We had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to make sure that we got it tried, and I have not spoken at length with the lawyers. They are reading the decision, trying to find out what's going on, and I dare say that we'll more than likely be back before the Supreme Court again. I don't know how long this procedure is going to be, but it looks like there's a very strong, a strong possibility that we will appeal.

MARGARET WARNER: For analysis of all this we turn to two lawyers: Lanny Davis is a former special counsel to President Clinton, he is not speaking officially for the White House tonight; George Terwilliger was the deputy attorney general during the Bush administration. They both are in private practice. Explain from what you can gather, from what we've read, what was the judge's reasoning in throwing out this whole case?

LANNY DAVIS, Former Clinton White House Counsel: First, understand that a summary judgment assumes all allegations made by the plaintiff are literally true and then decides whether there is a legal cause of action assuming them to be true. And the president denied the charges made by Ms. Jones. Those factual disputes would have been decided by a jury. Judge Wright, assuming the charges that President Clinton has denied were true, found that, No. 1, there was absolutely no evidence in the record before her that any of the alleged incidents that occurred caused Ms. Jones any harm in the workplace, caused her any hostile environment. Indeed, there was uncontradicted sworn testimony that she received pay raises, both cost of living, as well as merit. There was no testimony contradicting that. There was also uncontradicted testimony contemporaneous with the incident. She had expressed joy, even pride, in having met President Clinton. That was never contradicted. There were three supervisors and individuals under oath who testified to that. So lacking any dispute of fact on the essential elements of the issue of sexual harassment or hostile work environment or traumatic harm, the judge found that as a matter of law there could be no case here.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that analysis?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER, Former Bush Deputy Attorney General: It's a very good analysis, and, in fact, the analysis in a way, Margaret, is one of the reasons why this is one of the reasons why this is not a complete win for the White House. It is certainly a big political win. I'm not sure against whom precisely. But the fact of the matter is, there's no resolution of the difference in the contest about the facts. Paula Jones says the president did certain things. The president says he didn't. That's not resolved because, as Lanny correctly pointed out, it was assumed that Ms. Jones' allegations were true, but as a matter of law, she didn't have a case. So that--that remains lingering.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, there were three counts. Two of them involve the civil rights claim that was based on sexual harassment. But there was another one that she suffered emotional distress because of an outrageous--his outrageous conduct. Explain what she failed to prove there.

LANNY DAVIS: Well, first of all, the judge has to take the record before her and assume it to be true, and look for disputes of fact. If she finds a dispute of fact, she must deny the summary judgment motion and go to trial. On the emotional distress argument the record showed uncontradicted, sworn testimony that immediately on the day of and shortly after the day of the alleged incident Ms. Jones told co-workers that she had a wonderful time with Governor Clinton; that she was proud of her meeting. She expressed interest to a receptionist, who under oath said she wanted to continue to meet Governor--then Governor Clinton. So, with that uncontradicted testimony, the issue before the judge would be if that were so, I cannot hold that there was any emotional distress, because there's no contrary evidence that suggests there was other than a last-minute, just recently sworn statement by an individual who allegedly was expert, saying that there was post traumatic syndrome, and I believe that there was enough in the record that that could not possibly be so years later, when she never went to a doctor at the time, and the judge disregarded that.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that analysis of what she failed to prove in the outrage area?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: Because I mean, a lot of people and there's a lot of commentary already on other networks saying, well, how could you not say this conduct, if true, was an outrage? Explain why legally the judge finds otherwise.

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Well, that's where the judge has to do some interpretation of the law, look to prior cases, what does constitute an outrage, and of course, nothing in plain English means the same as it does in the law. And that really in a concise sort of way, Margaret, is the explanation there. I was very surprised to hear the judge use the term in her opinion even under a charitable reading of Ms. Jones' allegations--she can't state a case. The judge's job, of course, is not to read it charitably but to read it legally. I think what she was trying to say was that extending every benefit of the doubt. And what that means is that Paula Jones did not have a case as a matter of law, as Judge Wright saw it. If there's an appeal, this will be argued about, cases are sometimes overturned with some frequency on summary judgment motions.

MARGARET WARNER: Is that true? You mean, often a judge may do this, and it is overturned?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Right. Because lawyers can sit around and disagree on a regular basis about the facts involved means, and in this case we have one lawyer, who happens to be a judge, and a respected judge, make that decision. If it goes up to the circuit court of appeals, three judges, who are also lawyers, will sit there and look at it, and who knows where it goes from there.

