The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight some impeachment trial thoughts from Senate Dean Robert Byrd and two freshmen Senators, Bayh of Indiana and Voinovich of Ohio; then Charles Krause chronicles the severe crime problem in Mexico City; and Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune reports on today's Supreme Court argument about sexual harassment. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The White House today continued to criticize the impeachment case against President Clinton. Spokesman Joe Lockhart said the House prosecution arguments for convicting the president of perjury and obstruction of justice read like a cheap mystery novel full of words like "plot" and "sinister."

JOE LOCKHART: It is at times a hallmark of what's a weak, factual, and constitutional case that the allegations continue to shift and that the rhetoric continues to be overblown. And I think those are the two things that come out of that document. We have new bundling and interpretations of the allegations against the president at this late date. I think, as someone who's trying to defend themselves, you have a certain point where you should understand what the charges are.

JIM LEHRER: Lockhart said Mr. Clinton's lawyers will file a longer version tomorrow of the brief they turned in Monday. The lawsuit that led to many of Mr. Clinton's troubles came to an official end today. White House aides said Mr. Clinton mailed an $850,000 check to Paula Corbin Jones. It will settle the civil suit she brought against him for alleged sexual misconduct while he was Arkansas governor. The president consistently denied her claims. At the capitol today Republican Senators said they would actively work on legislation, despite the demands of the impeachment trial schedule. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is a member of the Republican leadership.

SEN. LARRY CRAIG, [R] Idaho: When this impeachment process is done, I think we will be able to tell all of you that the people's business was advanced maybe even more than it would have been in a normal year where the Congress would not have been in session in the month of January. But we are here and we will be working. And we'll be looking also at that agenda of Social Security reform and education and health care along with the special areas of interest of Senators.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on the impeachment trial right after this News Summary. The U.S. Supreme Court heard a sexual harassment case today, and its outcome may affect every school district in America. At issue is whether the schools break a federal law when they fail to prevent students from sexually harassing each other. The case involved a Georgia fifth grader who sued her district when officials did not stop a classmate from behaving improperly toward her. A federal appeals court threw out the lawsuit. Lawyers for the school district spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court today.

JULIE UNDERWOOD, Lawyer for School District: The question here involves student misbehavior, and we don't believe that you should be taking student issues of misbehavior and student disciplinary questions into the federal courts. I mean, after all, who would you want making a student disciplinary decision - parents and teachers and principals, the school board, the school community, or the federal courts? We just don't think that that's a proper way to resolve this problem.

JIM LEHRER: They were followed by attorneys for the student, Leshonda Davis.

VERNA WILLIAMS, Lawyer for Student: What we're asking the court to do is to hold that schools have a responsibility under the civil rights laws to take reasonable steps to remedy and address sexual harassment. The court was concerned - and rightfully so - about cases of trivial misconduct, teasing, and that kind of thing, and wondering whether that was going to amount to a federal case. And we endeavored to assure them that Title IX only reaches those severe and pervasive instances of sexual harassment.

JIM LEHRER: The justices are expected to rule by July. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. Also today, the high court struck down a Colorado ballot initiatives law, saying it was too restrictive. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the First Amendment guards against undue hindrances to the exchange of ideas. The ruling recommended procedures states should follow to conduct referendums. President Clinton today publicized another item from his forthcoming budget proposal. He announced a lands legacy initiative at the National Arboretum in Washington, where he toured its greenhouse. The plan calls for spending $1 million to purchase land for national parks, Civil War battlefields, and other federally protected areas. White House aides said the new money would more than triple current conservation spending. There was another incident in Iraq today. A U.S. jet fired a missile at an Iraqi radar site in the northern no-fly zone. Again, an Air Force spokeswoman said the pilot acted in self defense after being targeted by Iraqi radar. This was the sixth incident in no-fly zones since the U.S.-British air strikes on Iraq in late December. The U.S. imposed economic sanctions today on a Moscow university and two other Russian scientific institutions. National Security Adviser Samuel Berger said they had provided Iran with nuclear and missile technology. He declined to describe the sanctions. Berger said similar penalties had been applied to seven other Russian groups in July.

SAMUEL BERGER: The administration has authority to act against entities that violate international nonproliferation standards, and we will use that authority to protect our security. In the end, though, the most effective shield against proliferation from Russia is not U.S. penalties but a Russian export patrol system that is designed to work and does. Only Russia can police its own borders, factories, and technology industries.

JIM LEHRER: There was no immediate response from Moscow, and the offices of the affected institutions were closed. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Senators Byrd, Bayh, and Voinovich, crime in Mexico City, and an important sexual harassment case.

