JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: A summary of the news; three Iraq segments-- excerpts from the continuing Senate debate; a look at what the polls are saying about public opinion; and a report on the weekend homecoming of a Congressman who, while in Baghdad, harshly criticized President Bush; then a first- Monday-in-October preview of what the U.S. Supreme Court has on its plate; and an update of a story about some angry farmers who are still angry.
NEWS SUMMARY
JIM LEHRER: President Bush drew fire and new support for his Iraq policy today. The criticism came in the Senate as debate resumed on a resolution authorizing the use of force. Democrat Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts warned a preemptive attack would be like "Pearl Harbor in reverse." In the House, Majority Leader Dick Armey said he would now support the President's policy. Up till now, he'd been one of the few top Republicans to voice doubts. Mr. Bush planned to reaffirm the case for action in a speech this evening in Cincinnati. We'll have more on the Iraq story in a moment. Israeli tanks and helicopters killed at least 14 Palestinians today and wounded more than 100, during a raid in the Gaza Strip. We have a report from Samira Ahmed of Independent Television News.
SAMIRA AHMED: This was the result of what the Israelis called a significant operation. Panicked crowds gathered at the hospital where the injured and dead were brought. Some were armed but most were civilians, the youngest twelve. The Israeli army fired missiles from tents and helicopters, because they said militants had launched a mortar attack on a nearby Jewish settlement, an attack that caused no casualties. Most of the Palestinian injured were said to be in a crowd that gathered outside a mosque. In daylight, the hospital itself was being targeted by the Israelis. At least one medic was injured.
NABIL ABU RDEINEH, Adviser to Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat: This is a new massacre, carried out by the Israeli army, aiming to sabotage all efforts, including the efforts of the United States of America.
MARK SOFER, Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman: The army is continuing to work against Hamas centers, focal points of terrorism, which have been operating day in and day out against the Israelis both in Israel and the Gaza district for the past few weeks.
SAMIRA AHMED: The so-called quartet of the EU, UN, Russia, and U.S. is trying to broker a cease-fire. But now it's harder still. Hamas is promising bloody vengeance, and it seems too like they that last night will pro vehicle yet more.
JIM LEHRER: In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the Bush Administration is deeply troubled by the reports from Gaza. He called for the Israelis to take immediate steps to prevent killings of civilians. U.S. and French investigators headed to Yemen today, after an explosion on a French oil tanker. Sunday's blast touched off a fire that raged for hours. The Yemeni government called it an accident caused by an oil leak. The French government said it was too soon to rule out terrorism. Two years ago, a terrorist attack in Yemen killed 17 Americans on the U.S.S. "Cole," a Navy destroyer. President Bush made the first move today toward reopening 29 U.S. Ports on the West Coast. They were shut down September 29, when shippers locked out about 10,000 unionized dockworkers. The President today set up a fact-finding board to report on the damage to the U.S. economy. The next step would be going to federal court to end the lockout, and impose an 80-day cooling-off period. A sniper shot and critically wounded a 13-year-old boy today, at a school outside Washington. Authorities said the shooting was related to seven others in the area in recent days. Ray Suarez reports.
RAY SUAREZ: The shooting came around 8:00 this morning, when the boy's guardian dropped him off at Tasker Middle School. He was early.
GERALD WILSON, Police Chief, Prince George's County: After he was dropped off, his guardian who had just dropped him off noticed that he was slumped over, and believes that they may have heard a gunshot.
RAY SUAREZ: The school is in Bowie, in Prince George's County, just east of Montgomery County, where the string of area shootings began Wednesday. Six people died in a five-mile radius, while a seventh victim, shot about 50 miles to the south, is in serious condition. Late today, investigators connected those events with today's shootings.
JOSEPH RIEHL, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms: What we do know is that the forensic evidence recovered today has been linked to the shootings at the other scenes in Montgomery County, the District of Columbia, and Fredericksburg, Virginia.
RAY SUAREZ: Earlier in the day, dozens of parents came to Tasker Middle School to bring their children home early.
WOMAN: My mom called me and told me what was going on and I rushed right over.
REPORTER: Scared?
WOMAN: Oh, yeah, very scared. I think it's the sniper.
RAY SUAREZ: Other area schools took precautionary measures canceling all outdoor activities. The Montgomery County police chief said there was a new level of fear in the area.
CHARLES MOOSE, Police Chief, Montgomery County: Whether it was the person that we are looking for or whether it was someone else, someone is so mean spirited that they shot a child. Now all of our victims have been innocent, have been defenseless. But now we are stepping over the line, because our children don't deserve this.
RAY SUAREZ: The wounded boy was flown for surgery at a local hospital, he's in critical but stable condition. In five of the seven previous shootings, the sniper fired a 223-caliber round, from the kind high-powered rifles often employed by the military. This afternoon, just a few miles from the school in the District of Columbia, another man was shot. There was no word whether it's connected to the other shootings.
