The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight the Bill Lann Lee appointment with reaction from Senators Feinstein and Craig; a report from Los Angeles on the new Getty Museum; and some perspective on the new words from the president of Iran. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton bypassed the Senate confirmation process today, naming Bill Lann Lee acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Republicans had opposed Lee's formal nomination because of his position on affirmative action. Mr. Clinton said Lee's views were the same as his. He said he would resubmit Lee's nomination sometime next year.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have two objectives. One is to get Mr. Lee into the leadership of the civil rights division as soon as possible. The other is to maximize the chances that he can be confirmed in the coming year in the Senate. I believe this path is the best way to maximize the chance of achieving both objectives.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Orrin Hatch said there would be no retribution, but he said Lee's performance would be closely scrutinized by him and other Senate opponents. Hatch is the Republican chairman of the committee that blocked Lee's original confirmation. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. On another subject today President Clinton said he was quite encouraged by remarks yesterday from the president of Iran. Mohammad Khatami said he had great respect for Americans and wanted to have a thoughtful dialogue with them. He said so during his first news conference since taking office in August. The United States and Iran have not had formal relations since the 1979/80 hostage crisis. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Iraq will never let UN inspectors search presidential sites for weapons of mass destruction. Chief Inspector Richard Butler said Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told him that today in Baghdad. Butler said they agreed inspectors would have access to other sensitive sites. Arms monitors have been searching for hidden chemical or biological weapons. They were banned under the terms of the '91 Gulf War cease-fire agreement. Butler said the talks did produce some results.

RICHARD BUTLER, Chief UN Weapons Inspector: With respect to presidential sites there is an unresolved issue. Only the Security Council can decide whether or not that will be acceptable. But with respect to other sites in Iraq I am satisfied that we will do better than we've done in the past.

JIM LEHRER: Butler said he would return to Baghdad in January. U.S. military personnel will be vaccinated against anthrax. The Defense Department announcement today said there were fears the deadly germ might be used someday against American soldiers. More than 2 million active and reserve troops will receive the shots expected to cost about $130 million. Anthrax normally afflicts animals. It's considered the most dangerous biological weapon against humans. Iraq, as well as Russia, and as many as 10 other nations are believed to have it in their arsenals. In South Korea today the government announced it would abolish all controls on its currency and would allow at least one commercial bank to be bought by foreigners. The Korean stock market responded by rising 7.2 percent. Two weeks ago the government accepted a record $57 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund, but its stock market and currency have continued to slide. Back in this country closing arguments began today in the Terry Nichols trial in Denver. He is accused of participating in the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. A prosecutor told jurors there's an avalanche of evidence showing Nichols was involved. Defense lawyers argued the government case was based on false testimony and sloppy scientific work. Charges against Nichols include murder and conspiracy. His friend, Timothy McVeigh, was convicted and sentenced to die for the crime. New safety systems will be installed on most jetliners. The Air Transport Association made the announcement today. The devices will warn pilots when their planes are too close to mountains or the ground. They are already in 175 airliners and will be in about 4300 more by the year 2003. The Agriculture Department today announced new rules for growing and processing organic foods. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and hormones cannot be used on products certified as organic. Processed foods must be 95 percent natural to earn the label. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said the new rules will replace a patchwork of guidelines that now govern the $3.5 billion a year industry.

DAN GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture: We're talking not just about defining a process that's long eluded uniform distinction but also specifying standards for inspection and accreditation for all commodities, including meat and poultry, and for processing. And we want to do it responsibly so we can confidently place the USDA's seal on these products with a label that says and means organic.

JIM LEHRER: The rules will be implemented next year. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Bill Lann Lee appointment, something new in Los Angeles, and something different from Iran. FOCUS - INTERIM APPOINTMENT

JIM LEHRER: The appointment of Bill Lann Lee as acting assistant attorney general for civil rights. President Clinton made that announcement today in an Oval Office ceremony.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today it is with a great deal of pride that I name Bill Lann Lee to the post of Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and counselor to the attorney general for civil rights enforcement. From this day forward he will be America's top civil rights enforcer, serving at the helm of the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Over a lifetime he has worked tirelessly to end the discrimination that keeps us from reaching our greatest potential as a people. As a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the organization founded by the great Thurgood Marshall, Mr. Lee has sought to bring people together to reconcile opposing views, to forge consensus, and to find the common ground we all must stand on. His commitment to fairness and the dignity of all Americans won the respect and admiration of clients and opposing lawyers alike. We need more Americans like Bill Lee in the highest offices of government. In the last session of Congress he was denied the vote he deserves on his confirmation because some Senators disagree with his views on affirmative action. But his views on affirmative action are my views on affirmative action--no quotas, no discrimination, no physician or benefit for any unqualified person. But men don't end affirmative action, so that all Americans can have a fair chance at living the American dream. My constitutional right and responsibility as President is to put in office men and women that will further our policies, consistent with our obligations under the Constitution. Some people want to wait for me to appoint someone to this position whom I disagree with. But America cannot afford to wait that long, and it would be a long wait, indeed. The enforcement of our civil rights laws demand strong leadership now. In the coming months I will re-submit Mr. Lee's nomination to the Senate. I will be pressing very hard for a straight up or down vote, and I am confident that once the Senate and the American people are given a fair chance to judge Mr. Lee's performance he will be confirmed. While he will have the full authority and support to carry out the duties of the assistant attorney general for civil rights, I still look forward to striking the word "acting" from his title. He is a remarkable American, and I am confident that he will enforce our civil rights laws with the same professionalism, honesty, and integrity he has exhibited throughout his life and career. He is truly the best person for this job. Mr. Lee.