LANNY DAVIS: Well, one thing I just wanted to add, and I agree with George, is that it is extremely difficult to win a summary judgment motion. You have to assume everything the plaintiff says is true in the complaint. And there were a lot of people surprised by this decision simply because the burden is so high to win a summary judgment motion. To me, it demonstrates--and really the word vindicates is the appropriate word that Mike McCurry used--the absolute speciousness of the Jones case. And I think the last week may have pushed the judge over the line in showing how specious it is that the Jones' attorneys would dredge up a 20-year-old accusation based upon an unsworn, hearsay statement, denied by the individual involved, of an alleged rape. I suspect that that decision by the Jones' attorneys to air those scurrilous charges may have pushed the judge over the line on at least the last element here, which is the traumatic distress element.

MARGARET WARNER: Would that be something the judge would take into account in this?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: I tend to doubt it. I think that's an interesting point of view on the matter, but I think the judge basically decided the case on what the law is in her assessment of whether the evidence could meet it or not, not really on the factual strength of the evidence. But I really think, Margaret, that these distinctions between making factual determinations and determining whether you can shoehorn those facts into the particular legal theory that this lawsuit required is a distinction that'll be lost on the public.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with Lanny Davis that it's highly unusual? Would you say it's highly unusual for a judge to dismiss a case in such a high profile case?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: I don't think the fact that it was high profile makes any difference. I mean, I suppose to some judges it might, but I don't think it made a big difference here. This was a case where I think even by Paula Jones' attorneys own admissions they had a pretty steep hill to climb in terms of making this particular legal case on the facts. And this judge decided that the case wasn't there. And I'm not taking anything away from Mr. Bennett's success and whatnot. Whether or not the public will see the president as vindicated, where the case is decided really on a legal issue as opposed to a factual determination, I think remains to be seen.

MARGARET WARNER: But is it a vindication in legal terms?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Well, I mean, any win is a win. I don't think vindication is really a term that applies in the legal sense.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me shift gears slightly here. Ken Starr has just put out a statement saying this won't affect his investigation. Again, as a legal matter, if this case is thrown out and successfully thrown out, do you agree Ken Starr still has plenty of grounds to continue with an investigation?

LANNY DAVIS: Well, let me make two points about that. First of all, we have seen Mr. Starr in parallel tracks, if not in apparent collusion with the Jones' attorneys. He's piggybacked on their witnesses. He's subpoenaed individuals who have indicated at least through this decision not to be worth taking credibly; yet, he is continuing to go down the same path that the Jones' attorneys went down. And I believe, as a second point, that Mr. Starr should at least re-think the theory of his case. After all, he's investigating an alleged false statement in a deposition in a civil case that has not only been thrown out as a matter of law, but the judge earlier ruled that very same deposition as inadmissible because it wasn't essential to the core issues of the case. Surely, Mr. Starr should re-think devoting all this money, all this time to proving this particular case under these circumstances.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think it does to the Starr case?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Well, I think this is someplace where Lanny and I are going to have to disagree. The fact of the matter is that I don't think it makes any difference legally to what Mr. Starr is doing. I don't have the insight that Lanny does to know precisely what the independent counsel's office is investigating. But the fact of the matter is if the president lied under oath, or tried to get someone else to lie under oath, that's a serious matter. It needs to be investigated, and, if determined to be true, then there are likely some legal consequences to it. I will say this, though, Margaret: As a practical matter and perhaps as a political matter, even though I don't think the independent counsel is looking at this as a political matter, the pressure on him to bring this to a close more quickly I think is increased as a result of today's developments.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree that as a legal matter it still matters whether the president had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and, if true, whether he encouraged her to lie about it? As a legal matter, there's still a case there?

LANNY DAVIS: I believe that in this circumstance the case is not warranted to be continued as a criminal prosecution, given the fact that an alleged statement is made in a civil deposition before a judgment, and now the case has been thrown out. But I would agree with George, that if Mr. Starr is where he is today, he ought to focus his case, stop calling people to say what they said to the press, stop calling mothers to testify against daughters, lawyers to breach attorney-client privilege, get to the heart of the case, and let's at least see what he has. He should take stock. That's all I'm saying. The ramifications of this judge's decision is that so much of what he's investigating has been rendered by Judge Wright as being irrelevant as a matter of law in a civil case. Surely, it suggests it might be irrelevant as a matter of law in a criminal case.

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: While we're taking stock, Margaret, I think one of the things that perhaps the White House ought to take stock of at this point is its insistence on trying to discredit Starr personally and professionally and thereby discredit any product that comes out of his office. Regardless of where you come out on all of the issues that sort of surround this business of the president, it seems to me that whatever it is perceived that Starr might be doing that's weakening the presidency, the White House's actions-- and I'll even absolve the president of responsibility for this personally--but the White House's actions in attacking another public official who has been appointed to do a job that is required by the law is unseemly, unnecessary, and not good for the Congress.