JIM LEHRER: The Presidential election in Brazil will go to a runoff October 27. The first round of voting was Sunday, and the main leftist candidate, Luiz da Silva, fell just short of winning outright. The government-backed candidate, Jose Serra, was a distant second. Brazil's government has lost support for its free market reforms amid rising unemployment and a falling currency. The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to consider the dispute over the U.S. Senate race in New Jersey. Republicans had asked the Justices to overturn a ruling by the state Supreme Court. It allowed Democrats to replace Senator Robert Torricelli on the November ballot with former Senator Frank Lautenberg. Torricelli withdrew from the race last week amid an ethics scandal. The former accounting director of WorldCom pleaded guilty today to securities fraud and conspiracy. Buford Yates appeared in federal court in New York City. He said supervisors asked him to make false reports, and help hide nearly $4 billion in expenses. The telecommunications company is now in bankruptcy court. An American and two British scientists will share this year's Nobel Prize for Medicine. Robert Horvitz was honored today, along with Sydney Brenner and Sir John Sulston of the United Kingdom. Horvitz works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The three men have focused on how genes regulate the death of cells. Their findings have shed new light on AIDS and other illnesses. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to three on Iraq: The Senate debate, what the polls are saying, and the McDermott homecoming; then, a Supreme Court preview, and an anger update.
FOCUS TALK OF WAR
JIM LEHRER: Iraq one: Congress is expected to vote by the end of the week on a resolution authorizing the use of force. The debate continued today in the Senate. Kwame Holman reports.
KWAME HOLMAN: Members of the Senate came to the floor this afternoon to take advantage of time set aside specifically to debate Iraq policy.
SPOKESPERSON: Under the previous order the Senate will now resume consideration of SJRes 45, which the clerk will report.
CLERK: Calendar No. 618, SJRes 45, a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States armed forces against Iraq.
KWAME HOLMAN: West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd has been to the Senate floor every day for the last week, chastising President Bush for pressuring the Congress to act on Iraq before the November elections. Today however, Byrd was relatively subdued in anticipation of the President's speech this evening.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Rather than hearing more about Saddam Hussein-- we know enough about him-- what we need to hear from the President are answers to our questions about what he plans to do in Iraq. We need to know why the President is demanding to know that Congress act now. We need to have some idea of what we are getting ourselves into, what the costs and the consequences may be, and what the President is planning to do after the fighting has stopped, after Iraq, after Saddam Hussein. It is not unpatriotic to ask these questions, especially when they are already on the minds of all Americans.
KWAME HOLMAN: Utah Republican Robert Bennett also came to the Senate floor to say he didn't need the President to answer all of those questions on Iraq.
SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Mr. President I will be voting in favor of the resolution, not because I have figured out all the unknowables and imponderables relating to it, and not because I'm absolutely sure that the Presidential power will be used in the right possible way in every possible circ*mstance. I will be doing it because I trust George W. Bush's instincts as outlined, as clearly as any President has ever outlined America's role in the post-war world. He will use his power to expand and defend liberty throughout the world. He may use it by mistake, he may do things that do not produce that result. But that will be his poll star that should be America's poll star; that should be the policy that we lay down and hold now for generations to come.
KWAME HOLMAN: Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter said the most difficult question for him was whether to grant the President the authority to act unilaterally against Iraq.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I have not made up my mind as to my own approach as to whether it is preferable to condition the use force on a United Nations resolution. And I am cognizant of the difficulties of giving up sovereignty and being subject to the veto of China, which I don't like at all --or being subject to the veto of Russia, which I don't like at all, or being subject to the veto of France, again something that I do not like. But I think we have to recognize that when we are authorizing the use of force, and if the President takes the authorization and is not successful in going to the United Nations to get a coalition, that we will be establishing a precedent, which may have ramifications far into the future at some point in time when the United States may not be the superpower, and is very much significantly in control of the destiny of the world with our great military, with our great military power.
KWAME HOLMAN: But while Georgia Democrat Max Cleland also urged the President to build an international coalition against Iraq, he said he wouldn't insist on it.
SEN. MAX CLELAND: I believe most Senators share the view that diplomacy is far and away preferential to the use of force, and that proceeding with the inclement support of the entire international community including the United Nations is far better and more effective than going it alone. I'll be supporting the resolution backed by the President, and opposing the alternative, because I believe it is imperative that we now speak with one voice to Saddam Hussein, to the entire international community, and most importantly to our servicemen and women. A strong bipartisan vote for the pending resolution will strengthen the President's hand in his efforts to get the international community to step up to the plate and deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and give the diplomats one last chance to secure Saddam Hussein's final, unconditional surrender of those weapons as he pledged in 1991.
KWAME HOLMAN: However, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the world would condemn the United States if it launched a unilateral, preemptive strike against Iraq.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: We can deal with Iraq without resorting to this extreme. It is impossible to justify any such double standard under international law. Might does not make right. America cannot right its own rules for the modern world. To attempt to do so would be unilateralism run amuck. It would antagonize our closest allies whose support we need to fight terrorism, prevent global warming, deal with many other dangers that affect all nations that require international cooperation. It would deprive America of the moral legitimacy necessary to promote our values abroad. And it would give other nations, from Russia, to India, to Pakistan an excuse to violate fundamental principles of civilized international behavior.
