The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary this Monday, we have an update on Bosnia. Thenwe focus on the move to unseat Oregon Senator Bob Packwood for alleged sexual misconduct. We have excerpts from today's rules committee hearing and a debate on the precedent breaking effort to nullify his election. Next, a look at the British colony of Hong Kong which reverts to China by treaty in 1997. Finally, San Francisco essayist Richard Rodriguez sees hope in California's hard times. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton went back on the stump for his economic plan today. He toured a shopping mall in Cleveland, Ohio, and asked people for their support in getting Congress to pass his program. He said it would help the economy by reducing the deficit and providing investments but only if it was not picked apart. Later in a speech to a civic group he dismissed critics who say he is trying to do too much, too quickly.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Bring down the deficit. Do it with spending cuts and tax increases. No tax increases without the spending cut. Invest in education and training, new technologies, incentives to business, changing the welfare system, and have political reform/health care. That is a big agenda, but that is America's agenda. If we're going to bring this country back, that is what we must do. I hope you and every American, without regard to political party, in good faith will ask the United States Congress to engage these issues this year so that we can move this country into the future.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Clinton will campaign for his economic plan tomorrow in Chicago. The United Mine Workers Union began selective strikes against three major coal companies this afternoon. Their contract with 12 companies expired last week, and talks have remained deadlocked. The contract covers sixty thousand miners in six states. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: United Nations officials in Bosnia reached the embattled Muslim enclave of Zepa today and found it virtually deserted. As late as last week, some six thousand people lived in the town. It was one of six places declared safe areas by the U.N. last week amid continuous attacks by Bosnian Serb forces. Meanwhile, fighting continued in the Southwestern town of Mostar, despite a cease-fire between Muslim and Croat leaders. There were also reports that thousands of Muslims were being forced from the city. The fighting began there before dawn on Sunday when Croat forces attacked Bosnian military installations. In Washington, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said a final decision on military action against Bosnia's Serbs was being delayed. He said some U.S. allies in Europe wanted to wait for the results of the Bosnian Serb referendum on the Vance-Owen peace plan. The referendum will be held this weekend. Sec. of State Christopher was asked about the delay during a photo session at the State Department.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: It's a very dynamic situation. I found in my travels there that some of the countries are more interested in this referendum than the United States is. We still don't think it has much legitimacy, but others of our colleagues there in Europe want to wait until that happens, but the International Community is still anxious to take stronger action to them with respect to them and still anxious to send the signal that the kind of wanton aggression that they're undertaking there is inconsistent with all international standards.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have more on the Bosnia story right after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate rules committee began consideration today of what to do about Sen. Bob Packwood. The specific issue iswhether the Oregon Republican can be unseated if it is proven he lied to the press during his election campaign. A group of constituents claim Packwood lied when he denied reports he made unwanted sexual advances to a number of women. His lawyer told the committee today Packwood has not lied. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Senators from the Armed Services Committee took their hearings on gays in the military to Norfolk, Virginia, today. They talked with sailors at the Norfolk Naval Base. Most said they supported the ban on gays, and some said they would leave the service if it were lifted. The committee will hear other views when it returns to Washington tomorrow.

MR. MacNeil: That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to Bosnia, the move to unseat Sen. Packwood, the future of Hong Kong, and Rodriguez essay. UPDATE - WAR & PEACE

MR. LEHRER: We begin tonight with a Bosnia update. It involves two reports. The first is by Gaby Rado of Independent Television News. It starts in the town of Mostar, where a cease-fire has failed to stop fighting between Croats and Muslims.

MR. RADO: Even in this most televised of wars, cameras have rarely, if ever, captured the very moment when members of an ethnic group are forcibly rounded up to face deportation, internment, and sometimes death. These pictures taken by a Spanish TV crew just outside Moscow show a line of men on what appears to be a forced march. There are no women or children with them, and they're clearly under armed guard. In Mostar, the sight of a group of people in the football stadium seems to confirm reports of Muslims being rounded up to await deportation.

CEDRIC THORNBERRY, Deputy Head, UN Mission: [speaking from Zagreb] We have been watching buses being taken out with armed H - - Croatian, Bosnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatian troops in these buses, and some of the people going out have been crossing their arms in front of us, their wrists in front of us, to indicate to us in the universal gesture that they are prisoners.

MR. RADO: Elsewhere in Mostar, ferocious gun battles and artillery exchanges between Croatian and Muslim forces continued today right up to the cease-fire, which was due to take effect two hours ago. By their apparent decision to drive out Muslim troops and civilians from the city, the Bosnian Croats have inadvertently helped the Bosnian Serb cause. The world can no longer view the Serbs as sole aggressors in the conflict. U.N. negotiators on the spot appear to have persuaded the Croats and Muslims to suspect hostilities, but the episode has been held up by Lord Owen as proving that the arms embargo must not be lifted for any sign.