FOCUS - THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

JIM LEHRER: The impeachment trial, a schedule, though still incomplete, was released today. The substance phase begins Thursday afternoon with House managers presenting the case against the president. They're expected to go until early that evening, a good part of Friday, and then end late Saturday afternoon. The following Tuesday, January 19th, the president's lawyers begin his defense. They can take until Thursday to finish, with the Senators beginning their questioning of the two sides on Friday. The rest of the timing remains unclear. But the issues are anything but unclear, and we look at them now with three of the 100 Senators, who will sit as jurors. The first is Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia. He's been in the U.S. Senate for 40 years and is widely regarded as its leading constitutional expert. Margaret Warner spoke with him this morning in his office.

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks for being with us, Senator Byrd. Are you satisfied that the ground rules the Senate has come up with for this impeachment trial are fair to both parties?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: I am.

MARGARET WARNER: And your colleagues really credit you with having set the tone last Friday to turn them away from two competing partisan sets of ground rules to come up with something they could agree on. Why was it so important that it be a bipartisan agreement?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I think we need to take great pains to make it bipartisan, and that it be perceived by the people as being bipartisan. The meeting, as it took place in the old Supreme Court chamber in which the great debates were held by Webster and Clay, Calhoun, and Benton, there was something very inspiring about that chamber in itself. And it was a time and a subject matter that we were discussing that was in keeping with the awesomeness and the inspiration that setting. And bipartisanship is so sorely needed in this matter that it was well that we did that, and I've been very grateful to our two leaders, Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle, that we did that.

MARGARET WARNER: You reportedly warned your colleagues about sinking into what you called the black pit of, I think, partisan self-indulgence. Is that still a danger here?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: It is. And it could be an increasing danger if we don't take steps within ourselves to restrain ourselves from getting into the partisan political pit. This is a very serious and somber matter, and I need to keep in mind - each of my colleagues needs to keep in mind that what we do here will be written large upon the pages of future history. And we want to be sure that the people of today and the people of a hundred years from today look upon this as having been a time in which the members of the Senate acquainted themselves well and reflected confidence and brought great pride upon this institution, because, after all, it is the bedrock of our Constitution of the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: When you were sitting in that meeting last Friday, which was closed to the press and the public, and all of you were talking with one another, did you hear a lot of open minds, or did you hear a lot of partisan minds?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I didn't hear - as I try to reflect back on it in the light of your question - I didn't hear any partisan minds. I can't read other people's minds. But I think it was something that was on everybody's mind, but this is serious, and this is not a political party matter; this is a constitutional matter; and the Constitution foresaw no political parties. It's going to be a hard thing to do, but we have to do it.

MARGARET WARNER: Can I ask you about a couple of issues that have come up - first of all witnesses - do you think - do you personally think witnesses will probably be needed?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Presently I don't think so because we have a massive record. We have sworn testimony. It hasn't been subjected to cross-examination, but there's a great amount of material there that we need to study, and I think we could reach a judgment on the articles in the final analysis without witnesses. I want to see us reach that judgment up or down on those articles.

MARGARET WARNER: On the articles, themselves, not on a motion to dismiss.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I think we ought to reach a judgment on the articles. Naturally, that does - in my thinking - mean that we would not support a motion to dismiss prior to the vote on the articles, and that would be the conclusion. But there may be - as we listen to the House managers and we listen to the president's defense - it may be apparent that there are some conflicts, there are some things that need to be cleared up, and I think we should leave an open mind for future consideration of having witnesses appear, and we can make that decision better after we hear both sides.

MARGARET WARNER: Another issue that's come up some of your colleagues have raised is that though the Senate rules say - impeachment rules say that your debate and deliberation should be private - there are some members who say it should be public so that the American public can hear your debate. How do you feel about that?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: There is something to be said for each viewpoint; however, in the interest of justice to all sides it's important that we are able - that we be able to let our hair down, say very frankly to one another, just as we did down there in the joint session the other day, the joint caucus, be very frank, very candid, very candid, very candid, we will say things in a closed session that are really what we're thinking; we won't be careful to cut the corners here or there, and are less likely, really less likely to be very partisan if we're in closed session than we maybe in open session. So in the interest of fulfilling the purpose of impeachment trials, we ought to be at liberty and feel that we can speak what we think, and it is only that way, I believe, in which we will really hammer out a fair and just decision that will reflect pride on the institution.