BILL LANN LEE, Acting Assistant Attorney General: Mr. President, it is a great honor to serve as head of the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. I want to thank Attorney General Reno for the steadfast confidence she has placed in me. All Americans deserve the opportunity to work hard to enjoy the fruits of their labor and build lives for their families. Discrimination because of race, religion, ethnicity, disability, age, or gender should never be allowed to stifle the potential of any citizen. America has traveled and he's still traveling a long, hard road to redeem his commitment to equal justice. The solemn duty of the civil rights division is to enforce the letter and spirit of the civil rights laws. Without proper enforcement these laws are merely empty promises. Every time the division prosecutes a civil rights enforcement case America strives to make real the promise equal opportunity for all. With God's help I pledge to enforce without fear or failure our nation's civil rights laws on behalf of all the American people. Thank you.

REPORTER: Why should this not be seen as an act of defiance against the advise and consent process in the Senate?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, the Senate did not decline--they did not reject his appointment. The Senate never even got a chance to vote on his appointment. And if the Senate had rejected his appointment, I would not--even though I would have bitterly disagreed with it--I certainly would not have named him to this position. I believe that the Senate, if given a chance to vote on it, will embrace his appointment, and I believe after he's been there a few months, he'll have even more votes. So that's what I hope will happen and what I believe we have a chance to have happen now.

REPORTER: Isn't it like having one hand tied behind his back to start this job politically as an acting?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No. Absolutely not. He has the sole authority of the office, and you have seen here he has the full confidence of the attorney general and the President. That's all he needs.

REPORTER: Why do you think politics were a play in this issue? Sir, you and your top aides are saying that politics were responsible for the opposition. Why--why do you not accept it is just an honest disagreement on issues?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Because I was elected President, and I didn't make any secret of my position on affirmative action. I might say also this administration has done a lot to change the affirmative action laws to eliminate some of the abuses that I thought existed, but we can never be in a position of saying that a president shouldn't have someone in office who agrees with him. Now, that doesn't mean every--if a president makes an appointment that's way outside the mainstream of established legal thought, or somebody who has a lack of experience, or someone who has otherwise demonstrated an unfitness for office, then the Senate may reject that person who parenthetically may be agreeing with the President. But none of those elements were here, none, not a single one. And that's why I thought this was the right thing to do, and I still feel that way. I feel more strongly than I did the day I nominated him.