LORD OWEN, EC Negotiator: The fighting in Central Bosnia, if ever anybody believed that the arms embargo was a serious policy or a policy that would bring peace, I think they must surely question it. I mean, if ever anything has demonstrated the nature of the complexity of the situation and the extent of the civil war going on, that certainly is it. And I think to supplies arms, which has to be through Croatia anyhow, raises all the problems of it. I see no solution to this problem through lifting the arms embargo.

MR. RADO: A Ukrainian force of some 120 men who left Sarajevo yesterday for the Muslim enclave of Zepa in Eastern Bosnia arrived there this afternoon. Their task is to turn Zepa into a safe area as defined by the recent U.N. Security Council resolution. But a group of U.N. military observers in Zepa found just fifty people in a town of six thousand. That's because so many have fled into surrounding hills.

COMMANDER BARRY BREWER, UN Forces, Sarajevo: There are dead people in several houses. We are also seeing signs that all the houses are destroyed in the area. So unfortunately it is a pretty devastated area, and we're still going to have to get into the hills to see the full extent of this devastation.

MR. RADO: In Brussels, EC foreign ministers met to consider the crisis in light of the Bosnian Serb parliament's rejection of the Vance-Owen peace plan. An offer was made to help President Milosevic enforce his sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs.

DOUGLAS HURD, MP, Foreign Secretary: We should encourage him to do what he's begun partially to do, which is to enforce a blockade along that border, and we should encourage him by offering to take part in monitoring along that border.

MR. RADO: Earlier reports from the Serb Bosnian border say some but not all commercial traffic has been stopped. The real job of any EC monitor sent there will be to make sure that the Serbian president is keeping his promise.

MR. LEHRER: Now we switch the scene to a nearby Muslim enclave in Serbia called Sandzjak, where there are reports of fighting and ethnic cleansing. Nik Gowing of Independent Television News has this story.

MR. GOWING: The town of Priboy on Serbia's southernmost border with Bosnia. The war is beyond the frontier marked by this mountain ridge. Here inside Serbia, itself, in villages just over these hills, Muslims are being driven from their villages by Serb paramilitaries, while Serbia's army and police look on. In Priboy, those who have survived relate the grim story now emerging, how its 15 border villages on Serbian soil, their houses were attacked and robbed, and how they fled in fear, in some cases after houses were set on fire and Muslim occupants killed, while Serb houses were left untouched.

FIRST MAN: [speaking through interpreter] It is a kind of ethnic cleansing. The same thing that is happening in Bosnia is happening here, the same principle.

SECOND MAN: [speaking through interpreter] We aren't guilty of anything, except that we are Muslims.

MR. GOWING: Checking the claims independently is impossible. The border villages are sealed off. But the evidence points to a systematic effort by irregular Serb forces to create a 13-mile wide border zone free of Muslim villages West of Priboy and inside Serbia. The alleged incidents against Muslims, including killings, have been taking place for some months. But accounts to us and Western monitors from villagers like this woman who fled three weeks ago and is now trying to rebuild her life elsewhere suggest the attacks on Muslims are now at a higher level. The local opposition member of parliament, himself a Serb, confirms that such events are taking place. He's been denied access to the area and calls the incidents a scandal which cannot be excused.

ZORAN CIRKOVIC, Serb Parliament Member: [speaking through interpreter] From the other side there are paramilitary formations. They're using the Bosnia war to bring in fear.

MR. GOWING: And remove the Muslims at the same time?

ZORAN CIRKOVIC: [speaking through interpreter] Yes, yes. I do not know what their basic motives are, but robbery is one of them.

MR. GOWING: The Sandzjak area straddles Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro. Its beauty masks ethnic turmoil which since the Ottoman Empire has ravaged this wealthy, traditional crossroads between East and West. Two-thirds of Sandzjak's population is Muslim. Since the war begin in Bosnia, constant contact between Muslim leaders and Serb officialsadministering the region have de-fused the potential for Serb-Muslim suspicion to boil over. But Muslim political leaders say the attacks at the border make them fear that darker Serb forces are now at work.

AZEM HAJDEREVIC, Party of Democratic Action: [speaking through interpreter] The atmosphere in Sandzjak is tense as never before. Serbia and Montenegro are wounded. It is well known that the wounded lion is the worst and most dangerous.

MR. GOWING: One incident in particular has led to a Muslim belief that radical Serbs are moving to provoke Sandzjak's Muslim majority. Just north of here, the main railway line from Belgrade travels through eight miles of Bosnia. Three months ago forty paramilitaries stopped a train bound for Sandzjak. When it eventually arrived at the mainly Muslim town of Pripoliya, 15 miles inside Sandzjak, 24 Muslim passengers were missing. Distraught relatives have pieced together what the soldiers did.

BROTHER OF MISSING PASSENGER: [speaking through interpreter] After checking identity cards, they took the passengers of Muslim nationality, one soldier in front of each passenger, and two, three or four meters behind, so there was no chance for them to resist.

MR. GOWING: The atmosphere in Sandzjak is currently stable but jumpy. Responding to the mounting evidence, the federal government says these kinds of incidents are what happens in war.

MARGIT SAVOVIC, Federal Minister for Minority Rights: [speaking through interpreter] Some massive resettlements were happening because people were urged to leave by so-called Muslim parties, the Party for Democratic Action. They want to create the political tension. They were telling their members to leave their villages, and later they will use this for pressure on Yugoslavia.