LANNY DAVIS: Can I have a quick response?

MARGARET WARNER: I think he was responding to you. Let me ask you a quick factual question or at least prediction. If Paula Jones' lawyers do appeal, how long does that process--one, could it end up in the Supreme Court again, and how long does that process take?

LANNY DAVIS: It could take months and months and months. But I have to say there is no personal attack intended on Mr. Starr. It is possible to question Mr. Starr's professional judgment without saying it's a personal attack. It is certainly possible to react to Mr. Starr's decision to use his subpoena power that shows poor judgment without being accused of launching a personal attack.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, it could be months and months?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: It could be months--

MARGARET WARNER: Before we really know if this is over?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Yes. It could be months and months. And, you know, one of the things I think that as this evolves and people think about it a little bit, that they will look at is if there was obstruction, would it have changed the outcome of today's decision.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you both very much.

LANNY DAVIS: Thank you.

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Thank you. NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now, a Newsmaker interview about military base closings and other matters with the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense: Good evening.

JIM LEHRER: First, on base closings, your proposal that you're announcing today is actually a repeat of one that you tried last year and didn't get, right?

WILLIAM COHEN: Right.

JIM LEHRER: What's the deal?

WILLIAM COHEN: Well, the deal is that it's my job to bring this report to the attention of the Congress. It's been requested by the Congress, an analysis as to why base closures are necessary. Last year we came close. The tie vote in the Senate Committee--hopefully we'll be able to get it out of the committee to the full Senate floor this year. But my job is to lay out the facts, and the facts would dictate that we need at least two more base closures. I recommended they begin in the year 2001 and 2005. And once they are completed, we will have annual savings of some $3 billion, but during the period of time between the years 2008 and 2015, we will save almost $20 billion. And that $20 billion can be invested in the kind of systems and weaponry and readiness and quality of life that our forces need.

JIM LEHRER: And you are convinced beyond any doubt that that's the way to save the money, there is no other way to save this money, these bases must be closed?

WILLIAM COHEN: That's one way, but there are other ways. We have a defense reform initiative. We're adopting best business practices and how we do business in the Pentagon. There are many ways to save money. What we have in this particular case is an excess capacity. We have had a substantial downsizing in our force structure since 1989. We've come down, for example, in ships, some 46 percent, and yet, we've only decreased the berthing space about 18 percent. With respect to army instructional space, personnel have been cut by 43 percent, instructional space 7 percent. So basically we're carrying a lot of excess capacity, and that, in essence, is a waste of taxpayer dollars. They want us to get the best value, so we can use those savings to put in the hands of our people, our young people, who are serving us in terms of quality of life, readiness, training, and a procurement of the best systems that we have to provide them with.

JIM LEHRER: One of the reasons that some of the opponents of base closings in the Congress gave for shooting you down last year was that President Clinton had politicized this, and the prior base closings, he kept the base open, he found a way to keep a base open in California and another one in Texas for pure political reasons. How do you counter that kind of talk?

WILLIAM COHEN: Well, first of all, the Congress didn't shoot me down; the shooting down the young men and women who were serving our country, they're the ones who will pay the penalty, either in terms of quality of life, in terms of their training and their readiness capability, and acquiring the kind of systems that we had to keep us the finest military in the world, so it's not shooting me down. But some--

JIM LEHRER: Okay. I meant to say your proposal.

WILLIAM COHEN: Secondly, with respect to the proposal, itself, I have been on the other side of base closures. I've had several bases, two major bases close in my own state. So I understand the pain and suffering that's involved in all of that. But what I found is when I didn't like the way the system operated in the past, I changed it. I worked with Senator Nunn when I was in the Senate with him, and we made modifications to it. So I think if there are changes that need to be made, the Congress ought to face up to it and say we didn't like the way certain matters are handled, we have two facilities that we are now competing, those jobs with the public sector, private sector. I think that's going to work out again to the advantage of the taxpayers. And so if Congress doesn't like what has taken place in the past. That can be changed in the future. I don't think it's an alternative to simply say we don't like what happened two or three or four years ago. And we're not going to agree to any further modifications in terms of saving money so we can put it in the hands of our young people, who were defending this country.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have any reason to believe you're going to be more successful this time than you were last time?