MARGARET WARNER: You said late last year at some point to the White House, "Do not tamper with this jury." Does that still apply? Are you saying it's improper? Would it be improper for the White House or its lawyers or representatives to contact Senators during the course of this trial outside the courtroom, outside the chamber?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: At the time that we were preparing to try what we felt was going to be an impeachment of Mr. Nixon, President Nixon, I said the same thing. I said it could be counterproductive, and I am still of that opinion.

MARGARET WARNER: And what do you mean by that exactly? Do you mean the president shouldn't have contact with Senators, or simply that they shouldn't be lobbying on the merits of the case?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Well, it's one of those things that we know it when we see it. And I personally would take great offense if I thought that either side was trying to persuade me - I feel I have a mind - it may not be the mind of an Einstein, but I know what this is all about. And I will listen to the witnesses; I'll listen to the president's defense; and I'll make up my own mind. For the White House or the House managers to give the appearance that they're trying to influence me in any way - directly or indirectly - is not a good thing for them to do.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think it's appropriate once the trial starts for Senators who will be sitting silently all day to then go outside and speak to television cameras about their impressions of what happened that day in the chamber?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Well, I don't think that Senators should put a gag over their mouths in this matter. I think we have to be careful what we say. It's perfectly all right for you and me today to be sitting and talking about procedures and so on. But what I particularly want to be on guard against and what I think we should all be on guard against is saying something with respect to the final judgment that I expect to make, or saying something that leaves the impression that I am at this point, that I have my mind fully made up as to how I'm going to vote - because I don't have. And so that's I think what we have to guard against.

MARGARET WARNER: Did you ever think when the story broke a year ago that it would come to this?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: No, I did not. I didn't think things ever would come to this point. But it is here we have to fulfill our duty under the Constitution. This is a tremendous power to be placed into the hands of senators who are elected by the people. And we should draw back and take a look at this and try to do it from the standpoint of the framers and that when all is said and done here - if they could watch us - could come back afterwards and see the work we've done, that they would be proud of us, and each of us too should try to keep himself restrained so that in the final analysis he can glory in the fact that his grandson need not be ashamed of how he comported himself in this matter that is so vital to the liberties of the people.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, thank you very much, Senator Byrd. Thanks for being with us.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Now, to two of the Senate's newest members, Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republican George Voinovich of Ohio. Each had served as his state's governor before being elected to the Senate in the November elections.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Voinovich, in general terms, do you agree with what Senator Byrd just said about what's at stake and what's involved in all of this?

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: I agree, and I just wish that I was as eloquent as Senator Byrd. He has been the most impressive person that I've come in contact with since I've been elected to the United States Senate and one of the things that Evan and I had the privilege of doing was to hear Senator Byrd talk to us about the institution of the Senate and its importance and the role that it plays in the Constitution and the balance of power, and I think he's been a very, very good influence on both Republicans and Democrats here in the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Senator Bayh?

SEN. EVAN BAYH: Absolutely, Jim. Senator Byrd is a national treasure, and he reminded us very eloquently at a time like this we're not Democrats or Republicans, we're Americans, and the test here needs to be not whether our decisions, how they will be viewed the day after we make them but how they'll be viewed fifty years, a hundred years after we make them. The test is not so much the fate of this president as it is the fate of the presidency and our system of government. And that's - I couldn't have framed it better.

JIM LEHRER: But, Senator Bayh, how does it feel right out of the box as a new United States Senator, as your first major job to decide whether or not the President of the United States should be removed from office?

SEN. EVAN BAYH: Well, Jim, it's certainly not the beginning I would have scripted. I imagine I speak for George and the other seven new members as well, but when you take the oath, you pledge to do those things not just that are pleasant and easy but those things that are difficult and sometimes unpleasant. And so I hope we can do this in a dignified manner, with due deliberation, and then get on to address the other important issues that affect the daily lives of Americans like saving Social Security and dealing with the budget, health care, education, those sorts of things. So it's not an ideal beginning but it's the one we have, and I hope we can discharge it well.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Voinovich, had you been following this case closely before you were elected to the Senate?

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: Frankly, no. As you know, I came out of the governor's office, and I had a lot of other things that were on my mind, and quite frankly, I was hoping that I wouldn't have to deal with this issue in the Senate, and now that I have to, it's - I think - maybe - could be the most important thing I deal with during my term in the United States Senate. And I think that it's a very serious matter, is one that we've got to make sure is done with dignity and respect for the presidency, and at the same time I agree with Evan that there is other work of the people that need to get done here, and I came down here to do something about the national debt and saving and protecting Social Security and dealing with Medicare and defining the proper role for the federal government in dealing with problems of education and health care, and a lot of other things that are really important to the people of this country and to the people of the state of Ohio.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Bayh, on some of the specifics involved in this trial, Senator Daschle, your leader, has said that the 45 Democratic Senators are fairly united on the issue of witnesses, in other words, do not - there's no need for witnesses. Can he count on you? Are you one of the 45 who was fairly committed to that idea?