MR. GOWING: The Bosnian Serb military commander Gen. Miladic has now pointed out very publicly the Sandzjak problem. One could only guess whether such a mention alone will be taken by Serb paramilitaries as the tacit approval to stir up trouble here in Sandzjak.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Packwood argument, giving Hong Kong back to China, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - A MATTER OF TRUST

MR. MacNeil: Next, the unprecedented move to unseat Sen. Bob Packwood. Petitioners from Oregon claim that Sen. Packwood lied to reporters and intimidated his accusers in order to block news stories about his sexual conduct. Today the Senate Rules Committee heard legal arguments on whether he should be unseated for allegedly defrauding voters. We'll debate whether these are grounds on which to nullify an election after a report by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: It was a clearly uncomfortable Sen. Bob Packwood who faced the press last December.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD, [R] Oregon: [Dec. 10, 1992] My actions were wrong. Any time you do anything that's offensive to somebody, men or women, boys or girls, call them what you want, it is wrong, period. In or out of office, it is wrong. My conduct is wrong, and I apologize for that. My conduct, it was simply wrong.

MR. HOLMAN: It was the Senator's first public response to charges now by 23 women that he sexually harassed them over a period of two decades. The allegations were first detailed on the front page of the Washington Post. Packwood stayed out of his home state of Oregon for a month, until after he was sworn into the fifth Senate term he won narrowly in November. When he did go home, demonstrators were waiting for him.

DEMONSTRATORS: Bob Packwood has to go, hey, hey!

MR. HOLMAN: Newspapers, pundits, andpolls in Oregon called for Packwood's resignation largely based on the belief he lied about the harassment charges to stop the story from coming out before election day.

BOB LANDAUER, Portland Oregonian: [January] He stole the election. He really short-circuited our process, and that offends me right to the core.

MR. HOLMAN: The Senate Ethics Committee will decide what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken against Packwood. Today's hearing before the Rules Committee, however, centered on whether Packwood's recent election should stand. Katherine Meyer, a lawyer representing 250 Oregonians, said it should not.

KATHERINE MEYER, Petitioners' Attorney: The petitioners contend that particularly in light of the offensiveness of the underlying conduct which Mr. Packwood deliberately lied about and hid from the voters that he would not have won the November 3rd election had he not succeeded in keeping that crucial information from them. Under all of these circumstances, the Oregon voters have asked this committee to investigate their charges to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to declare the election invalid.

MR. HOLMAN: Packwood's alleged sexual conduct was not at issue in today's hearing. The question was whether the Senate has the grounds the authority to nullify his re-election. Meyer argued the Senate has both.

KATHERINE MEYER: The Senate has in the past numerous times investigated charges that a candidate's conduct interfered with the integrity of the electoral process, and that is what this matter is about. While those cases most typically involve vote buying or ballot tampering, they also involve intimidation of voters in an effort to make them vote in a particular way. This case is similar to those cases. Here, rather than intimidate the voters directly, the Senator threatened and intimidated those with information of importance to the voters. That information was crucial to the voters' ability to make an informed decision about how to cast their votes. The outcome is the same, an impermissible interference with the integrity of the electoral process. This is precisely the kind of matter which the Constitution authorizes the Senate to investigate. In conclusion, I want to stress that at this stage petitioners are only asking this committee to formally investigate their charges against Sen. Packwood. If the committee conducts an investigation and determines that the evidence does not warrant throwing out the November 3rd election, so be it. That will be the decision of the committee. My clients won't be happy with that decision, but at least they will feel that they've had their day in court. If, on the other hand, the Senate declines to even investigate petitioners' charges of election misconduct, that will send a very clear and disturbing message not only to the Oregon voters but to the nation as a whole that lying to the voters and silencing those with important information to the electorate is permissible, politics as usual in this country.

MR. HOLMAN: Representing Sen. Packwood was Washington attorney James Fitzpatrick.

JAMES FITZPATRICK, Senator Packwood's Attorney: These petitions raise, as we point out, constitutional questions. But, more significantly, as a matter of discretion and policy, it's simply a bad idea. At the outset, one should note that there is an element of unreality to this argument today. It proceeds on the basis of a series of allegations which for purpose of this legal argument are to be treated as if they were true and accurate. And the statements from petitioners' counsel contains a lot of very hot statements in terms of those accusations. For the record, I want to emphasize this point, we simply do not accept as valid these factual assertions. Indeed, as we pointed out in our brief, they fall under their own weight. This is a case of alleged fraud without the fraud. We believe that under the controlling standards, Sen. Packwood meets all constitutional qualifications and is duly elected. Nevertheless, petitioners would create a new test of whether a candidate was duly elected. That test would put the Senate in the business of conducting fraud trials to evaluate statements made in the heat of a campaign to determine whether there may have been a material misrepresentation of a historical personal fact, and that that statement turned the election in the winner's favor. Petitioners cloaked this inquiry as one that would look into election fraud. But this expands the Senate's existing and historic concern with election fraud beyond any recognizable limits. Petitioners are using the concept of fraud as a catch-all when their real complaint is with Sen. Packwood's alleged behavior, a matter being actively pursued before the Ethics Committee. Even though the Senate has authority to determine what constitutes election fraud and it's done so in the past in a very narrow class of activities dealing with the voting process, itself, it should squarely reject the petitioners' proposal that alleged misrepresentation to the press constitute election fraud. The Senate has never, never done that in the past, and it shouldn't do so now.