WILLIAM COHEN: Well, I'm hoping I'll be successful. We have the national defense panel, which was created by Congress, to also take a second look and give a second opinion about what needs to be done in the Pentagon and defense spending. They also have recommended strongly that we have at least two more BRAC proceedings. There are--

JIM LEHRER: BRAC, that's the base closing--

WILLIAM COHEN: Right. The Base Realignment And Closure. That we--there is a group called BENS, which are Business Executives for the National Security. I think they're going to be very strongly in favor of this, and we have to build this support from the grassroots. I would think that not only are soldiers and sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen concerned about this, but also manufacturers of the weaponry that we have; they will not be able to have production of their systems in the event the dollars are not there. So there's a broad base support that we can build for this but ultimately Congress is the one that decides. And so Congress has full responsibility. It's not just the Defense Department. Congress is a coequal partner. I would say even a superior partner. They are a senior partner, and a full one. I might be a limited one because they have the purse strings, and they're the ones who control the dollars. And so what I need to do is to persuade them this is in the overall national security interest of this country. And to do this, again, we will save some $20 billion during the period of time from the year 2003 to--2008, rather, to 2015, and we will save on an annual basis, given what we've done to date, we will save $5.6 billion annually for the first four rounds that we've had, and then we'll start saving another $3 billion on top of that, in addition to all we've saved in the meantime.

JIM LEHRER: Now, have you drawn up a list?

WILLIAM COHEN: I don't have a list. This is the attractiveness of a BRAC proceeding. We have a commission that's created by Congress. That commission is independent. It makes an evaluation based upon information provided by the services. It evaluates that information, then makes a recommendation to the president, who sends it on to Congress, and then Congress has a chance to vote it up or down. So we don't make any predispositions, and they have no prior lists. They simply, the services submit what they think are excess capacity that needs to be reduced.

JIM LEHRER: But the list will come from the Pentagon of what you all think Base A, Base B--

WILLIAM COHEN: Each service--

JIM LEHRER: --is going to say we don't need this one anymore; we don't need that one anymore; and then the fun begins, right?

WILLIAM COHEN: Each service would submit what it believes to be those facilities, installations which are no longer necessary. Then the independent commission makes an evaluation. They have professional staff; they make an evaluation as to whether any games are being played, whether or not they have a different judgment in terms of the allocation of what should stay, what should go, and then they make that recommendation; it goes to the president, then to the Congress.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. On to some other things, Mr. Secretary. The build up of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf during the weapons inspector conflict, the U.S. forces are still there, are they not?

WILLIAM COHEN: That's right.

JIM LEHRER: How long are they going to stay?

WILLIAM COHEN: Well, we're going to stay there until the president decides that he's satisfied that Saddam Hussein intends to fully comply with the U.N. resolutions. So far, he appears to be complying with the memorandum of agreement that was negotiated by Kofi Annan. But that's only part of the obligational part of Saddam Hussein. He must fully comply with the U.N. resolutions. And that means he must satisfy the UNSCOM, the U.N. inspectors, that he has, in fact, destroyed what he claims he has destroyed. There is a vast discrepancy between what the Iraqis have claimed they've destroyed and the proof that they've given to the UNSCOM inspectors, so there's a long way to go yet, and the president has yet to decide at what point in time we will downsize to what the level we were prior to the escalation caused by the Iraqis. That decision was made by the president, and I can't say when that will be made.

JIM LEHRER: All of the public statements at least from U.N. officials, including Mr. Annan, as well as Mr. Butler, the head of the inspection process, they've all been upbeat. The Iraqis are cooperating. They're letting everybody into the various things. Do you have any information that is negative about this?

WILLIAM COHEN: What I'm saying is that they've had months in which to hide either materials or documents or other evidence of their past activities. It is, I think, unreasonable to expect a team of twenty or thirty people going into an area the size of Wyoming, some 170,000 square miles of territory, looking through haystacks for needles that might be chemically or biologically tipped. That's a job the UNSCOM inspectors have, but for them to--for anyone to say that they've fulfilled their obligation, the Iraqis, by showing empty buildings or empty drawers is not really of the entire story. What needs to be done is they have to file final complete full disclosures of exactly what they've had and what they've destroyed. They have yet to do so. And so I don't think the Iraqi people can expect to have any relief from the sanctions until they fully satisfy the UNSCOM inspectors that they have demonstrated that these materials--the Scud missiles that are armed with anthrax on their warheads--they claim to have destroyed 50. They've only demonstrated to the satisfaction of UNSCOM 30. There are 20--at least 20 missing. They claim to have destroyed four tons of VX, no evidence.

JIM LEHRER: VX, that's

WILLIAM COHEN: That's another nerve agent.

JIM LEHRER: Nerve agent, right.