SEN. EVAN BAYH: Well, first, Jim, as you know very well, the conceptsof being a Democrat and being unified, that's almost an oxymoron. I told Tom I didn't envy him his task at souvenirs if he was trying to herd a bunch of cats, but getting to the heart of your question, I have an open mind on the issue of witnesses, and I think several of the other members in our caucus do as well. What I will look to hear from the House managers is, is there something new, something different that has not already been testified to under oath, that is material to the charges being brought against the president? As Senator Byrd mentioned, there is just a voluminous record of testimony before the grand jury, before the House of Representatives, and if there is something that goes beyond that of a serious nature, of course, we'll be willing to listen to that. But just to have a repetition of the same testimony already been given under oath for purposes of creating a sensation or a show of some kind, I don't think that that is what impeachment is all about.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Voinovich, what's your view on witnesses?

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: Well, I share the same opinion, as Senator Bayh and I think that the issue is - and I think the compromise is - again, I think it may be the finest hour. If I talked to some Republicans, when we got together there in the old Senate chamber, he came up with protocol and process that we could all be proud of, I thought the compromise was a good one if during the trial there appears to be some reason other than the record that we have before us to have a witness and in that case I would say let's say - let's hear from the witnesses. So often, you have differences of opinion. It depends on how it works out. And so I think that we're going to all watch it, and I think that everyone's got to reach into their own heart and make a decision if they feel that a witness would help clarify things and reach impartial justice, as we've been required under the oath that we have taken, we'll be supportive of it. If we feel that it's nothing new and it's not going to add anything, then I think we'll say we've heard all that we need to hear and we can make a decision.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Bayh, you are a Democrat. Senator Byrd said it's not a political party matter, but you are a Democrat. Senator Voinovich is a Republican. You don't feel any special pressure on you, Senator Bayh, because the president, who was facing removal, is, in fact, a Democrat.

SEN. EVAN BAYH: You know, Jim, I don't. This is one of those moments in which you have to put politics aside; you have to put personal familiarity aside, and do what's right for the country. As I said earlier, I think what's important is how we will be viewed in 50 and 100 years, and no one will remember what political party we belong to. But they will remember whether we did what was right by the Constitution, and our institution's a free government. And I think about what my children will say some day or my grandchildren. And so we do belong to political parties, but this is not the time for that, and I feel no pressure in that regard at all.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Voinovich, do you feel any pressure on you as a Republican? After all, these charges are being brought by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. It's already been suggested that if these charges do not stick and the president is, in fact, not removed, it would be a repudiation of the Republican House. Do you see it that way?

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: No, I don't. I think that we're doing something that's required by the Constitution. I think that all of us should take off our political labels. We are now jurors and we have a responsibility to judge this not on the basis of frankly of what the public opinion polls are showing or what somebody perceives the final result is going to be on the future of our political party, we should be concerned about the impact that it's going to have on our country and on precedent and from a very selfish point of view I agree with Evan. I want to look back on this with some pride, that we did it with impartiality, that we did it with dignity, that we were looking for the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

JIM LEHRER: What do both of you - starting with you, Senator Bayh - make of Senator Byrd's argument that it might be more nonpartisan if you all deliberate in private, rather than before the public and the TV cameras?

SEN. EVAN BAYH: Well, that's a tough call, Jim, and I don't want to come down on both sides of it, but I do think there's merit on both sides. On the one hand, I tend to be in favor of more openness. This is a profound constitutional matter. I think the American people have a right to know what we think and what we decide. At the same time I feel very strongly that we should avoid the sensationalism that has afflicted too many of our institutions. Too often the courts these days - with the O.J. trial and others with which your viewers are familiar - have become basically entertainment venues. It's affected some parts of our media. It's affected some parts of our political establishment. We should not let the sensationalism affect the United States Senate in something as profound as the impeachment - possible removal of the president. So, on the one hand, I think we need to have as much openness as possible. On the other hand, I don't think we want to have this degenerate into a situation where Senators are playing to the cameras.

JIM LEHRER: Well, there's going to be a vote on this issue. How do you plan to vote, Senator Bayh?

SEN. EVAN BAYH: On the ultimate question of -

JIM LEHRER: No, no. On the - no, no - I'll get to that later - some other -

SEN. EVAN BAYH: I'm not sure -

JIM LEHRER: I thought there's going to be a motion by Senators Harkin and Wellstone.