KWAME HOLMAN: Senate leaders are working on a schedule that will allow every Senator the opportunity to speak on the Iraq resolution before a final vote expected later in the week.
JIM LEHRER: Iraq Two: How the talk of war is playing in the public opinion polls, as seen by Andrew Kohut of the Pew Center for the People and the Press, and Steven Kull of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. Andy Kohut, first picking up on a point that Senator Byrd made, what do the polls tell us about whether or not Iraq is in fact on the minds of most of the American people right now?
ANDREW KOHUT: Very much. We have a news interest survey that shows two thirds of the public saying they've been paying close attention to news about Iraq, and Iraq is a subject that people are talking about. It's one they care very much about. And it's been somewhat of a slow build, but it's certainly something pressing on the minds of the American public.
JIM LEHRER: Steven Kull do you agree with that?
STEVEN KULL: I do. It's a very; it's not as high as the concern for terrorism, that actually ranks higher and it's also domestic concerns are still stronger than this.
JIM LEHRER: Sure. We'll get to that in a moment. But it is there -- do you read the polls the same way Andy does, that it's been building over time?
STEVEN KULL: It has been building over time. Americans feel that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, they can be delivered against the U.S. And that very much concerns them.
JIM LEHRER: In general terms, beginning with you, Andy, how should the American attitude be read now? Based on all the polls, the ones you have done and the other ones that have been done up till now, what are the concerns, what do the American people care about right now as it relates to Iraq specifically?
ANDREW KOHUT: First, Jim, you have to recognize that there is very strong qualified support for using force against Iraq. I have eight polls in front of me from major polling organizations, the support levels for general general support levels for using force range from 50 to 65 or 66% with an average of about 60%. That is far different from what we saw years ago when we used to talk about using force against Bosnia and Kosovo. Having said that, the American public has a lot of important qualifications in their ideas about using force against Saddam. They want to make sure that this is a multilateral action, they don't want to see the United States go it alone. They have concerns about casualties as they do in all wars, and they also have concerns about the end game. How is this going to turn out?
JIM LEHRER: We'll go through all that in a minute. I want to get is just an overview, and what you said there at the beginning -- all the polls, you've got eight polls and they all show substantial support for some kind of action with qualification, right?
ANDREW KOHUT: Stronger backing than we had years ago in Bosnia and Kosovo, not the 80% levels that we had for going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. But still this is a pretty broad expression of we should use force to get rid of this guy.
JIM LEHRER: Steven Kull, anything to add to that?
STEVEN KULL: In questions that ask about military action, you get very high levels of support. When that's broken out, that means to people air strikes, special forces operations, that kind of thing gets very high levels of support. When you talk about invasion with ground forces, which would actually be the most likely form of action, then it drops all the way down to the low 50s, even 50%, and then when the question of casualties comes up, it goes lower. And when it comes to the option of doing that on our own, then it goes down to a third or even 20% in the Chicago Council poll.
JIM LEHRER: So is the number one concern beyond casualties, is it going alone? People do not want to --
STEVEN KULL: There is no poll that shows majority support for an invasion, a unilateral invasion.
JIM LEHRER: An invasion meaning U.S. troops literally going on the ground?
STEVEN KULL: That's right.
JIM LEHRER: Unilateral action involving maybe air strikes or something, that's one thing?
STEVEN KULL: Then you get a divided response.
JIM LEHRER: I see. Andy, your reading the same?
ANDREW KOHUT: Absolutely not. The Gallup Poll finds 57% favoring the using ground, sending ground troops into Iraq. We found 48%, almost a majority, saying we back using force even if there are thousands of casualties or many casualties. And the casualties test is a very, very strong test, because most of these questions only talk about the terrible sacrifice we would make there, but not what the benefit would be. And I think that there are so many polls suggesting that the public is inclined to use military force here, that there really is, the President really does have the capacity to convert this general level of support into actual support should he put a plan out to the public. But there are these great qualifications, mostly dealing with unilateralism.
JIM LEHRER: That's what I was asking about. Did you agree with Steven on the issue of unilateralism that there is, that your reading of the poll is that is a concern of most Americans?
ANDREW KOHUT: Our 67% withers to 33% when we pose the question in terms of our doing it alone without the backing of our major allies.
JIM LEHRER: And that jibes with what you're reading too, Steven?
STEVEN KULL: Yes.
JIM LEHRER: Now, on the casualties, well, first of all, do the polls in any way reflect a lack of knowledge on the part of the public? I mean, do people want more information, are do they feel they have enough information to answer these polls and to make a decision on whether or not they support what the President wants to do or not, beginning with you, Andy?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, public opinion about this is still in the making. About 57% say they've given this a great deal of thought, that's better than the 40% in August, but not at the 67% level that President Bush first had just before the Gulf War. So the public is beginning to make up its mind; and it's getting close, but the public still wants to know more, and most people, many people still say they haven't fully considered this.
JIM LEHRER: You read it the same way?
STEVEN KULL: That sounds about right.