WILLIAM COHEN: That kills within a matter of minutes. One drop will kill you within the matter of a few minutes. They have claimed to have destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax. They have yet to satisfy the UNSCOM inspectors. So they've got a lot of proving to do. Until that takes place, we should not even assume that they are in full compliance.

JIM LEHRER: So you're talking about a matter of months--even a year or more, before this thing can be resolved?

WILLIAM COHEN: We're talking--I think that we have to be satisfied, UNSCOM has to be satisfied that there has been full compliance, that there's been a good faith compliance with the U.N. resolutions, and so it's going to take more than just a few inspections on the part of UNSCOM.

JIM LEHRER: You don't see any good faith up till this point?

WILLIAM COHEN: At this point there appears to be compliance with the memorandum of agreement, but that could change tomorrow. We may find that they start to raise complaints several weeks or months from now. I think the president will make a determination in terms of how we can reduce our presence consistent with our security interest in the region, and that's his decision.

JIM LEHRER: Kosovo, how concerned are you that that situation there could erupt into another Bosnia?

WILLIAM COHEN: Well, it's a flashpoint. I think we all have to be concerned about it. That's why it's so important that the contact group really come to grips with--

JIM LEHRER: Contact group--that's six countries, including the United States, that put this thing together?

WILLIAM COHEN: Yes. That they meet and come up with a real consensus of what needs to be done. What we have to do is to persuade the Serbs that they should not crack down violently, as they've done in the past. We also have to indicate to the Kosovos that we are not supporting the independence. We support certainly moving toward autonomy, but we're calling for reason on both sides. And that's something that I think the contact group, the European countries that are engaged in this, need to really come to grips with and develop a consensus, along with the United States.

JIM LEHRER: Is the United States with NATO in the contact group prepared to take military action to prevent this thing from escalating?

WILLIAM COHEN: Well, nothing has been ruled out by anyone at this point, but I think the emphasis has to be on diplomacy, looking at economic sanctions, as such, limitations on weaponry, other types of actions that can be taken without even considering a military option at this point.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, Mr. Secretary, the Paula Jones matter that was just discussed brings this to mind. Of all of the things that have been going on--the investigations, the allegations involving the president--has it made it difficult for you to be Secretary of Defense?

WILLIAM COHEN: Not at all. As a matter of fact, I have worked very closely with the president, and he gave me--asked me to do one thing--concentrate on my job, and that's what I've done, and I've worked very closely with him. And I must say that he has been completely focused on the national security issues. When we're dealing with Iraq or any other crisis, he is well informed; he's focused; and he makes, I think, very incisive decisions and observations. So it has not distracted him one bit from the national security objective that we have.

JIM LEHRER: Any problems for you?

WILLIAM COHEN: None.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you. FOCUS - LOSING DIVERSITY

JIM LEHRER: Minority university admissions in California. We begin with this report by Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Berkeley campus at the University of California, long considered a bastion of diversity, saw the effects of the end of affirmative action this week. Figures on new freshman admissions for next fall just announced show a dramatic drop in the number of African-Americans and Hispanics. Only 191 blacks are being offered a place. That's down from 562 last year. And just 600 Hispanics were granted admission to the prestigious campus, down from more than 1200. The total admission pool numbers about 8,000. And half of them have 4.0 grade point averages. It's so hard to get into Berkeley that at this flagship of the statewide system 800 blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians who had 4.0's were turned away. The new figures are the first since the university's regents--under pressure from Governor Pete Wilson--scrapped affirmative action policies for undergraduates, and since 1996, when the voters approved Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in education. At a press conference called by the university to disclose the new figures, Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl said the new numbers are worse than he had hoped for.

ROBERT BERDAHL, Chancellor, UC Berkeley: I can tell you personally I'm very disappointed that our entering class will not better represent the impressive diversity that distinguishes this state. This has been a university that has been a vehicle for upwardly mobile students of all colors. We still have to be a place of opportunity. There's no question that how we go about this has been seriously constrained by this law.

SPENCER MICHELS: While six undergraduate campuses in the University of California's system reported drops in minority admissions, two registered increases. And system-wide figures, to be released tomorrow, are expected to be significantly less dramatic than the figures at Berkeley or UCLA. The two most highly ranked campuses had the biggest declines, with UCLA admissions of blacks falling 43 percent and Hispanics down 33 percent. At Berkeley, here are the figures: African-Americans comprise 6.8 percent of those admitted to last year's class, with only 2.4 percent this year. Hispanics saw a drop from 15.4 percent to 7.6 percent this year. Whites saw their percentage of admittees increased slightly from last year, and Asian-American percentages were up a little more, from 35 to 38 percent. Last fall, University of California Graduate Departments felt the first round of the end of affirmative action. At Berkeley's Boalt Hall only one African-American entered the first year class, provoking protests by supporters of racial diversity. Students then seemed somewhat divided over the issue.