JIM LEHRER: Reaction now from two Senators: Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Larry Craig of Idaho, chairman of the Republican policy committee. Sen. Craig, what do you think of what President Clinton did?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG, (R) Idaho: Well, it appears the President is willing now on more than one occasion to stick his eye in the finger of the Senate, and while the President talks about the Constitution, today he denied the Senate what it is constitutionally responsible for doing. Mr. Lee's vote did not come to the floor because the Judiciary Committee, responsible for recommending him to the floor of the Senate, did not do so. When Mr. Lee went before the committee, he had a majority of that committee's votes in a bipartisan vote. But as he talked and as he reflected his philosophy and as the committee found that it was outside the Constitution and was very opinionated, they began to reject it. And finally, he lost the support of that committee. It's awfully important that I say, Jim, that the Senate--Republican and Democrat alike--are for affirmative action. That is not an issue here. This is a big issue of substance. What the committee could not accept was something that Mr. Lee said about preferences and timetables. Because you are of a different race, the courts have already said, the Supreme Court has said, you should not have preference. He disagrees with the Supreme Court. Now he has become, by action today, the supreme enforcer of civil rights law. It's a very important position. For him to deny the Constitution, or, more importantly, to deny the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution, is what is at issue here. And, of course, process is also at issue. The President, once again, defies the Senate. He did so in Kyoto. He lost his vote on fast track. And now he objects to what is constitutionally and responsibly the Senate's action. He called it "inaction," but the Senate, in fact, did act. The Judiciary Committee has the right to deny the nomination's presence on the floor, and they so chose to do so. Now, Chairman Hatch has no plans to bring it back, and I believe that the majority leader, Trent Lott, has said that it is not his desire that this issue be voted on the floor because the committee has acted.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Sen. Feinstein first, do you agree, this is a stick in the eye of the United States Senate?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D) California: No, I don't agree at all. I listened very carefully to the testimony. I was present during Bill Lann Lee's hearing. I respectfully disagree with the characterization that his views are outside of the law. I believe they're very much inside of the law. He, I believe, is qualified by education, by background, to serve in this position. As the President just said, they see alike with respect to these issues. And more fundamentally, just a small part of this position really deals with affirmative action. There are overwhelming and large civil rights responsibilities relating to many other laws, which fall within the jurisdiction of this position. And so I think this is fitting and proper that the President has done this. I listened to my chairman, Senator Hatch, say that if he chose to go this route, which is an assistant--an acting assistant, AG route, that it would be much less of concern to the Senate. I take him at his word. After all, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, just one vote away from being approved, and I believe that if this nominee came before the full Senate, he would be approved by a majority of the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Meantime, Sen. Feinstein, do you agree with the President, with that word "acting" out there, he still will be able to function in a fruitful way as attorney general for civil rights?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Yes, I do. And I also believe that with the statutes that were used for this appointment, as I understand it, Bill Lann Lee is effectively in the position now for the remainder of the President's term unless the President, himself, sees a change of one vote on the Judiciary Committee, and wishes to pursue in that venue. Otherwise, he--

JIM LEHRER: He stays.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: --is effectively in the position to get the job done.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Craig, what about--Sen. Feinstein just mentioned it; the President said it as well--if you have a disagreement with Bill Lann Lee's views, you also have a disagreement with the President's views, and, in effect, the President is saying, I have a right to have people work for me who agree with me?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, if the President and Bill Lann Lee agree, that's certainly to the President's advantage. I'm sure that's why he nominated him. But what the President eliminates from the process is the Constitution. The Constitution says that the Senate has the right of advice and consent and in this instance consent, and they denied the President that consent. So it is a two-track process. The President does not operate alone here. Let me agree with Sen. Feinstein on the qualifications of this individual. That was never challenged, and my guess is it should never be. He is a very bright and talented man by all observation. But he clearly stated--and let me quote the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--saying that Mr. Lee is unwilling to enforce the Constitution of the nation's civil rights laws and, as intended, is denying the interpretation of the courts. Now, that is something that Mr. Lee, himself, does not have the responsibility or right to do, nor does the President. They can disagree, but they cannot deny the law.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Feinstein?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: May I just clear this up? This came over, I believe, a response to a question on the Adarand Case, and so on the final day of the executive meeting of the Judiciary Committee. I asked Mr. Lee if he would clarify his position on Adarand, and he wrote a letter and he clarified it.

JIM LEHRER: Tell us about the Adarand case quickly, and then before--

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, the Adarand case essentially says that with respect to all governmental affirmative action there has to be very strict scrutiny applied, and that unless there is a compelling government interest, the government can't interfere in this area. So there's strict scrutiny and a compelling governmental interest. And Mr. Lee essentially affirmed that, said he would abide by it, and I felt cleared up any misimpression that he might have given to some at the hearing. I think what I've seen in all of the discussions on this--and there's been considerable discussion before the Judiciary Committee--it's been kind of a sliding slope. It's been a number of things. Some of it has been, I have felt--this is just my view as an individual Senator--well, we'll get back for what happened to Mr. Lucas or Mr. Reynolds. I wasn't around then.

JIM LEHRER: They were two--

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I don't carry these grudges.

JIM LEHRER: Those were two prior nominees of Republican presidents to Democratic Congresses, and they didn't make it.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: That's right.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: And then when this shifted and after the hearing, then we came up with this one answer on Adarand. And now that that is corrected it's going to be something else. But the bottom line is that this is a sound human being. He is skilled in his profession. He knows the law, and with Adarand and the strict scrutiny and compelling government interest, I would think that no case will be brought that isn't signed off on by the attorney general, herself, and with the permission of the White House. So whatever he does is going to be under its own strict scrutiny.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Craig, just back to the practical issue here, Sen. Feinstein said that your arguments, other people's arguments about the advise and consent of the Senate aside, that this man is going to have this job as long as the President wants him to have it. Do you agree with that? And under this process that was used today, that's what's going to happen?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Oh, I certainly can agree with that, if the President wants to continue to make him an acting director in this area or assistant attorney general in this area. Jim, what I think is at issue here is that the President constantly attempts to deny or circumvent the Senate. This is a lame duck president who will have to continue to come to Congress to get more and more of what he would like. My guess is at this rate he will get less and less because he has denied what is the constitutional responsibility and right of the Senate. This is an issue of substance. Now, I am not on the Judiciary Committee, so Sen. Feinstein has one up on me. But I've certainly discussed this at length with the chairman. I have quoted the chairman of the Judiciary's letter. I believe that to be a statement of fact on his part, and I think that's the issue here. The President acted today as he is entitled to act. The consequences, I'm sure, will come on many issues later.