SEN. EVAN BAYH: They made it just today, Jim. I honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. I'd favor more openness than less, but at the same time let's not let it become just an entertainment venue.

JIM LEHRER: So you're not going to vote for opening it?

SEN. EVAN BAYH: No. I think - as Senator Byrd was suggesting, perhaps we open some parts of it but not all.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Voinovich, your view.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: I think that what you have to do is to look at the procedure that's been laid down and followed for years since the time when this was put into the Constitution, the Johnson trial, and so on, and that the forefathers envisioned that the deliberations by the jury would be in closed session, just as historically, if you go back to England, the Magna Charter, that people get together in a room and deliberate and they do it in a closed session. We do that for people that are being tried for murder and for other kinds of things, and there is that - all of us want to shoot for openness, but I think if one goes back to that last Friday, when we got together and kind of forgot about the fact that we were Republicans and Democrats and realize the immense responsibility that we had, there was something special that took place in that room. And I think Senator Byrd's words were right on point, that a lot of the things I think will be said; there will be more candor. Ithink that we'll be reaching for our higher instincts, and if this is on national television, where perhaps some might be tempted to play to the cameras, instead of concentrating on the serious matter before us.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Senators, thank you both very much, and let me be among the last, I guess, to welcome you to Washington.

SEN. EVAN BAYH: Thank you, Jim.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: Thanks, Jim.

FOCUS - CRIME WAVE

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, crime and politics in Mexico City and sexual harassment as argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Charles Krause reports the Mexico City story.

CHARLES KRAUSE: When Cuauhtemoc Cardenas was sworn in a year ago as Mexico City's mayor, it was an important milestone in Mexico's political history. Not only was Cardenas the city's first elected mayor, he also became the odds-on favorite to become Mexico's first opposition party president in the year 2000. But one year later, those odds have been sharply reduced, diminished by the overwhelming problems Cardenas has faced attempting to govern Mexico's huge and unruly capital. Ricardo Pascoe is on the front lines. He's one of Mexico City's deputy mayors and also a Cardenas ally who says the growing perception that Cardenas has been ineffective is unfair.

RICARDO PASCOE: People awaken after the long night of an authoritarian rule to the day of democratic rule, and suddenly we discovered that it is difficult to democratize a city. It's difficult to build and fortify a culture of political participation in a democratic culture at the same time that we're trying to solve excruciating urban problems.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The city that Cardenas inherited is larger than any city in the United States. Indeed, with a population estimated at more than 20 million, it's one of the largest urban centers in the world. What was once a beautiful colonial city has in many ways become an urban nightmare. The city's air is so polluted, it's unfit to breathe. Mexico City's streets are so choked with traffic, they're virtually impassable.

and side by side with the rich, millions of Mexico city's poor live in vast slums, often without sewage and

running water. But, without question, the city's most serious problem is the general breakdown of law and order: Assaults, bank robberies, car-jackings, taxi-jackings, kidnappings -- and policemen on the take --make living here, and traveling from one part of the city to another an often dangerous and terrifying experience. Cardenas won last year's election by promising to clean up the city. Rampant street crime and police corruption, he said, would be at the top of the list. But one year later, instead of getting better, crime seems to be getting worse, and increasingly Mexico City's residents blame their new mayor. Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets, demanding increased security, while opinion polls show that fully 55 percent of those polled now disapprove of the way Cardenas is running the city. Aware that his own future as a presidential candidate is at stake, Cardenas now says that crime is not only the city's biggest problem, it's also his own biggest political challenge.

CUAUHTEMOC CARDENAS: This administration will be measured, will be evaluated, on its results on--on our fighting of crime.

CHARLES KRAUSE: You recognize that, that, that this --

CUAUHTEMOC CARDENAS: I recognize that, and we -- I am very well aware that people is expecting that we get results.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There are no good crime statistics in Mexico City. But there's general agreement that serious crime has at least doubled over the past three to four years. Indeed, crime has become so much a part of daily life that one recent poll found that an alarming 18 per cent of the city's residents have been the victim of a crime in the last three months alone. Today, no one -- not even Mayor Cardenas -- disputes the awful fear that accompanies most of the city's law-abiding citizens when they venture onto the city's streets.

SERGIO SARMINENTO: I have been kidnapped once and I've been held up twice over the past, ever since 1995, in three years, three and a half years time.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Sergio Sarminento is one of Mexico's leading political analysts, a newspaper columnist with his own nationally televised interview program that makes him well-known -- and well-respected -- throughout Mexico. Yet that did not stop five armed men from surrounding his car at a

stoplight, kidnapping him, then holding him prisoner until they received a 50,000 dollar ransom. The worst part, he says, was not losing the money. It was being held captive in the trunk of his car for nearly 48 hours.