MR. HOLMAN: But before Packwood's colleagues, the burden of proof appeared to rest on Meyer.

SPOKESMAN: I think you're before the wrong forum, ma'am, if you'll forgive me. But are you proposing that the Senate ignore a validly issued certificate of election which was never, never challenged at the state level?

KATHERINE MEYER: Yes, that's exactly what we're alleging here, and first of all, it was challenged at the state level. The fact that it was -- the Secretary of State made it clear he had no authority to investigate charges that Mr. Packwood should not have been given a certificate of election because the only authority he had was to decide who got those votes. And he made it further clear that the only body that could determine whether or not Sen. Packwood was duly elected was this body.

MR. HOLMAN: The committee now will review the arguments of both sides and decide within the next few weeks whether to begin its own investigation to determine whether a new election is warranted.

MR. MacNeil: But should campaign mis-statements or even lies on personal matters be considered fraud and, therefore, grounds for overturning an election? We have two quite different views. Stephen Gillers is a professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School. Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar and longtime Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Norman, first, as we've heard, the issue facing the Rules Committee is not sexual harassment, but in the present -- or sexual conduct - - but in the present political atmosphere -- and you heard the defense attorney there saying that petitioners are really cloaking their real motive in these legal arguments, is the political issue raising the heat on these Senators who are going to decide on the Rules Committee?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Oh, I think there's no question, Robin. A good part of the reason that the Rules Committee even decided to take this up was that they were feeling some political heat. This is a highly controversial case. An awful lot of groups are taking a great big deal of it, and that's why they decided to bring it up in the first place. I think they may regret that before they're done because it raises all kinds of issues that leave them in a difficult situation, but that's why they're taking it out.

MR. MacNeil: Well, we'll come back to that in a moment. Do you agree that in the background all those Senators, although they're deciding on a narrow legal issue, are looking over the heads of all the women who were outraged at the time of the Anita Hill hearings and so on.

MR. GILLERS: Absolutely. I think the Thomas Hill hearings has changed the map, and the fact that this fraud involves alleged sexual assault makes a big difference.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Now, let's tray and frame the issue facing the Rules Committee. It's really two issues, isn't it? Did Packwood lie to the media, and did he intimidate witnesses? Can you define the issues as you see them for us?

MR. GILLERS: Sure. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to judge elections. That's an unqualified power. In fact, there's no one else that can ultimately do it. The Senate must exercise that authority and in doing so it must have all the power that a local board of elections has, which includes the power to review allegations of fraud. Here the allegation of fraud is that Packwood before election day denied the sexual assault charges and after election day, he remembered that they might be true and apologized, as we saw on the clip. That's fraud, and the allegation is further made that it wouldn't have made a difference to the election. Separately and independently, there's an allegation that Packwood and his associates set in motion an intimidation campaign to make sure that the press did not get the story from anyone else who knew it. That's obstruction of democracy.

MR. MacNeil: And they alleged that he did what, that they did what precisely?

MR. GILLERS: Precisely that he began to gather very intimate, personal information about women who would know enough to corroborate the story, and they let it be known that they had this information by word of mouth, by gossip, and women who, indeed, did have sufficient data to corroborate the story refused to cooperate with the press thereafter, so the allegation, and it still deserves to be investigated, it may or may not be true, is that there was an intimidation campaign. You go forward with this story, and we'll let these facts out about you.

MR. MacNeil: And Norm, do you define the issues, you frame the issues in the same way?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Well, certainly the way he -- there's no doubt that those are some of the material issues, but of course, the bigger issue is what constitutes fraud in an election? And in effect, what we're talking about is going well beyond the standard that basically has applied for 200 years when the Congress has taken up the question of a disputed election which is voter fraud, itself, fraud that's involved, ballot stuffing or basically keeping people from going to the polls and the like, or instances where you had such a close election that you really had to look at ballots to see if there were problems there to, including questions of this sort, lying or anything that involves the campaign, itself. That's the big issue here.

MR. MacNeil: Well, should --

MR. ORNSTEIN: It's a question of how far you go.

MR. MacNeil: Well, should lying, if it hasn't been in the past, should it be now a ground for nullifying an election?

MR. ORNSTEIN: My case would be that absolutely not. Once you cross over the line -- and I think the framers, that we had elections that were far more robust in terms of lies and charges and intimidation 200 years ago than we have today -- once you cross that line and decide that you're going to make this kind of a judgment, you can't stop. You have instances of lies, of last minute charges made against opponents of all kinds of chicanery going on. It's a give and take in an election. It's an awful process in many ways, but the only way in which you can make it work is to make sure that you've got opponents having that give and take and a press that gets involved. Once you start to have the Senate judge after the fact whether this crossed the line, you're going to have a partisan process, and you're going to have a process that will drive the country into a million pieces.