JIM LEHRER: What kind of consequences, Sen. Craig?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: There's no team of Senators sitting around at this moment, Jim, saying, we're going to get him on this we're going to get him on that. But if you look at it, on a 95 to zero vote on global warming, the Senate advised and yet the President and the Vice President turned and walked away from it. The Senate has advised once again, under the Constitutional right of the Senate, on the issue of Bill Lann Lee and once again the President hasignored it. That will ultimately have to have some consequences.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see consequences coming, Sen. Feinstein?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, the only place I would see the consequences in, you know, further slowdown of appointments, in their confirmation, but that's already been the case.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I mean, the 9th Circuit, we've all seen what's happened there. And so I don't see anything any different. With respect to the global warming treaty, the President has clearly said it's not going to come to the Senate until this condition is met.

JIM LEHRER: We are not going to argue global warming tonight.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Good.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Jim, thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you both very much.

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Happy holidays.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Happy holidays. FOCUS - HIGH ART

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: a new museum and a new gesture from Iran. The new museum is the Getty Center, which opens tomorrow in Los Angeles. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles reports.

JEFFREY KAYE: LA drivers see it first from their cars, a cluster of white stone buildings crowning the steep hill overlooking the San Diego Freeway. To visit, they'll climb the mountain in a five-minute tram ride from the parking garage. The buildings loom up through the windows as the city drops away. The train pulls into a central plaza, a majestic marble expanse surrounded by six buildings. The Getty Center is without parallel in American cultural live--a billion dollar art establishment built without a dime of public money. The center is more than an art museum. The museum is just the most visible part of it. The new complex consolidates the museum, a grants program, and five existing Getty institutes. Among other things, there's research library, shaped like a doughnut, housing 3/4 of a million volumes. There's a laboratory doing pioneering work on art conservation, and an institute aimed at reforming art education in America. Much of this was shaped by Getty President Harold Williams, who didn't want to build just a bigger art museum.

HAROLD WILLIAMS, President, Getty Trust: The basic premise is what can the Getty--given the uniqueness of the institution at that time, which was money in a sense in the small museum--what could we become that would make a contribution unique in the world?

JEFFREY KAYE: Fifteen years ago the Getty was a small museum in a Roman-style villa in Malibu, housing the collections of J. Paul Getty, the oil billionaire. When Getty died in 1976, he left the museum stock, $3/4 billion worth. Over time it grew to a value of $4.4 billion. During the years of planning and building the budget for the hilltop campus grew from about $100 million to approximately $1 billion as the institutions defined their roles. The result is a collection of sleek modern buildings of different shapes and sizes but finished in similar shades of off-white.

RICHARD MEIER, Architect: You should have seen the sun setting--hat glow of light--this place was pink.

JEFFREY KAYE: The architect was Richard Meier, who designed museums in Atlanta, Barcelona, and Frankfurt. Meier used just two exterior surface materials--enameled metal and rough-cut travertine marble designed to catch the light in the fossils and pock marks. Details like edges, windows, railings, landscapes, and terraces have a sculptured starkness. Work spaces stake advantage of the spectacular views of Los Angeles.

RICHARD MEIER: Basically, there are six institutions here. It's like a small college campus. They're interrelated and, in fact, half of the project is underground. Half of the building is under where we're standing. What we see is really just a half of the size of the Getty Center, and we wanted to have this human quality, this human scale, the feeling of intimacy.

JEFFREY KAYE: The buildings, themselves, have received mixed reviews. One architecture critic, Leon Whiteson, calls the Getty Center a fascinating failure.

LEON WHITESON, Architecture Critic: There's a tremendous blandness about it. It looks like a corporate institution, the effect, especially if you see it from the freeway, the San Diego Freeway, where most Angelinos will view it, it looks like a fortress containing some kind of corporate institution or a medical research institution probably for brain transplants or something sinister. So I don't think the scale is intimate or human in any way.

JEFFREY KAYE: The buildings are connected by passageways and courtyards that look out over the Santa Monica Mountains.

RICHARD MEIER: When you're up here, you have views of the city unlike any from any public space I have ever been to here in Los Angeles. You can see the ocean, you can see to the mountains, to the desert, San Diego on a clear day. But you also see the texture of the city, the grit of the city, the ups and downs of the city, the hills and valleys of the city, and you understand Los Angeles from being here in a way that is unlike any other place that I've seen.