STUDENT: I think we're at a state school, and we sort of owe it to the state of California to reflect its diversity.

STUDENT: I don't think that affirmative action admissions policy is the answer to that. I think it's different recruiting. I think it's really trying to get people to want to apply and come to Berkeley.

SPENCER MICHELS: At both UCLA and Berkeley officials have vowed to recruit more minority students. But those efforts appear not to have paid off thus far.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco takes it from there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And now four perspectives on minority admissions in California. We begin with Robert Berdahl, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, and Ward Connerly, a member of the board of regents of the University of California. He was a chief proponent of Proposition 209. Chancellor Berdahl, those are pretty dramatic figures at the University of California at Berkeley. What's behind them?

ROBERT BERDAHL, Chancellor, UC Berkeley: Well, they're very discouraging figures for us. What I think it reflects is the intense competitiveness of admission to a place like Berkeley, with 30,000 applicants and 8,000 admissions. We admitted only 27 percent of the students who applied. We turned away many, many students of all backgrounds who could have been outstanding students at Berkeley. We turned away--many of those students were minority students that we turned away, who could have been outstanding students at Berkeley. It reflects a very competitive environment for us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You said in your press conference that the law has made it harder for you to reach the diversity you want. What did you mean? How did it affect you specifically?

ROBERT BERDAHL: What I meant was, there are two really approaches to admissions. I have believed very strongly in affirmative action because I believe that it's a part of the educational process that our students be educated in an environment that's diverse, with students of different backgrounds, students that have different experiences, students that have a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. And so we want to construct--we have wanted to construct a freshman class that reflected that diversity, that puts together all of those educational opportunities for students to have. That's one approach. It is to construct that class. Universities have done this for a long time. I grew up in South Dakota. As a South Dakotan, it was a lot easier to get into Harvard than it would have been if I had grown up in New York or Massachusetts, because they valued geographic diversity, as they do other kinds of diversity as well. So universities have for a long time approached admissions, not simply from the standpoint of individual merit, but also from the standpoint of how one puts together a class that enhances the educational experience. In the past we have done that. And we used race as one factor in that admissions process. We can't do that any longer, so that you see the results in that very sharp decline in minority admissions.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ward Connerly, what's your reaction to the University of California at Berkeley figures?

WARD CONNERLY, University of California Regent: Elizabeth, I think the key word that the chancellor used is "construct." And I think that the people of California have said they don't want our universities involved in social construction and which really amounts to discrimination. All of the students that would have been admitted under the old system would have been there as a result of governmental discrimination on the basis of race. We, as a matter of policy, have said that is wrong. We recognize and appreciate the value of racial and ethnic diversity, along with all of the other forms of diversity, but there's a right way to get there and there's a wrong way to get there. And the university has to conduct itself in accordance with the rules and the values of our society. And we have concluded that we do not want to achieve this diversity by allowing our administrators at the universities, for good reason on their part, to engage in racial discrimination.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Were you surprised, Mr. Connerly, by the high number of students--the 800 students from minorities--who weren't admitted to UC Berkeley, even though they had straight 4.0's? Does that concern you?

WARD CONNERLY: Well, it concerns me about all the thousands of students. I mean, there might be 800 minorities, but there are thousands of Asians and whites who are also being turned down with 4.0. And I would hate to be the one to go to those students that we have admitted this year without using race and say to them, by the way, you scored well in the competition but we've got to take your seat and give it to somebody else because we need this diversity. There is--at the point of being redundant here, Elizabeth--there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. And the way we've been doing it in the past clearly represents discrimination. This is the smoking gun of the extent to which we were using race. It has not been one of many factors. It has been "the" factor.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is that true? You were using discrimination before?

ROBERT BERDAHL: I don't think that I would refer to it as discrimination. We were using race as a factor. I don't think it was the dominant factor. When you look at students who have 4.0's and 1200 SAT averages and you look at these students and say, are these students worthy of being students at Berkeley, can these students make it at Berkeley, can these students perform and do the work, and the answer to that is yes. So that every class is a class that is--where we're trying to find the best quality of students, as well as the students who will bring the most to the campus.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you tried to do that with the admissions this year using other--poverty, for example, get more minorities in--but it just didn't work? Is that what happened?