MR. MacNeil: Now you don't agree with that. You think that lying could be a ground for nullifying the election, right?

MR. GILLERS: Absolutely. Mr. Ornstein's position trivializes the constitutional power. What he's saying is that the Senate is reduced to the role of bean counter. You can count the votes and say, no, they're a hundred, not ninety-nine. Fraud has to be a basis to vacate an election victory. It may not mean that you always do it. Other things come into play, but the Senate has to be able.

MR. MacNeil: But is, but is a mis-statement of fact, deliberate or not, a deliberate fraud in this context?

MR. GILLERS: It can be. What if the candidate lied about his taking bribes in the past? What if the question to the Senator was: We have information that you took bribes and he said, no, I never did, knowing he had, and then was elected, and then it came to light that he had? Is the Senate disempowered from refusing to seek that person who has taken bribes in the past?

MR. MacNeil: Norman.

MR. ORNSTEIN: If you get to a point where those kinds of things become qualifications for election, beyond ballot stuffing or fraud of that sort, lies during the course of the campaign about one's record, about one's past, or about one's opponent, where do you stop? We've had instances in the past where we had candidates who came up with last minute charges, outrageous charges about their opponents, clear lies, and they knew it. Do we say that election after the fact is invalid? There are going to be mistakes made during the course of the campaign where people lie. Here we have an instance where you're talking about charges that were 25 years old. We went through three election campaigns or more for the Senate where Bob Packwood won after these incidents have occurred. Allegations come up right before this election, and they're put back by no question lying and very possibly intimidation here. But you can't start to get into this, whether they have a constitutional power formally or not, without going down a slippery slope that leads to disaster.

MR. MacNeil: The Constitution is constantly being reinterpreted. There is a public mood of great mistrust in politicians at the moment. Do you think saying that lying is not a disqualification for holding a Senate seat is a proposition that won't go today?

MR. ORNSTEIN: If you decided that lying was a qualification, it's not being very facetious to say that we wouldn't have very many people holding offices almost anywhere. Lies and distortions and exaggerations are a part of this process. Now sure there are some that are more trivial than others, but once you start into that, when you have a partisan chamber, imagine if we have a Senate that's 51 to 49 after a very tough election campaign, won't the temptation be there to pick and choose among the instances of lying which have taken place, find one and have a partisan majority to move in and validate an election, a dangerous road.

MR. MacNeil: Let me move on in the time, because I guess you're going to continue to disagree on that one, let me move on to the other. Should the other issue, alleged intimidation of witnesses in this context be a ground, can the Rules Committee reasonably decide that is a ground for nullifying an election?

MR. GILLERS: Absolutely. I call that obstruction of democracy. To me it is no different from intimidating a witness obstruction of justice. It is also much narrower. If we are worried about the flood gates, there could be many fewer charges. The allegation here is that there was a concerted, conscious effort to scare people by revelation of the most intimate details of their personal life were they to provide the information that the Senator refused to provide, indeed, lied about. It seems to me that has to be the basis for vacating an election.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Norm, how do you think on that one?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Again, we disagree, but let's take another example of something that could be considered similar. Back in the New Hampshire primary campaign in 1988, we had an instance right at the end of that campaign where George Bush and his campaign manager, John Sununu, then governor of New Hampshire, went on to television stations and one could say intimidated them into putting their commercials on the air and keeping Bob Dole's commercials off, and it made all the difference in New Hampshire, which ultimately decided a presidential election. Are we going to invalidate an election because a candidate intimidates television stations from putting his opponent's commercials on the air? Where do we stop here without leading into ex-post facto decisions?

MR. MacNeil: If you were a Senator on the Rules Committee, would you refuse in this case to investigate that allegation in Packwood's case?

MR. ORNSTEIN: I would state if I were a member of the Rules Committee that whether we have the theoretical power or not that the Senate is going to look at instances of voter fraud, ballot stuffing, intimidation of voters at the polls, but not look into allegations of lying or something of this sort as a condition of election. Let the Ethics Committee consider it when it considers the punishment of Sen. Packwood for the offenses that have occurred here, but not a question of after an election has taken place, when we can't know what the results would have been otherwise, drawing back on somebody who's won by the normal standards.

MR. MacNeil: You would argue, I presume, that these Senators, the duty of these Senators is to investigate both of these areas and to rule on whether they disqualify Packwood from holding a seat or not.

MR. GILLERS: The facts so far put forward create a reason to investigate both areas. I think the Senate demeans itself if it denies itself the power to do so because nobody else can do so. It means you can steal an election.

MR. MacNeil: Let's come back to the point finally that I raised in the first place. Norm, are you wondering in your own mind, from all your knowledge of Congress, whether the new atmosphere we described both out in the country and on the part of women who were so upset about the Anita thing may create in the minds of these Senators a predisposition to investigate this or to rule on it when in the past they might have brushed it off?