JEFFREY KAYE: Yet, the Getty's mountaintop perch is also the source of its greatest controversy. The vision of a gleaming white acropolis high on a hill bothers some people, including Christopher Knight, an art critic with the Los Angeles Times. He thinks the lofty location sends the wrong message.

CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, Los Angeles Times: On the one hand, it is a spectacular sight. On the other hand, by separating itself out from the fabric of the city and putting itself up on the hill I think the Getty Center becomes a symbol which says that culture is something that you visit, rather than something that you live.

JEFFREY KAYE: By citing this center and the museum on top of the hill, aren't you getting across a message that art is really separate from people's lives?

HAROLD WILLIAMS: If you were define elitism and say, is there something special about art, yes, there is, maybe that is elitist. If you think of elite--but is elitism exclusionary? No, it's not. And our task is to make that bridge. And I believe that we equipped ourselves in a sense with the facilities and the collection and all and the attitude, more importantly, that will enable us to do that.

JEFFREY KAYE: That belief has taken the Getty far beyond the museum and below the hill to, for example, Boyle Heights, a low-income neighborhood just East of downtown made up mostly of Mexican- Americans. Within living memory this neighborhood was home to Japanese and Jewish communities. There's still a boarded-up synagogue on Breed Street. Most passers-by don't give it a second glance. But these students from nearby Roosevelt High School researched their own neighborhood and landmarks as part of a project sponsored by the Getty Research Institute. They used the Internet to publish their work, which includes a local map, a landmark guide, and a blending of local history with artwork about that history. Some of what look like lines turn out to be a kind of visual poetry about Boyle Heights. The students also put together a mural about the neighborhood available on the Internet. This project is just one way the Getty Institutes are trying to involve people with art.

TEACHER: What is this line--thick--and it's also what?

JEFFREY KAYE: A few neighborhoods to the West of Boyle Heights a first grade class in a public elementary school tried out a new way of using art in the classroom.

TEACHER: Horizontal, wonderful. Erin.

ERIN: Pointed lines.

TEACHER: Pointed lines. Can you find a pointed line for me? Oh, great.

JEFFREY KAYE: At first, the emphasis seemed to be on lines in a Pablo Picasso painting. Then the teacher subtly turned it into a geometry lesson.

TEACHER: What do we call these lines that run together like a railroad track? Who can raise their hand and tell me? Patrick, what do they call them? Say it again. You almost got. Parallel.

JEFFREY KAYE: Within a few minutes the topic switched from lines to colors.

TEACHER: Tell me about the colors you see here. Shawna.

SHAWNA: I see green.

TEACHER: Green.

JEFFREY KAYE: It's a color theory.

TEACHER: Jackson.

STUDENT: Black and brown.

TEACHER: Black and brown. Now, we know that colors are divided into warm colors and cool colors and--

JEFFREY KAYE: The Getty Education Institute helps fund this and similar programs at 36 schools around the country. The goal is to connect art with other fields, such as language, history, and science. The program grew out of concerns that conventional art education was being short-changed in the schools. But the Getty's community activities go beyond education. The Getty Conservation Institute is involved in art and cultural preservation worldwide. Officials of the World Bank recently got a glimpse of those projects after signing an agreement to collaborate with the Getty on cultural conservation projects. Among other things, the Getty has provided advice on conserving ancient human footprints in Tanzania, and it has helped preserve cultural monuments in Egypt and in China. The work is supported by state of the art facilities. Back at the center paintings are restored in a space with huge windows that evoke the lighting in studios where much of the artwork was created. Besides the restoration, itself, Getty researchers are furthering the science of conservation and developing new technologies to save old art works. For example, in Los Angeles, the Conservation Institute is using digital technology to restore a mural that was painted by the Mexican artist David Alfaro Squeiros in the 1930's but was later whitewashed over. Computer-enhanced images revealed details not apparent to the naked eye. Although the Getty's far-flung activities have a grand scope, the most public part of the Getty, the museum has a more narrow focus. Visitors who know about the Getty's billions probably expect something huge and comprehensive like the Louvre in Paris or New York's Metropolitan. But Director John Walsh says it wasn't that simple.

JOHN WALSH, Director, Getty Museum: You would think that with the Getty's money we could have anything we wanted. At least, that's a popular misconception. But the fact is that the amount of money laid out for acquisitions--although it's a very large amount of money every year--won't buy more than a handful of very expensive things in the art market.

JEFFREY KAYE: The result is a collection with a deliberate shape. There are certified brand names on the walls--Van Gogh and Monet--but not in the numbers found in established museums that have been collecting for generations. The Getty has focused on specialized collections.

CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT: I think what the museum decided was fairly wise, and that is to focus on particular areas where they knew they could develop significant holdings. The manuscript, collection, for instance, medieval and renaissance manuscripts, there are only two other institutions in the United States that are better--the Morgan Library in New York, the Walters in Baltimore. And the Walters may not even be better than the Getty anymore. And when you think about it, Walters started his collection in 1898. Morgan began his collection in the 1880's. The Getty began its collection in 1982. It's astonishing.

JEFFREY KAYE: The museum also prides itself on its photography collection. Weston Naef, the curator of photography, has amassed 60,000 images in ten years, largely by buying a series of existing private collections. For example, the Getty has 122 images by Julian Margaret Cameron, the Victorian English woman who specialized in portraiture. There are 318 works by Carleton Watkins, whose landscapes helped lead to the creation of the National Parks, and 164 photographs by the Hungarian-born American Andre Kertesz.

WESTON NAEF, Curator of Photographs: I'm particularly fond of his New York photographs I'm showing you here--his arm and ventilator shaft. He went out for a walk one morning and passed a diner, a coffee shop on Bleeker Street, and lo and behold, he was fascinated by a repairman who was caught in the midst of a procedure, trying to repair this thing, and created a work of New York surrealism in the process.

JEFFREY KAYE: That quality of being both ordinary and strange comes through in image after image by Kertesz. It is one reason the Getty decided to collect photography.

WESTON NAEF: I'm one of the few departments where the works in my custody are close enough in time that we can identify those geniuses; we still have the opportunity to acquire more than one at a time because the works have not been so dispersed that it's impossible or very expensive to do.

JEFFREY KAYE: Architect Meier designed the museum as a series of low galleries connected by glassed-in walkways. Visitors can absorb the art, then receive a visual change of pace by taking in views of the surrounding landscape as they pass from one gallery to another. The galleries, themselves, use computer controlled louvers to flood the paintings with soft, indirect daylight. The Getty's design was not without controversy. Some of the galleries were decorated in an 18th century French style over the objections of architect Richard Meier. Meier also agreed to conditions on building height and color demanded by neighboring homeowner's associations. Yet, Meier says he's proud of his work, especially at dusk, when the setting sun turns the travertine marble the color of honey, and the lights of the Getty glow against the LA sky. As the Getty opens, the relationship between the place of high art on the hill and the city below remains the subject of much discussion and promise. At nightfall, the Getty appears to have it both ways--an imposing physical presence that blends with the world below the mountain. FOCUS - CALL FOR DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a gesture from Iran and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: Last May, Mohammad Khatami became Iran's first popularly elected President. The 54 year old cleric won a surprising and overwhelming victory. His win may suggest deep discontent among many Iranians, especially the young, with the Islamic fundamentalist government that has ruled the country since 1979. That's when fundamentalists overthrew the shah's pro-American government. In his campaign, Khatami talked about a more open and tolerant society and even hinted at better relations with the West, but Iran is a theocracy, and according to the country's constitution, its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Kahmenei, officially holds most of the power. Even so, last May' election as a milestone, the freest and the most competitive since the revolution 18 years ago. And last week, there was another indication of Iran's willingness to open up--a summit of 55 Islamic nations, the first international gathering of this dimension since the revolution. The summit, which drew 28 heads of state, prime ministers, and crown princes, served as a way for Iran to forge ties with countries long wary of its 1979 Islamic revolution. It also brought together nations that had been at war with each other in the past decades, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But last week's speeches from Iran's top two and religious leaders highlighted divisions that remain in the ruling circles. The current Ayatollah denounced the West and the United States. The president, meanwhile, said Iran could learn things from the West. The signs of a split int he leadership are the most dramatic since the clerics took over in 1979. Led by a little known exiled Shiite, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, the clerics took power and formed a theocratic government that labeled the United States "The Great Satan." Khomeini soon became a household word in the United States when revolutionary students --with support of the ruling clerics--took over the American embassy in Tehran. The students held 52 hostages there for more than a year. The two nations never resumed diplomatic relations, and the United States has tried to isolate Iran on the grounds it sponsors international terrorism and may be developing nuclear weapons. But yesterday President Khatami made what's being seen as the most conciliatory remarks by an Iranian leader since the falling out with the United States. During a news conference in Tehran he declared his respect for what he called "the great people of the United States," and added that he hoped to engage them in a thoughtful conversation soon. He said, though, that U.S. leaders have fallen behind the times, and the U.S. is still trying to impose its will on the rest of the world. Today, President Clinton had this reaction.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I would like nothing better than to have a dialogue with Iran, as long as we can have an honest discussion of all the relevant issues. We remain concerned about the. sponsorship of terrorism, about violent attacks on the peace process, about development or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and we will continue to be concerned about those things. But I was quite encouraged by the president's statement, and I think the American people should be.