SERGIO SARMIENTO: There were times that I felt that I really had to get out of there; I was getting desperate. I felt that I couldn't breathe. And I felt that I didn't really care anymore if I, you know, if I was shot. I just had to get out of the trunk of the car. And every time I thought about it, I thought of my children. I had one child of three years and another one of six -- two boys. And then I started to think, come on Sergio, just because you can't stay in the trunk of a car for a couple of hours, you're going to get yourself killed. What's going to happen when your children grow up and when they have their first girlfriends? And aren't you going to be there to talk to them when someone offers them drugs for the first time? Aren't you going to be there for them just because you couldn't stay in the trunk of the car for a few hours. So I managed to survive. Not everyone has, I have friends who have been killed. I have a friend who was raped. And that's when you really begin to feel that this crime wave is really putting tremendous pressure on everyone.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Terrified that what happened to Sarmiento could happen to them, many wealthy Mexicans now buy protection in the form of bodyguards and armored cars. Most of the cars are imported,

then taken apart and armored in Mexico at an average cost of 50 thousand dollars apiece. At the Kroll-O'Gara Factory, business is booming. Manager Dan Bell says that over the past three years, his sales have increased 400 percent.

DAN BELL: In Mexico City there are more than 20 armoring companies. Anyone that manufactures armored vehicles in the world either has a production facility in Mexico or else they have a sales agent. So this is probably the most competitive armoring market in the world.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But armored cars are generally of little use unless their drivers are trained to react quickly in threatening situations. So, Pete Palmer has been able to build a thriving business providing just that kind of training. A former U.S. Government official in Mexico, he heads his own security firm called Problem Solvers and keeps an extensive database of what criminal statistics do exist.

PETE PALMER: We're talking about 15 million and a half assaults a year here in Mexico City. The numbers are enormous. So, it's everywhere. When we talk to a group of Mexicans, I always ask them how many people have been assaulted. Roughly 40 to 50 percent raise their hands. How many have an intimate friend or relative who's been assaulted? Essentially, 100 percent.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The crime wave affects not just Mexicans, but also foreigners who live and work in Mexico City and tourists. Indeed, the situation has become so bad that the U.S. Embassy here warns

Americans never to take street taxis and also to be careful near ATM machines. Still, an American businessman was killed not long ago, and any number of savvy Americans who live in Mexico City

have been robbed.

CHARLES KRAUSE: You came out of this doorway --

SAM QUINONES: I came out of this doorway, was having a dinner with some friends about that. A friend of mine was ahead of me. She held a cab right here.

CHARLES KRAUSE: American free-lance journalist Sam Quinones and his girlfriend were the victims in a taxi-jacking in the very heart of Mexico City.

SAM QUINONES: Then suddenly boom, two guys jump in on top of his. One's armed with an ice pick about that long - about ten, twelve inches long. Another guy has a screw driver, and they kept on hitting me because they wanted me to tell them what my automatic teller number was, so I told them I don't know the number and then there was silence, and then again they attacked me again several times - the guy in front of me, who was in the well of the Volkswagen, was hitting me with the handle of the screw driver from over my left eye.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Taxi-jackings have now become so common that few Americans---or Mexicans---feel safe taking a street taxi at night. According to experts, there are many different factors that explain the

breakdown of law and order. Some blame Mexico's powerful drug Mafia for creating a climate of

lawlessness and violence that's now infected the whole society. Others say it's the juxtaposition of great wealth and great poverty in Mexico City and the desperation of the hundreds of thousands of impoverished city residents thrown out of work during the peso crisis of 1994-95. Still others say that as in Russia, the breakdown of one-party rule in Mexico has led to more freedom but also more crime and a breakdown of day to day authority and control. The debate is at times heated. Still, there's one factor that virtually everyone agrees is fundamental.

ADOLFO AGUILAR ZINSER: You've got a lot of crimes committed straightforward by the police. They moonlight. In the morning, they're a policeman. In the afternoon, they're crooks.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, one of Mexico's leading political scientists and a member of the Mexican senate, says the police in Mexico have been corrupt for decades.

ADOLFO AGUILAR ZINSER: And nobody did anything. So when the government starts to reduce the size, when wages for the police go down, when pressures within the police increase, then you have the policemen having to compensate more of their income with what they do in the moonlighting at

night, robbing the people in the street, than what they do protecting people. So police corruption has

skyrocket.