JIM LEHRER: What is the main unknown that concerns people, based on your reading of the polls, Steven?
STEVEN KULL: They want to go through the process of inspections and seeking disarmament through the UN process that's out there. They're not eager to take action now, if it takes some time, that's okay. If we go through that process, then afterwards they say okay, if it fails, if Saddam Hussein blocks us and doesn't cooperate, then you get very strong levels of support, they got up to three quarters, close to 80% saying under those conditions in a multilateral context we would support going ahead. But they're not, they don't feel an urgency at this point.
JIM LEHRER: To do it right now?
STEVEN KULL: Right.
JIM LEHRER: Your reading, where does Congress fit into this in terms of the public mine?
STEVEN KULL: They don't feel that the President -- should just give a blank check to the President. 60% said they should retain the right to vote -- unless there is, it says that the UN has to approve it. Under those circ*mstances, then about three quarters would say okay, well, then go ahead and Congress can give the President the power.
JIM LEHRER: In other words, Congress the U.S. can do it without the UN consent, is that what you're saying?
STEVEN KULL: No, it must be with UN consent
JIM LEHRER: With UN consent.
STEVEN KULL: -- or let Congress decide later. One or the other has to decide later, they're not ready to just give it all over to the President at this point.
JIM LEHRER: Do you read it the same way, Andy?
ANDREW KOHUT: Yes. The public wants the Congress to put some restrictions on -- on the use of force for the President. They feel the administration may be pushing too fast for war and may want to do it alone. I'm not so sure that the public requires that there be a UN resolution. I think UN opposition on the other hand would kill support, American support for the use of force. But the public wants -- certainly wants a sense that our major allies are there with us, and they certainly would object to UN opposition to a, to an American effort in Iraq.
JIM LEHRER: All right. To both of you, in a general way, I know you all are numbers guys rather than emotion people, but can you read from these polls how strongly these views are held by those who hold them? In other words, people who are very strong in favor of military action, those who may be opposed to military action, those who do not want unilateral, is there any way to read this, or is it a fluid kind of soft feeling? What have you got when you read all these things, Andy, just in terms of tone?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, I think opinions are getting stronger by the day. People are listening to the debate, people care a great deal about this. This opinion is the, the support for the use of force and the consideration of Iraq is really about in response to the 9/11 attacks. The American public is saying to its government, protect us. And people have begun to feel really strongly about it, they haven't answered all of the questions to their own satisfaction. But we're not calling people up and getting some opinion off the top of their head that they haven't thought about, for the most part.
JIM LEHRER: How would you answer this?
STEVEN KULL: They're clear, though, where they want to go now, which is down this path with the UN, so they're not necessarily troubled. If it got to the point where the UN was not coming together, was not coming to a conclusion, and it was a choice they would have to make between going unilaterally or not at all, then I think they would be troubled. But at this point they know what the next step they want to see is.
JIM LEHRER: And do you feel these views are strongly held?
STEVEN KULL: The support for the concerns is very strong about Saddam Hussein; the support for acting multilateral is very strong. And right now those are compatible. At some point in the future they may not be compatible and then it will be a question of which one is stronger.
JIM LEHRER: Okay, gentlemen, thank you both very much.
FOCUS GOING HOME
JIM LEHRER: And now Iraq three: A Washington state Congressman's return to his district after he suggested President Bush is misleading Americans about the need for war in Iraq. Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Broadcasting has our report. (Cheers)
LEE HOCHBERG: For Seattle area Congressman Jim McDermott, the reaction he got at yesterday's anti-war protest in his home district was a welcome change from the criticism he's attracted in recent days.
SEN. JIM McDERMOTT: Thanks for coming out. Thank you.
MAN: Thanks for speaking for me.
MAN: Thank you.
MAN: Stand your ground.
MAN: Thank you for taking so much heat.
MAN: Yeah, that's all right.
PROTESTORS ( Chanting ): No endless war! Not in our name! No endless war! Not in our name!
LEE HOCHBERG: McDermott has become a lightning rod in the debate over a U.S. invasion of Iraq. He went to Iraq recently with two other Congressmen. While he was there, he called for unfettered inspections, but also was critical of President Bush.
SEN. JIM McDERMOTT: It would not surprise me if they came with some information that is not provable. I think the President would mislead the American people.
LEE HOCHBERG: Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott immediately attacked him for country sizing President Bush while on Iraqi soil.
SEN. TRENT LOTT: To be questioning the veracity of our own American President is the height of irresponsible. He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut.
LEE HOCHBERG: "Washington Post" columnist George Will wrote, "not since Jane Fonda posed for photographers at a Hanoi anti- aircraft gun has there been anything like Representative Jim McDermott." McDermott says the criticism is scurrilous.
REP. JIM McDERMOTT: The United States was at war in Vietnam. People were being killed on a daily basis when Jane Fonda went over there and did what she did. We're not at war, so I'm not undercutting the troops, nor am I undercutting the President By raising the question.
PROTESTORS ( Chanting ): No more war!