PHIL PONCE: We get three views now: Richard Murphy was assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs from 1983 to 1989--he's now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Kenneth Timmerman is publisher of the newsletter "Iran Brief" and executive director of the non-profit Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which monitors human rights and other activities in Iran. Said Arjomand is a professor of sociology at State University of New York at Stonybrook. He's a native of Iran and a U.S. citizen. He spent six weeks in Iran this spring. Gentlemen, welcome all. Mr. Murphy, first of all, the President says he's encouraged by what he's hearing from the Iranian president, and he says the American people should be encouraged. Are you encouraged?

RICHARD MURPHY, Former State Department Official: I am. It was one further surprise to me, frankly, that the man who was--who won his massive electoral victory by a surprise vote has entered into the foreign policy arena, which a number of experts were saying he will have no say in; that's going to be the responsibility of the supreme guide, Kahmenei.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Timmerman, are you encouraged by what's said?

KENNETH TIMMERMAN, Iran Analyst: Well, yes, I think it is encouraging. I would say that we're seeing right now a very strong split within the leadership, and there's really two ways of looking at this. Either Kahmenei has decided--the supreme guide has said, look, I will take care of the hard-liners, I'll take care of the core constituents of the regime here at home, and then allow you, Mr. Khatami, to be the smiling face to the West. That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that there's a real profound split, and this is an honest and a sincere split, and they have very sincere differences of view.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Arjomand, speaking os sincerity, do you believe that the Iranian president is sincere in what he's saying?

SAID ARJOMAND, State University of New York: Oh, yes, there's no question that he's sincere. The problem always was that would he be undermined or contradicted by other clerics in the regime, and I think the timing of this declaration coming immediately after the Islamic conference, which is chaired for a number of days and with his meetings with the president and so forth, is very significant. It's the first time he's being assertive in foreign policy and challenging this assumption that he was going to leave that to the supreme leader and to others.

PHIL PONCE: How about the issue of power, Mr. Arjomand, who do you think has power right now? Does the President, or does the religious leader?

SAID ARJOMAND: Well, constitutionally, it's the religious leader who has the power, but if you go back just a couple of weeks, you can see that his position was challenged, he was attacked by Ayatollah Montazeri, the successor-designate of Khomeini until three months before his death, and by other senior ayatollahs. So he's--and there are a large number of statements--public statements in support of those ayatollahs. So he is--his position is shaken, and President Khatami's position is very much enhanced as a result of this high profile in the conference. And so I think that right now the two of them do have considerable--it would be very hard for the leader to contradict President Khatami and who I'm pretty sure has the support of the former president, Rafsanjani, as well, and this statement must have been cleared with the other--

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Timmerman, how about that? Do you think the current president cleared this statement with the religious leader before he made it?

KENNETH TIMMERMAN: No. I think what Prof. Arjomand said correct, that he cleared it with Former President Rafsanjani, and I think he's also correct when he points out the difference within the clergy, and we can't highlight this too much. There's an incredible fight going on inside the traditional clergy between Kahmenei, the supreme leader, who represents this radical anti-Western, anti-American faction, which is--has a certain popularity, and another faction which says, look, enough is enough, let's get on with our lives, and let's have a regime and a government which is more democratic and more open to the West. The arrest of Ayatollah Montazeri, who had been the designated successor Khomeini, about a month ago, is extremely important. He's going to be put on trial for treason. At least that's what Khamsin had announced. If that happens, I think you could have an explosion inside Iran.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Murphy, at this point, how should the United States react?

RICHARD MURPHY: I think the United States should be cautiously positive. The President has a difficult time, our President. He's hemmed in by the law on sanctions that was passed last year. He has a Congress that would jump all over him, and if he appeared to give up the shop without getting a great return from Iran in terms of past grievances the United States has dwelt on all these years, but I think we are, after all, the great power, and we ought to be able to find ways to respond positively, cautiously but positively.

PHIL PONCE: And what kind of ways would you envision some kind of incentive, some kind of concession?

RICHARD MURPHY: I think that first there has to be a way to put the two sides together because what's needed really is to craft a package that--of signals, of gestures that Washington can take that will be taken--can make that will be taken seriously in Tehran and vice versa, and more coordination the better. A few months ago Washington did make a gesture in putting the organization, Mujahadin Helk, that's based in Iraq, on the terrorism list, and that was seen--that's an organization dedicated against Iran and the regime in Iran. And that gesture was appreciated in Tehran.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Timmerman, time for some kind of a carrot extended by the United States?