ROBERT BERDAHL: There really isn't any way in which you can achieve that kind of racial diversity without allowing race to be one factor in that process. And I think that's what this year has shown in this. Now, our determination, as Regent Connerly has said, has to be to build a diverse campus, despite this law. And so we're determined to reach out to the students who have been admitted to Berkeley and to make certain that they choose Berkeley. But my fear is that we are competing with the very best universities for a very small number of students, and that we may see the kind of decline in our undergraduate class that we have seen at Boalt Hall. I hope--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The law--

ROBERT BERDAHL: --that doesn't happen. And we're going to work very, very hard to see that that doesn't happen. The students are welcome there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Connerly, what do you think should happen next? Are you concerned that some of the students accepted at Berkeley and UCLA just won't come because they feel unwelcome?

WARD CONNERLY: Well, I hope not. I hope that they will embrace the attitude that, look, I got here on my own, I can walk on that campus, now that it's been offered to me, and nobody can ever question. I shouldn't have to question, nor should anybody else question how I got here. This is a testament to the system working. There might be only 161, but, you know, that's not a small class. And so I would hope that they would realize that we want them, we encouraged them to come. We will do whatever it takes to get them to enroll because they earned the prize on their own. We also will try to increase the pool. Recognize that we draw from a very small pool. I think in 1995 there were less than 1,000 black students graduating from all of California's high schools who were UC eligible. We have to increase the pool. And that means changing the system, changing the K through 12, looking at private vouchers to try to get that pool up. It also means that the students and their families are going to have to work harder and recognize that education is important. Take advantage of the opportunities are there. Go to community college; get prepared, go to a state college. You don't have to go to Berkeley in order to get a great UC education. But get yourself prepared.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Chancellor, is that the way you see it, that the K through 12 classes have to be improved, and people just need to get better prepared?

ROBERT BERDAHL: Clearly, I think that's the long-term solution. Everybody has, I think, seen affirmative action as a temporary fix, as the temporary solution. The question that I think that we have to face is did we end it too soon, given the fact that so few students, as Regent Connerly has pointed out, actually qualify for admission to the University of California.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Chancellor and Mr. Connerly, thank you for being with us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And now for a broader look at all this we turn to Pete Wilson, the Republican governor of California, and to Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat who is speaker of the state assembly. Thank you both for being with us.Governor, what's your reaction to the figures at the University of California Berkeley?

GOV. PETE WILSON, [R] California: Elizabeth, my reaction is very much like that of Ward Connerly. We are both very disappointed but hardly surprised. And the reason is that--to answer yourquestion what's behind these figures--what's behind them is the fact that the public schools of California, frankly, have short-changed these kids educationally, so that in an honest competition many who were formerly accepted on the basis of explicit race-based preferences simply can no longer make it. And the fault lies with our public educational system. That is why we have sought to remedy what is so wrong with it. It is penalizing poor children, those whose parents lack the income to provide them a better alternative. We cannot morally defend poor kids being trapped in bad schools. If we provide them with the health care and the kind of challenging education that every child of every ethnicity in every community in California deserves, we're going to achieve the diversity that is sought at the University of California and in every other way, but we will have done it on the natural, with high achievers of high intelligence having achieved their potential. That's how it ought to happen--not on the basis of unconstitutional and divisive explicit race-based preferences.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Speaker, what's your reaction to the figures?

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, Speaker [D], California Assembly: Well, I think they're abomination--an abomination, rather. You know, anybody who sees those figures has to lament at what direction we're going to--going toward in this state. Unfortunately, if you had to point fingers, you'd have to point the finger at our governor, who brought us Proposition 209, a proposition that I think is going to close the door of opportunity on children of California. I'm a poster child for affirmative action, by the way, also the first speaker to graduate--first speaker of the California legislature to graduate from UCLA. I came in on the affirmative action program. Somebody gave me a chance. Somebody opened the doors for me. And it seems to me that our responsibility as leaders is to keep those doors open for other kids, kids who are under-represented, kids who come from poverty. I agree with the governor, that we need to focus on poor schools, on low performance schools. But the legislature and the governor has done very little to do that. When we, for instance, cut class size, there's not been one proposal from either the governor or anyone else to say let's cut class sizes smaller in low-performing schools and the schools in the inner city. Let's do more in terms of providing resources to those schools. California is 39th in per-pupil spending, dead last in class size, and dead last in the per capita expenditure of technology in our classroom. So as much as we talk about leveling the playing field, we're just not.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Governor Wilson.