LEE HOCHBERG: The seven-time Congressman, a Navy psychiatrist who treated casualties during the Vietnam War, says he speaks for millions of Americans to whom the President's reasons for going to war make no sense.
REP. JIM McDERMOTT: I don't trust. I want proof. And from my point of view, the President has not made a sufficient case, and I think everybody should be skeptical. This intensity of wanting to go to war, I mean, this is Vietnam all over again. "Very upset with Jim's traitorous action." "Opposed to Jim's action, treason." "You, sir, are a disgrace to this country. You, sir, need the services of your fellow psychiatrists."
LEE HOCHBERG: In the week since his comments about the President, McDermott's office says it's received more than 2,000 phone calls and letters. Mail from outside his district is evenly divided for and against him, but within his liberal district, where he's always elected by strong majorities, he says 60% of the letters and 90% of the phone messages were supportive.
REP. JIM McDERMOTT: I think they... they are... were so relieved actually or empowered by somebody actually raising some questions out loud, when out leadership was going one way, going with the President. There's a lot of people here who don't have anybody representing them.
KWAME HOLMAN: Those locally who took issue with the Congressman's remarks were more upset where he spoke than by what he said. Newspaper columnist Joel Connelly, a longtime admirer of McDermott, said the Congressman handed Saddam Hussein a propaganda coup.
JOEL CONNELLY, Seattle Post-Intelligencer: A totalitarian state is an echo chamber, where basically they are repeating the same message over and over and over again to their people. And if they can find a United States Congressman who even appears for a millisecond to support that propaganda line, I think you give them a victory and you give them a certain amount of reinforcement.
LEE HOCHBERG: But even the "Seattle Times," which endorsed George Bush when he ran for President, praised McDermott last week for igniting the discussion. Washington State Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt notes McDermott's same remarks were virtually ignored when he made them ten days earlier in Washington, D.C.
PAUL BERENDT, Washington State Democratic Chairman: It was a dramatic action to go to Iraq to speak out on the war, but it had to happen, because if he hadn't gone there, they would have silenced this debate, they would have jammed through this resolution, and there would have never been a real discussion about the merits of this issue.
SPOKESMAN: Get a million people in Washington, D.C., a million- person march, and do it now, because we don't have time.
LEE HOCHBERG: And at appearances in Seattle this weekend, he received enthusiastic and heartfelt support for his stand. Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, visiting Seattle to speak about inspections, saluted McDermott and chided those who attacked him.
SCOTT RITTER: My God, when Senator Trent Lott stands up and comes after him, that's an assault on democracy right there is to have a fellow elected representative dare... dare question the loyalty of a man who is simply trying to gather information on behalf of his constituents.
LEE HOCHBERG: At a town meeting yesterday in Seattle, most of the crowd of 150 came out to support him.
MAN IN CROWD: Yes, first of all, I just want to thank you for your courage. ( Applause )
LEE HOCHBERG: Though a few signs in the room labeled him "Jihad Jim."
ANOTHER MAN: And I think you and members of your party would risk the lives of our servicemen and mislead the American people to get yourselves in the headlines. When or if Hussein develops nuclear weapons, do you have any doubt they'll be used against his own population or other countries?
LEE HOCHBERG: But most of the people at this meeting and across Seattle give McDermott enthusiastic support.
REP. JIM McDERMOTT: We have a President who says, "I can go to war without the Congress." (Crowed yells "no!" )
LEE HOCHBERG: He says he'll continue his campaign against the President's military plans, both in his district and in the nation's capital. He plans to vote no on Congress' upcoming vote on using military force in Iraq.
JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a Supreme Court preview, and an angry farmers update.
FOCUS- FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER
JIM LEHRER: The U.S. Supreme Court opened for business today, as it does every first Monday in October. Gwen Ifill has the story.
GWEN IFILL: The Supreme Court returning to session today is one of the most stable in years, together as a group since 1994. This term the nine Justices are poised to make history in a number of pivotal and high- profile cases touching on elections law, states rights, affirmative action, civil liberties, and free speech in cases from states throughout the union.
Here to take us on a tour on this first Monday in October is NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, who covers the Supreme Court for the "Chicago Tribune."
Jan, let's just start off by talking about the terrorism cases, there are at least not at the Court yet but potentially coming to the Court some post-9/11 cases.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that's right, and there's no question that the Supreme Court this term will be asked to decide how to balance security on the one hand with concern for civil liberties on the other. One case that I expect the Court to be asked to review this term involves the Bush Administration policy of closing deportation hearings for hundreds of Immigrants who are detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Two different federal appeals courts have taken up that issue, one has ruled that it's unconstitutional, another -- the decision now is pending. So that's one I think the court will take up this term. Another September 11 case that had a balance again, the government's concerns with combating terrorism against concerns for civil liberties involves the holding of American citizens who are designated as enemy combatants who can be held in military custody without consulting a lawyer or being charged with a crime.