KENNETH TIMMERMAN: Well, I think Amb. Murphy has got it just about right--cautious optimism. We should wait and see. We should perhaps--we should certainly try to find ways of having a dialogue. I see nothing wrong with that. Up until now it has been the Iranian regime that hasn't wanted to speak to us. This is something new, and it could be significant. I'd really like to see whether they're going to allow Mr. Khatami to pursue this dialogue with the United States.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Arjomand, one of the things the United States has been concerned about and one of the things President Clinton alluded to was the issue of terrorism. To what extent is there still continuing evidence that the Iranian government is involved in exporting Islamic fundamentalism, for example?

SAID ARJOMAND: Well, I think the one very significant outcome of the conference was Iran's assurance to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries of the Middle East that really the export of the Islamic Revolution was over. He assured them that there was no threat from Iran to any of those countries, and that is, I think, a declaration that Iran is entering a new phase and the phase of revolution is behind, and that Iran wants to play the geopolitical game as a major regional--regional power, and so I would not--and I think there hasn't been any evidence of--much evidence of terrorism. Lately, they have not done it, and I think they clearly are going to give that up as part of the negotiations together incidentally with the threat--with their nuclear program-- because I think Iran--if you think from their point of view--these are the only remaining chips. And as President Clinton likely said, that would be a major concern of the U.S. and that would be something that they could give up and they have said they would do it at the United Nations; they supported test ban, and this would be much easier to achieve through a dialogue with the Iranian government and much more difficult if Iran is isolated, if the U.S. isolates--continues to isolate Iran, because that would strengthen the hand of the radicals.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Timmerman, do you agree that Iran's exportation of terrorism is behind it?

KENNETH TIMMERMAN: Well, I think we need concrete gestures and concrete facts, not just statements. The Iranian regime has been saying for years that they don't export terrorism. They have called Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, which just about every other country in the world considers to be a terrorist movement, a national liberation movement involved in liberating the territory of Lebanon from foreign occupation. The regime in Tehran today, as we speak, is still engaged in shipping armaments, weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They go through Syria. There have been forty-five 747 cargo loads' worth of weapons just this year alone. They're still engaged in shipping weapons into Afghanistan and getting involved in that civil war inside that country. They have been engaged even recently in assassinations in Pakistan against both Iranian dissidents and against Paki--Pakistani civilians. There's a very curious war going on in Pakistan between Suni and Shii Muslims, so I think we need really solid gestures, not just talk.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Murphy, what's in it for the United States to have a better relationship with Iran?

RICHARD MURPHY: It's a major power in the region--60 million people, geo-strategic position, stride the main routes in--to Central Asia, to South Asia. It is a power, and it has always seen itself as the gulf's primary power. Part of the problem between us has been that we have become the regional hegemon. The United States is the primary force, military force in the area today, and Iran feels that's its role, to be the security guarantor for the gulf. Well, that's something that's going to take a lot of time to sort out.

PHIL PONCE: To what extent might the U.S.'s interest be motivated by business interests?

RICHARD MURPHY: Well, my impression is that American business, which is anxious to get on with development, for instance, in Central Asia, the oil business and looking at pipeline routes, yes, some of them would favor routes across Iran, because they're shorter, more economical. Some of them would favor trade with Iran, which was cut off in the course of the sanctions act last year. But I don't get the impression that business is pushing our government around very hard or very far at this point in time.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Arjomand, what is life in Iran like these days? Is there less government control? Is there more personal freedom?

SAID ARJOMAND: Well, I was there in the spring and there was a lot difference as compared to three, four years ago in the fact that the war was definitely over and the morale was much better, and I think all this is-- after the election of President Khatami is all the more the case, and I think there is a sense of people that for the first time they can get organized and make a difference. This would apply to women; the middle classes; and other intellectuals, other groups, university students, who are I think beginning to get organized. They know it is hard but it can come off, and for the first time there is an optimism that wasn't there before.

PHIL PONCE: And a follow up question to that, Mr. Arjomand, is there an ingrained hostility in the Iranian people towards the United States, or is there a differentiation being made between feelings toward the government and feelings toward the American people?

SAID ARJOMAND: Well, that is a convenient phrase. That's the distinction between the government and people of the United States, which the spokesman of theIranian government had been making, but I think at the popular level, both in my judgment and I think the reports by anyone who visited Iran, there wasn't any animosity towards the United States. And the point made earlier in the program was that indeed there's considerable discontent with clerical control, and I think that extends to their foreign policy of isolating Iran, so I would say there is support, yes.

PHIL PONCE: Gentlemen, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you all very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major stories of this Monday, President Clinton bypassed the Senate confirmation process naming Bill Lann Lee acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division. The Defense Department announced U.S. military personnel will be vaccinated against anthrax, a deadly germ that could be used in warfare, and Iraq declared that UN inspectors would never be allowed inside Saddam Hussein's palaces to look for biological and chemical weaponry. You'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.