GOV. PETE WILSON: Well, I'm sorry that the speaker has sought to be partisan. He's also been dishonest because the fact is this governor--with some courageous Democrats--I'm sorry that he is not included among them--have been able to take on the teachers union, buck them and win. We have insisted upon class size reduction, and when we sought to expand it, we were opposed by Senator Lochier, by the Democrats, and, in fact, they have failed to support the kind of demand for reform, which the public knows is necessary if we are to reform those inner city schools and stop cheating those kids. If what I hear from the speaker is support for what Mr. Connerly described as opportunity scholarships, it will be the first time. What I think we should do is make very clear what we have done, we have provided prenatal care, not just for the Medicaid-eligible, but for the working poor mothers. We have insisted that every child come to school able to concentrate. And we are insisting that those schools challenge the kids and give them the decent education that their native intelligence deserves. Unfortunately, Mr. Villaraigosa and his caucus have been distinctly lacking in the political courage necessary to overcome the teachers union's opposition to reform. And that's true, whether we're talking about reducing class sizes. It's true whether we're talking about testing, which he opposed last year at their bidding. It is true whether we are talking about demanding the kind of subject matter competency of teachers and the kind of accountability of teachers, which they have steadfastly opposed.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me just keep this on the affirmative action issue for a minute.Mr. Speaker--

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I guess I pushed a button, didn't I? [laughing]

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is it possible--

GOV. PETE WILSON: I wish he'd push a button in favor of reform.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Speaker--

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: Unfortunately, the truth hurts, but, like I said--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt you just--

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: --he was the author of Proposition 209, not me.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt you just one second. I want to go back to affirmative action because there are some questions I really want to get in here.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: Sure.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is it possible, and would it be acceptable in the state-wide university system that some of the universities--Riverside, for example, and Santa Cruz--would have more minorities--African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans--and UCLA and CAL would have fewer, would be mostly white and Asian- American?

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: It is possible.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Would that be acceptable? That seems to be what's happening so far this year.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: Right. It is possible. In fact, that's what we think is going to happen in the next few days as we get the full story of the admittees. But it's unacceptable. We don't want to segregate the UC's. We want to make sure that they're places of diversity, places where all of California's children are welcome. I don't want to fight with the governor, and so I won't. What I will say is I challenge the governor to work with me to fund low-performing schools, to work with me, as he says, to level the playing field, to make sure that every California child has the opportunity that he talks about. The opportunity scholarships that he talks about, however, is another word-- it's a euphemism for vouchers--and that's going away from support for public schools, which I think have been the great equalizer in this democracy and a great equalizer in the society. I'm here today because of those public schools, and so I couldn't support an opportunity scholarship as a solution to leveling the playing field.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Governor, what about the question about the system developing into a kind of two-tiered system?

GOV. PETE WILSON: It won't develop into a two-tiered system, Elizabeth, if you give kids of every race the opportunity to have a decent education. Then you will find that you've got high achievers in every ethnic group. God, I hope everyone believes that. I certainly do.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Are you concerned--

GOV. PETE WILSON: And if, in fact--and, if, in fact, you give them the opportunity, then you're going to get diversity at the University of California on every campus.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Are you at all concerned that meanwhile minorities will leave California? Let's say that the students admitted to CAL don't want to be there because there are so few and they go to Harvard or Yale or someplace else.

GOV. PETE WILSON: Well, if Harvard are Yale are offering them full scholarships, as they did to those who were admitted to Boalt Hall, I wouldn't be surprised that many will accept it. But what I will tell you is that there is a time coming in the not-to-distant future when people will look back on this time of race-based preferences as a true aberration. And when the most liberal court in the land--the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--says that this kind of preference and quota system is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protections clause, then I think people should accept it and should concentrate on doing what is necessary to give every child full opportunity. Health care, genuinely educational quality, and the teachers union has steadfastly opposed a number of reforms, and I will be very specific about them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me just--we only have a few seconds left--and I want to give Mr. Speaker Villaraigosa a chance to respond. We just have a few seconds left.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: Well, let me just say, as I said, I'll end up with this--on the positive. I hope to work with the governor to make sure that we keep as many of these kids in our UC system. I am in the process now of sending letters to every one of those kids to ask them stay here, to stay at UCLA and UC Berkeley. I think we need those kids because we need--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: --the kind of diversity that they bring.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you. We're out of time.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: And I hoe to work with him to that goal.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thanks so much, both of you. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against the president was thrown out. Her lawyers said they would probably appeal. Mr. Clinton vowed to support African peacekeeping efforts. His 11-day tour ends in Senegal tomorrow. And on the NewsHour tonight Defense Secretary Cohen called for two more rounds of military base closings he predicted would save $3 billion a year. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm

JIM Lehrer. Thank you and good night.