GWEN IFILL: Another old reliable constitutional matter for the Court is the matter of free speech -- this time on cases as disparate as cross burning and campaign finance reform.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. Now the Court has already announced that it will hear a challenge involving a Virginia law that made it a crime to burn a cross with the intent to intimidate someone. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down that 50-year-old Virginia state law ruling that it violated the First Amendment, that it infringed on free speech. A man had challenged that law after burning a cross at a clan rally and being convicted for violating that law. So the Court will take that decision up. Now the campaign finance reform case is still in the area of the terrorism cases. The Court hasn't announced it will review it, but many observers believe that will get to the Court this term as well, it involves a First Amendment challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, McCain-Feingold as it's known, and that's under First Amendment attack as well.
GWEN IFILL: Let's hop around the country to some of the other big cases, in California it's the three strikes law.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. Courts wading into the area of sentencing and criminal sentencing will look at whether or not California's controversial three strikes law, which would impose lengthy prison sentences, sometimes life in prison for such crimes as in the case before the court of stealing three golf clubs from a pro shop, or in another case before the Court, a man who walked out of two K-mart stores with nine videotapes. Those two defendants have argued that the California three strikes law violate the Constitution's 8th Amendment; and that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
GWEN IFILL: And last, in Connecticut, there are copycat laws of Megan's Law, the New Jersey law.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. All 50 states have Megan's laws, which, as you know, are named after the 7-year-old New Jersey girl who was raped and killed by a neighbor, who unbeknownst to Megan's parents was a convicted sex offender. All states have passed these laws requiring convicted sex offenders to register, and then the community can be notified if they've moved into the neighborhoods. The Alaska law is a challenge by defendant who committed the crime before this sex offender law --notification law took effect. He said it's therefore unconstitutional to make him be part of the registry. The Connecticut challenge is a slightly different challenge to its Megan's law, a man there is arguing that Connecticut -- like 20 other states that have similar laws -- must give some indication that he's at risk for committing crimes in the future.
GWEN IFILL: In Kentucky the court is being asked to consider a case involving health maintenance organizations, HMO's?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. And whether or not a state law there that allows patients, and requires HMO's to allow patients to consult with a doctor of their choice, whether that law is pre-empted by a federal law, the HMO's argue that it is pre-empted by a federal law so, the court will weigh back into state efforts to regulate managed care.
GWEN IFILL: Also kind of on a health related issue, in Nevada there's a challenge to the family medical leave law, whether states can be held responsible for enforcing a federal statute?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that's right. And this gets us back into a slightly different area that has captivated this Court in recent terms and whether or not Congress can essentially bend states to its will. This case involves the Family Medical Leave Act and whether or not Congress can make states subject to lawsuits by state employees under that law. Obviously, Nevada is arguing that it should not be subject to lawsuits under the Family Medical Leave Act. And the Court has been sensitive and sympathetic to arguments in previous terms that have been made by other states involving different statutes, age discrimination, disability discrimination, so this one will be an important case to see if the Court is going to go that next step.
GWEN IFILL: In Maine, the Court is being asked to take up an issue, which Congress hasn't gotten to and that's making prescription drugs affordable?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right, and this is like the managed care case from Kentucky, states stepping into areas where Congress hasn't yet acted. Maine officials are trying to make and lower the cost of prescription drugs, but the drug manufacturers argue in their challenge to this law that essentially the state is forcing them to rebate the cost of these drugs to make them affordable to consumers who are not covered by Medicaid. They argue that that vile late the Constitution as well as the federal Medicaid law.
GWEN IFILL: There's a big case, which the court has not decided to take, in fact, it hasn't even come to them yet, affirmative action involving the University of Michigan Law School admissions there? Is that, that is also kind of looming, isn't it?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That case I think could define the term, and I think the Court is highly likely to take up that case. Already the Court has got the papers in that case and it is now going to decide whether or not it wants to get involved. It involves the use of race in university admissions policies and in specifically the University of Michigan's Law School admissions policy. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld that policy, and it agreed with the university's argument that it could use race as one of a number of factors in considering potential applicants, because it was an important interest to consider and have a diverse student body. Now that decision is in direct conflict with another ruling in 1996 by a New Orleans federal appeals court. That federal appeals court struck down the University of Texas Law School's use of race in admissions policy. So we have two competing decisions, and the issue is now before the court and it will announce in months to come whether it will get involved in that issue.
GWEN IFILL: And it's those two competing issues, which make it right for the Supreme Court --
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's one thing that they certainly look to in deciding whether or not to take up a case. And this is an issue this has caused great confusion in the lower courts and one where certainly Supreme Court guidance is needed.
GWEN IFILL: Today the Court actually by not taking action took action, which is they decided not to take up a New Jersey case involving the replacement of Senator Bob Torricelli on the ballot, which has conjured up all kinds of echoes of the year 2000 in the Bush V. Gore. I don't want to ask you if you expected the Court to take it because of course you can't read those minds.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: You can't and certainly the Court like anyone else is capable of surprising us. But I don't think anyone, I can't name any court watchers who thought that the Justices would get involved in this case. For one thing the stakes weren't quite as high, it wasn't a contested presidential election, and I think, more importantly, many court watchers cannot emphasize enough that Bush versus Gore is a decision that the Justices have put behind them and they would like it to stay there. They found that decision to be highly divisive on the Court, they expended an enormous amount of institutional integrity on that decision. And while the Republicans in the Torricelli case had argued that Bush versus Gore had to pave the way for the challenge in this case, it didn't seem to many observers that the Court was really wanting to go down that road.