MR. ORNSTEIN: No. It was very clever of the lawyer for the 250 Oregonians to say whatever your outcome, investigate this, to try and cross that threshold now. And there is going to be a temptation to say, we can put these people off if we just investigate. Once you cross that threshold though, it's very difficult to step back, and I think there'll be some Senators who will say, wait a minute, we can't get into this or we'll never stop.

MR. MacNeil: And it is part of your argument that the new atmosphere is, makes more imperative, is it --

MR. GILLERS: Making those kinds of judgments is what public office is all about. I don't think the Senate has to stop itself before it goes too far. I think it can exercise a wise discretion once it begins to investigate. I'm not fearful that it will go too far at all.

MR. MacNeil: Prof. Gillers and Norman Ornstein, thank you both. FOCUS - THE CHINA QUESTION

MR. LEHRER: Now to the China story and the argument over trade and human rights. Our focus tonight is Hong Kong. There are new tensions between China and Britain over the colony of Hong Kong, and some of that has been spilling over into American relations with China. The man in the middle of all this is Hong Kong's British governor, Chris Patten. We will talk to Mr. Patten after this backgrounder by Charles Krause.

MR. KRAUSE: Hong Kong is the last great jewel in Britain's imperial crown, a reminder of the days when the sun never set on the British empire. But today there are more Americans in Hong Kong than there are Englishmen, and the United States is the colony's largest overseas trading partner. Some $36 billion worth of manufactured goods and food go back and forth between the United States and Hong Kong each year. Meanwhile, U.S. corporations and individuals have invested in Hong Kong's thriving economy. But trade and investment are not the only reasons for U.S. interest. The Clinton administration is following political developments in Hong Kong closely because of growing concern about democracy and human rights in the colony once it's reincorporated into Communist China. Those political concerns have grown in Hong Kong, itself, since Chris Patten's appointment as governor. As chairman of Britain's Conservative Party, Patten played a key role helping Prime Minister John Major win re-election last year. But in that same election, Patten lost his own seat in parliament. Out of a job, Major named him governor of Hong Kong. He arrived in Hong Kong's spectacular harbor a year ago and he'll probably be the last British governor there. In 1997, after a hundred and fifty-six years of British rule, Hong Kong will once again become a part of China. Yet despite its status as a lame duck, Patten has turned what could have been just a ceremonial post into a bully pulpit, pressing for democratic guarantees and more elected officials in Hong Kong before it reverts to China four years from now.

CHRIS PATTEN, Governor, Hong Kong: In case there should be doubt in the minds of anyone in this council or outside of it, let me clearly state this afternoon that the British government stands four square behind the Hong Kong government's proposals on constitutional development in Hong Kong and will continue to do so.

MR. KRAUSE: Patten's speech last fall was immediately denounced by the Chinese government in Beijing, which had not been consulted beforehand. Beijing accused Patten of trying to reopen issues that had already been decided. But in Hong Kong, itself, the governor's speech and his moves since then have met with a far more positive response. Many in Hong Kong are openly enthusiastic. Others, especially some businessmen with close ties to Beijing, feared a confrontation. They were and remain critical. But even they understand the link between democratic guarantees and future economic stability, links which Patten is trying to strengthen before it's too late. At stake is the world's tenth largest trading economy. Hong Kong has a 6 percent annual growth rate and an unemployment rate that hovers around an enviable 1 1/2 percent. But economic stability depends on confidence. And after the Chinese crackdown in Tiananmen Square four years ago, many Chinese in Hong Kong became deeply concerned, fearful of their future once the British leave. Patten's effort to secure their political rights is designed to reassure them, to curtail capital flight, and to stop an outflow of wealthy and well-educated Hong Kong Chinese to Europe, Canada, and the United States. Even though Patten is not calling for legislative elections till 1995, he's been successful in at least one respect already. His actions have pressured the Chinese government to agree to direct negotiations. The first round of those talks was held two weeks ago in Beijing between representatives of Britain and China, with Hong Kong participating as an official observer. Another round of talks is scheduled later this month. Ironically, Patten was in Washington last week on a mission that at first blush appeared to be counterproductive in light of the negotiations. In the U.S., he campaigned for not against MFN, Most Favored Nation trading status for China. Patten argued that if the United States exerts more pressure on China by denying it Most Favored Nation status, China will respond in kind by denying democratic guarantees to Hong Kong. Yet, economic pressure is seen by many in Congress and in the administration as the only lever the United States has to expand democratic guarantees in China, itself. Since 1990, congressional efforts to attach strong human rights conditions to trade legislation were derailed by President Bush. But this year, things have changed. During the campaign, Candidate Clinton accused the President of coddling dictators in China and pledged to support the human rights conditions that Mr. Bush had opposed. But since taking office, President Clinton has softened his rhetoric.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [Feb. 26, 1993] We are now taking a major contribution to the astonishing revitalization of the Chinese economy now growing at 10 percent a year, with the United States buying a huge percentage of those imports. And I say, I want to continue that partnership, but I also think we have a right to expect progress in human rights and democracy as we support that progress.