CHARLES KRAUSE: In fact, most crimes in Mexico City go unreported because it's generally assumed by average citizens victimized by crime that the police are either involved in the crime itself or providing protection for the criminals. According to Rafael Ruiz Harrel, Mexico's leading criminologist,

Mexico's judges -- and the whole judicial system -- are also corrupt. So he says the odds that a criminal

will be punished are extremely low, even in the unlikely event that he or she is caught.

RAFAEL RUIZ HARREL: Suppose you are betting on the lottery and it's a lottery that has only 100 tickets, no more, and 97 of those tickets say you win and only three out of 100 say you lose. Who will not bet in that lottery? That is the game we are in. If you commit a crime you have 97 percent of

possibilities that you will not be caught, and only 3 percent of possibilities that you will be caught.

So it's a very good game.

CHARLES KRAUSE: In an effort to show that he's genuinely concerned about the issue, Cardenas has staged several well-publicized round-ups of allegedly corrupt policemen, most recently in November. He's also appointed Alejandro Gertz, a well-respected lawyer, as Mexico city's new director of public safety. Gertz said 91,000 police officers under his command, a force which he's proud to point out is larger than the Canadian army. Faced with an almost insurmountable task, he says he's decided to make robbery his top priority.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you have enough men to deal with the problem?

ALEJANDRO GERTZ: Of course, if they work, and if they are honest.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you have the resources to make them work and to keep them honest?

ALEJANDRO GERTZ: That's -- that's my job, I have to do that, and I have to do it immediately.

CHARLES KRAUSE: As an attorney, as a lawyer, as someone who lives in this city, do you feel, yourself, secure?

ALEJANDRO GERTZ: Of course not, that's the reason I'm here, to do something.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Have you ever been a victim of a crime, yourself?

ALEJANDRO GERTZ: Well, my family in the university work everywhere.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Despite the many obstacles, Cardenas says he believes the war against crime can be won and the perception that he's been a weak mayor -- and would be a weak president -- will be turned around.

CARDENAS: I think that we will be having results with these measures we are applying right now. We will--we have improved equipment, we have improved our methods of work in the police forces, and well, we are also working on other areas of the city. I mean, we are working in public works, we are improving the services, we are extending water services to those parts of the city where these services are insufficient. We have a good relationship with the population in the city, and I think that people is now, seeing that this government is working in important things.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Still, there are said to be factions within Mexico's long-ruling institutional revolutionary party, the PRI, that have no interest is allowing Cardenas to succeed. Authoritarian and traditionally corrupt, the PRI has governed Mexico for most of this century. Cardenas broke with the PRI a decade ago, formed his own political party and has since then run for president twice -- once in 1988 and

again in 1994. Cardenas is expected to run again next year, and as a result, many political observers like Sergio Sarmiento say the fight for law and order in Mexico City has become mired in presidential politics.

SERGIO SARMIENTO: There are people who benefit from the crime, the crime wave in the sense that they can always point fingers at their political enemies and say you haven't been able to solve this problem. And I wish the political parties, the political groups, would get it together and would realize that this issue has no, should have no political boundaries, that we should all do something. But the point is that the fact that we are in a very, in the midst of a very difficult political and economic transition has made it far more difficult to solve the problem.

CHARLES KRAUSE: For Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, for Mexico City and for Mexico itself, the coming year will be critical -- not only for the fight against crime but also for the political direction and future

of the country.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, an important case before the U.S. Supreme Court and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: The court heard arguments today in a sexual harassment case from Georgia. At issue: Is a school responsible for student-on-student harassment? For more on the case we turn to NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, legal affairs reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

PHIL PONCE: Jan, first of all, this case is being called by some one of the most important cases of the term. Why is it considered so important by those folks?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It could have a very broad impact that would affect every school in the country, as well as the nation's 45 million school children who - as one lawyer told the justices today - are trying to sort out the differences, being a boy or a girl.

PHIL PONCE: And the facts in this specific case, what happened?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, this case about during the 1992/93 school year when Leshonda Davis, a fifth grade student in a small Georgia town, Forsythe, outside of Macon, said she began being sexually harassed by a classmate, who we know by his initials GF. Leshonda said that the boy, GF, sexually harassed her eight different times over a five-month period. She said his behavior was crude and offensive, that he groped her, that he said he wanted to have sex with her, that he simulated a sex act. And after each incident, she complained to a teacher and ultimately to the principal.