GWEN IFILL: So that's the end of the legal line for Republican challengers?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: In this case it is, right.
GWEN IFILL: Okay. One final thing: Every time the Court begins the session, we always look and we talked about how stable this court has been. Everybody begins to think, well, who's the next retirement, what's the next big shakeup in the Court. Were there any kind of hints from inside the chamber today?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It's funny you ask that because normally we have no indication, and that's one of the things that one of the most closely held secrets in Washington, one of the few surprises that we ever get. So of course today we're in the courtroom, first Monday of October, it's exciting, you're back to business, and the Chief Justice announces it's the start of a new term, and then he said I would also like to, the Court will note today the retirement of Chief Justice... and people literally, you know, there was almost a gasp among the press corps and court personnel, and then he stopped and corrected himself and said, chief deputy clerk, Frank Larson, who has been a long-time almost a fixture at the Court who retired after more than 30 years. But whether or not that's a Freudian slip, your guess is as good as mine.
GWEN IFILL: Is the Chief Justice trying to tell us something?
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, he's certainly one that people have long at least for the last couple of terms -- said may be at the top of the list for retirement. And as historic as I think this term has the potential to be, with all the cases that we've just talked about, if the Chief Justice announces his retirement next spring, it will ratchet it up even further.
GWEN IFILL: Okay, well, we'll be talking about this very interesting year to come. Jan Crawford Greenburg, thank you very much for joining us.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: You're welcome.
UPDATE ANGRY HARVEST
JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the continuing fallout from a lawsuit brought by African-American farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Betty Ann Bowser first reported on this story three years ago. And here's her update.
MAN: Hey, man, how you doing?
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Abraham Carpenter runs one of the largest vegetable farms in Arkansas. Every Tuesday morning, he travels to Little Rock to sell produce that has been picked in his fields the day before. But it hasn't been easy for Carpenter. He and other African American farmers say they were financially ruined because officials at local offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against them over the last 20 years, denying all kinds of farm loans. When we first met Carpenter three years ago, he described how the agency stopped payment on federal disaster loans after a drought ruined his crops. The USDA's action destroyed his credit and cost him nearly a half million dollars. He said it happened because of outright discrimination.
ABRAHAM CARPENTER, Farmer: You've got people in the state office, you know, saying that, "that nigg*r should have been satisfied with $100,000 instead of trying to get $500,000." Or they might say, "We're going to cut that nigg*r's money off and see how he's going to buy business and buy land."
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Carpenter and other farmers filed a class-action lawsuit, and in 1999, the Clinton administration admitted that USDA loan practices had been discriminatory. Then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced the settlement.
DAN GLICKMAN: (1999) It is an agreement that will close a painful chapter in USDA's history and open a more constructive front in our efforts to see this department emerge as the federal civil rights leader in the 21st century.
SPOKESMAN: We need to show what effect that discrimination was in your pocket.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Unlike most class- action lawsuits in which plaintiffs divide a sum of money, this settlement required that each farmer prove he'd been personally discriminated against. Lawyers fanned out across the country to help process claims. Farmers had two choices: Under so-called track "a," farmers would provide minimal documentation of discrimination and receive a $50,000 cash payment and forgiveness of all outstanding USDA loans. Under track "b," more extensive documentation was required to receive a higher level of compensation. Carpenter and his family chose the first option, as did 98% of the farmers.
ABRAHAM CARPENTER: We thought we could just easily zip in and zip out, you know, get the approval, get the debt relief, and be done with it; but it turned out that we were denied.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Carpenter is not alone. Of the 22,000 who filed track "a" claims, 40% have been denied because the government said they didn't prove their cases. And although nearly 13,000 farmers have been paid a total of $623 million by the USDA, thousands of others are unhappy with the lawsuit's outcome.
PROTESTORS: (singing) Ain't gonna let USDA Turn me 'round turn me 'round...
BETTY ANN BOWSER: For the last several months, they've been staging protests around the country. In September, they gathered outside Carpenter's local USDA Office in Star City.
PROTESTOR: I'm saddened by the fact that I even have to be here today to appeal to our United States government to treat us fairly. It's three years since the lawsuit been settled and we don't have a dime yet. That's totally ridiculous.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: James Beverly was among the protesters. He is a fourth generation farmer from Virginia, but had to get out of farming after he was repeatedly turned down for USDA loans.
JAMES BEVERLY, Farmer: I was denied in '81, '82, '83, and '84. And they, you know, never gave me my money. So then I joined the lawsuit, thinking that I would get some type of justice in reference to the discrimination that had been levied against me.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Beverly's claim was also rejected. He's appealing and says he can't farm unless he gets the money. Blacks now make up less than 1% of the nation's 1.9 million farmers, and they are going out of business at a rate twice that of white farmers. The Clinton administration settlement was intended to help stop that trend, not only by providing farmers with money, but also by making changes in the way local USDA offices operated. But that hasn't happened, according to Ephron Lewis.