MR. KRAUSE: What the President and Congress will do about China's Most Favored Nation status is still an open question. But it's a question that will be decided in the next month, so Patten's visit to Washington came at a crucial moment. His three days of talks began at the White House last Monday, and I interviewed him later that day.

MR. KRAUSE: Thank you, Governor, for joining us. Why do you think the Chinese reacted so strongly against your initial proposals for democratic reform?

CHRIS PATTEN, Governor, Hong Kong: Overreacted I think and spectacularly overreacted. My proposals which are entirely within the joint declaration of agreement that Britain and China made about the future for Hong Kong, my proposals are designed to ensure that our elections are credible, to ensure that they're fair, rather than fixed, and I think that it's surprising that Chinese leaders should be so worried about that. But I very much hope that in the talks that have started we'll be able to come to an acceptable solution. I think that's what people in Hong Kong want, and I think that's what the International Community which recognizes that it's a problem between Britain and China would like to see as well.

MR. KRAUSE: When you say that they've overreacted, what does that, in effect, say about the Chinese leadership?

GOV. PATTEN: Well, I'd better be careful in my vocabulary. They've been rather less than careful in what they've said about me. I think it suggests a certain lack of self-confidence, which is surprising, because China has moved spectacularly successfully from a pretty grim economic position to one in which they're pursuing increasingly successful, market-oriented policies. I don't think they need to show that lack of self-confidence. I think that they can allow Hong Kong that modest degree of autonomy within China which they've always promised. One of the things which I don't think they understand is the relationship between Hong Kong's way of life between some of the freedoms and values that you and I would take for granted and its prosperity. It's the rule of law, as well as Chinese entrepreneurialism which has made Hong Kong so wonderfully successful.

MR. KRAUSE: When the Chinese talk about Hong Kong's future, they use a slogan "One country, two systems." What do they mean by that?

GOV. PATTEN: Well, we know what we mean, but it's specified in detail in the joint declaration. Our system isn't just the capitalist allocation of resources any more than America or Western Europe is just a capitalist, economic structure. Our system also involves values and freedoms, and those are all specified in detail in the joint declaration. Now we both have to point out that that is what our system means and that the way of life of Hong Kong helps to sustain the prosperity, as I was saying a moment or two ago. We both have to make that point and to make clear that what we're all signed up to is one country, two systems, not one country, one and a quarter systems, or one country, one and bit systems. I think that's a very important point for us to make before 1997, because if we don't make it before 1997, there's rather less chance of making it after 1997.

MR. KRAUSE: Well, I guess the real question is: Do you think that the Chinese are genuinely committed to retaining Hong Kong's capitalist system and the kinds of political freedoms that exist now after '97?

GOV. PATTEN: I hope so, and that I hope that they will demonstrate in the talks we're having with them at the moment. They surely recognize the enormous success which Hong Kong is. Hong Kong, as you said in your very good film, is the 10th largest trading community in the world. Hong Kong, altogether, represents about 19 percent of China's GNP. That's 6 million people, and producing wealth which is 19 percent of the total wealth of China. So it's hugely important to China. And I think that it's important that these negotiations conclude with, if we can manage it, a settlement which underlines China's commitment to make a success of the joint declaration.

MR. KRAUSE: As you know, in this country there is concern about the human rights record of the current Chinese government. You've met with President Clinton, and you've met with other members of the administration. Do you think that you've succeeded in convincing them not to support sanctions against China?

GOV. PATTEN: I think I've convinced them that, though I'm not sure I needed to because I think they've taken the point anyway, that they need to consider the impact on Hong Kong as the policy which they develop. I think they're going about thinking these issues through in a very sincere and committed way, and they're taking account of a number of factors, all of which have been expressed over the last months and years. They're taking account of their concern on human rights, on weapons proliferation, on specifically trade issues. I've argued both as a matter of principle and practice for me that trade is the best way of increasing the influence that we have over one another. It's the best way of throwing light into dark corners. It's the best way of promoting human progress and quality of life. And I've said that as a weapon, and the trouble about using trade is it can cut you as well as cut the other side. So I've put those arguments as a matter of principle as well as the utilitarian consideration of the effect on Hong Kong of any interruption of trade. I'm sure that the administration will take account of what we've said, what I've said this week in framing their policy, but I understand that there are other pressures on them as well.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you think that sanctions will work? Will they succeed in changing the behavior in Beijing?

GOV. PATTEN: I don't think so. I'm always pretty cherry about confusing trade and economics on the one side and politics on the other. And I don't think that it makes very much sense to politicize trade. I think that it would help, and if Chinese leaders made it a bit clearer that they see a distinction between trade and politics as well, it could make it easier for people like me to put that argument, and so I don't on the whole think that trade works, except in extreme circumstances such as we're seeing in the Balkans at the moment.

MR. KRAUSE: But if that's the case, if you're right, is there anything that you think the United States can or should do to try to affect the human rights situation, the political situation in China?