PHIL PONCE: So the alleged behavior went well beyond the rough-housing that kids engage in - pulling hair or pushing on the playground. This was - the allegations were that it was very aggravating.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. She said it was just horrible and very traumatizing to her. So that's why she complained to the teachers after each incident and then, like I said, to the principal. But Leshonda said that the teachers and the principal did nothing. It took her three months before she could move her seat away from the boy, and the principal took no action, she said, other than just threaten him with disciplinary action. Obviously, like you said, I mean, these incidents to Leshonda were more than horse play, and they upset her very deeply. She said that her grades suffered, and she even wrote at one point a suicide note that her father found.

PHIL PONCE: So the student and her mother sued and -

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: They did.

PHIL PONCE: On what basis did they sue?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: They pointed to an education funding law known as Title IX, which prohibits institutions that get federal money from discriminating based on sex. And Leshonda and her mother said that the school district should be responsible because it gets federal money, and it's basically engaging in sex discrimination by allowing this harassment to occur.

PHIL PONCE: And the federal appeals court said no, that -

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right.

PHIL PONCE: -- Title IX did not cover the situation, which brings it to the Supreme Court. What arguments did the student's attorneys make in court today?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: The student's attorney argued first, and she made the point in response to some pretty pointed questions by the justices that this was severe behavior and that it should be prohibited under the education law, Title IX, because it was very severe and pervasive; it was more than, as she said, simple teasing. A lawyer for the Justice Department, who also argued on behalf of the student, went, you know,further than that. He said that this case --here the response by the school district was deliberately indifferent, so it should be held liable also because Leshonda had been so traumatized and essentially had been denied educational benefits, in violation of the federal law.

PHIL PONCE: And you say the justices were asking a lot of questions. What kinds of questions did they ask?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: From the very beginning, I mean, they are very concerned, and it was quite a lively argument, but they were very concerned about how you would draw the line between a simple childhood teasing or horseplay and the more serious forms of illegal sexual harassment. Now, the lawyer for the school district here, the Monroe County Board of Education, said that such conduct never should be prohibited; Title IX should never come into play when students harass other students. He was worried that if that were the case, that school boards could really suffer financial ruin -- that it's a very different thing when we focus on adult misconduct, say one adult in the workplace sexually harassing another adult, than when we're talking about misconduct by children.

PHIL PONCE: Concern on the part of justices that instances involving roughhousing, whatever, could all of a sudden become "federal cases?"

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Oh, absolutely. I mean, Justice O'Connor got the conversation kicked right off at the first question, saying, schoolchildren nationwide tease each other; is every one of those instances going to lead to a sexual harassment lawsuit, and that was a quote from her. Justice Souder said that he was concerned that there was no way to draw the line, that we're going to have federal guidelines for every instance of first-grade teasing. And some of the justices expressed concern beyond a mere line drawing that we were really getting federal courts into business that is better handled by educators and, as Justice Breyer said, psychologists, that this is something that lawyers and attorneys really should just stay out of and let the schools handle what is really a disciplinary problem.

PHIL PONCE: And the response to some of those concerns that the Justices raised from the student's attorney?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, they made a point, that, well, this is - we're not asking for this law to come into play on every instance of teasing; we think it should come into play when the behavior by the student, the harassment behavior is severe and pervasive, and it really harms the student. And I should say, I mean, despite the justices' skepticism, I don't think that we can assume that the court is going to side with the school board here. There was some discussion about and some suggestion that perhaps students, while they might not be able to sue for money, for financial damages, perhaps they might be able to sue to have the board change its way, to come in and stop the behavior. And Justice Stevens put forth somewhat of an extraneous example that didn't sit well with some of the justices either. He said, let's say we have a situation where there's one baseball field at a school and the boys get to play for one hour and the girls play on the field for the second hour, and that's the school's policy. But for whatever reason, the boys decide that they're not going to give the field up. The teacher stands by and week after week the boys say, sorry, girls, you know, I know your hour's here, but you can't come on the field, so the girls are denied access to the field and the school does nothing. Well, according to the school board's attorney that would not present a cause of action under Title IX.

PHIL PONCE: Because the school board's attorney is basically saying that once you go that route, it opens up a can of worms.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right.

PHIL PONCE: In federal intervention in school conduct and that sort of thing.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Exactly. Exactly. And he said that the same would be true if it were a group of black students - I mean, a group of white students who were trying to exclude black students, if this was just something - the student-on-student behavior - that this law doesn't consider.

PHIL PONCE: Jan, thank you very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, White House aides continued to criticize the impeachment case against President Clinton. House members will present it to the Senate on Thursday. On the NewsHour tonight Democratic Senator Robert Byrd said he would not support a motion to dismiss the case before the Senate votes on the two articles of impeachment, themselves. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.