EPHRON LEWIS: They haven't fired anybody. I don't think they had a thought of firing anybody after the settlement.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Lewis is a rice farmer near Forest City, Arkansas. When we met him three years ago after the settlement was announced, he was very optimistic that operations in the local offices would improve, but he now says things have actually gotten worse for many black farmers.
EPHRON LEWIS: They are having problems with getting their loans approved on time. You go in and wait and go in and wait and they kind of sit on your loan. So these are some of the things that are giving us problems these days.
PROTESTORS: We want action. We want action.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Jim Little heads the Farm Service Agency, which administers USDA Loans. He spoke to the farmers at the Arkansas rally.
JIM LITTLE: We realize that there are concerns with management, and I want you to know that we're taking action.
MAN: I've been discriminated against all the way.
JIM LITTLE: I understand.
MAN: Okay.
JIM LITTLE: And that's why I'm here.
MAN: All the way.
JIM LITTLE: I want to see first-hand what some of the issues are.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Little does admit that there are still a lot of problems with the way local USDA Offices operate.
JIM LITTLE: We have administrative concerns, employment concerns, discrimination against black farmers, loans not being processed timely. We want to get to the root of it, and if there's continued to be discrimination in county offices, we want to tackle it.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Officials at the USDA say they are going to put renewed emphasis on training local employees to be more sensitive to farmers' needs. Jim Moseley is the deputy secretary.
JIM MOSELEY: We want to make sure that the employees within the Farm Service Agency really do understand what discrimination is: What's the law? What are their obligations? And again, it's an effort to make sure that we get at the question of what's the attitude and what's the behavior that's expressed as a result of that attitude with regard to discrimination. We want those employees to understand it will not be tolerated.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Alexander Pires hopes things really are changing. But, like the farmers, he's skeptical. He's the lead attorney in the farmers' lawsuit. He said the USDA has challenged the farmers' evidence of discrimination in every claim.
ALEXANDER PIRES, Attorney: They fought everybody tooth and nail, and they spent millions and millions of dollars fighting every case. Every single case they fought. They contested every case. By appealing every single case, the government has sent a... the wrong signal to black America.
JIM MOSELEY: I would not characterize it as fighting those claims. I would characterize it as providing the necessary information that the fact finder and the arbitrator needed to make a determination. And, in fact, that is our responsibility.
ALEXANDER PIRES: Because we're going to be there and...
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Pires himself has been blamed by many of the farmers for the high rate of rejected claims, saying he made too many clerical mistakes, missed too many deadlines, and now has completely abandoned them.
JAMES BEVERLY: As time has gone on, there's no other conclusion that I can draw other than that Mr. Pires was in this only for the money.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: While Pires denies he's gotten rich from the case, he does admit he made some mistakes. But he also thinks the farmers have unrealistic expectations for the lawsuit.
ALEXANDER PIRES: Black people want the case to be more than just what it was. They want it to be a reparations case. It's not. They want it to be a return of the land case. It's not. They want it to be a dismantling of USDA's structure case. It's not. They want it to be all those things. It's none of those things. It's just a simple loan discrimination case.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But the black farmers say that "simple case" has large consequences, and they plan to continue their protests at USDA offices until their demands are met.
FINALLY SINKING FEELING
JIM LEHRER: And before we go tonight, some poetry; it was yet another day of losses on the stock market, leaving the Dow Jones Industrial Average at a five-year low. Former poet laureate Robert Pinsky finds some solace in verse.
ROBERT PINSKY: One of the truisms about the stock market is the clich that whatever rises must fall. William Wordsworth sonnet, "Mutability," puts that idea memorably, with some good terms for avarice and heating, too. The poem, a commentary on highs and lows, begins:
From low to high doth dissolution climb, And sink from high to low, along a scale Of awful notes, whose concord shall not fail; A musical but melancholy chime, Which they can hear who meddle not with crime, Nor avarice, nor over-anxious care.
ROBERT PINSKY: In the rest of the poem, Wordsworth moralizes that time catches up with anything -- and eventually exposes the difference between truth and baloney that pretends to be truth.
Truth fails not; but her outward forms that bear The longest date do melt like frosty rime, That in the morning whiten'd hill and plain And is no more; drop like the tower sublime Of yesterday, which royally did wear His crown of weeds, but could not even sustain Some casual shout that broke the silent air, Or the unimaginable touch of Time.
ROBERT PINSKY: The unimaginable touch of time. That's almost as though he were reading the business pages of the 180 years ahead.
RECAP
JIM LEHRER: Again the major developments of this day: President Bush drew fire from some Senate Democrats, and new support from House Majority Leader Dick Armey for his Iraq policy. The President also made the first move toward reopening 29 West Coast ports. They've been shut down in a labor dispute. And Israeli tanks and helicopters killed at least 14 Palestinians and wounded more than 100 during a raid in the Gaza Strip. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.