GOV. PATTEN: I've obviously got to say not only because it's diplomatic but it's not for me to give advice to the United States on issues like that, but I do think that there are other forms in which a country can pursue its interests in trade matters, on weapons proliferation, on human rights. There are, for example, at the moment a number of countries which are in a dialogue with China about human rights. It's true of Australia; it's true of France; it's true of the United Kingdom. There are also prescribed ways in international agreements for pursuing interests from things like weapons proliferation. I think there's domestic legislation which enables the United States to pursue its interests on that sort of matter. So I hope that we will get MFN renewal this year. I think that more trade is good for the U.S., is good for China, is good for Hong Kong, and I think the opening up of China's economy is hugely important not only for China but for the region and the world.

MR. KRAUSE: One last question. How do you respond to those who would say that you are putting Hong Kong's economic welfare ahead of the welfare of millions, billions of Chinese before whose human rights and political rights have been abrogated?

GOV. PATTEN: I think Hong Kong's economic welfare is both a consequence of what's been happening in China and one of the reasons for what's happening in China. I think we have been a significant factor in opening up China's economy, and I think opening up China's economy is enormously important just for the standard of living of ordinary Chinese families but for their quality of life as well, and I don't want to become too controversial, but I think economic progress has political and social consequences, and that's what Marxists have always believed in the past, and if there are any still left, that's what they still believe.

MR. KRAUSE: Governor, thank you very much for joining us.

GOV. PATTEN: Thank you very much. ESSAY - EDGE OF THE SEA

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service has some thoughts about California's growing pains.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Is there anything more sobering for an American to contemplate than this Coast of California? Here the dream comes to an end. The metaphor for possibility in the American imagination is land. As long as there is land in the horizon, Americans can pack up and leave, move on, leave parents, leave family quarrels unresolved, leave tragedy behind, leave snowy winter or the dust bowl behind at west. Americans in Brooklyn, New York, and in Dayton, Ohio, created the myth of California. The myth was sustained by John Steinbeck's Okies. Henry Fonda and the Jode family get out of their sagging truck to stare at the lovely valley, blinking with innocence as though at paradise. For generations, Californians have been trying to say to America that things come to an end here. The nation has only recently gotten the point. California becomes the meeting place of comedy and tragedy. Here in San Francisco, the most magnificent man-made creation in the West, the Golden Gate Bridge, is the place where people regularly come to commit suicide. I am one of those Californians who believes that this state is entering one of its most important eras. Now that California is becoming a more tragic place I believe there is a wisdom in tragedy as deep as the wisdom in comedy. The comedy that created California, after all, was as immature as it was bracing. In comic California, people used to believe that everyone could have their own car and that there was water enough for every swimming pool, and that when you grew uncomfortable in the city, you could move to the suburbs and then abandon those suburbs for others, more distant in the foothills, or out in the desert. In the 19th century, already there were some Californians who came face to face with the sea and realized the implication. John Mure, the great environmentalist of California, sent the message back, West to East, back across the Rockies and across the plains, back to the crowded brick cities of the East Coast. We have come to the end of things. The American dream has limits. We need to protect, to preserve. Some got the point. In the 1870s in San Francisco, at a time when the city was barely more than sand dunes and plywood, city fathers began to plant Golden Gate Park at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. A few weeks ago, Los Angeles opened its first stretch of subway. What Los Angeles knows in 1993 is that there are limits. Even as California becomes a sadder place, it remains the destination for millions of immigrants, many of them from Asia and Latin America. They play the optimist now. The Vietnamese in Anaheim, the Salvadorans in San Jose are going to be the next generation of builders and movie stars and race car drivers. Native-born Californians, on the other hand, tend to be as sour as Greek furies regarding the newcomers. Don't you people realize that there is no more room for you in California? California's already too crowded. But who among the Guatemalans, who among the Chinese newcomers, will pay the doom sayer much heed? For the newcomer, California is the beginning of America, not the end. You meet Californians all the time now who say they are leaving. Like flies hitting against glass, they are frustrated that there is no more West. Restless like their ancestors, they're headed now back East to Colorado or Nebraska, or North to places like Portland, Oregon. In a few years, they will complain about how crowded Portland, Oregon, is becoming. On my most discouraged days, I think California is in for bad times. When comedy meets tragedy, you end up with tragic comedy like the Los Angeles riots of last spring, the famous night of black rage ended up a consumer festival with Latino grandmothers stealing boxes of Pampers from the busted up mini mall. In my happier days, I think some great civilization is forming in California, some new idea of America. I think that in this most cosmopolitan of American states Californians will confront the racial and social antagonisms of America as few others will have to. Californians are going to have to learn to stare at one another, to acknowledge that we are, after all, neighbors, body builders, movie stars, Crips and Bloods, surfers, environmentalists, drug addicts, Chinese grandmothers. We are all Californians. There is no place to escape. This is the knowledge we share. We are at the edge of the sea. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, President Clinton campaigned in Cleveland for its economic program. He asked for support in getting Congress to pass it. And a State Department spokesman said the administration was delaying a final decision on military action against the Serbs in Bosnia, he said some U.S. allies wanted to wait for the results of a Bosnian Serb referendum this weekend. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. And we'll see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.