The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Anthony Lewis and Stuart Taylor peruse the latest developments in the investigation of the investigator, Kenneth Starr. Paul Solman chronicles the return of Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman." Education Secretary Riley and Congressman Goodling disagree about federal support for education. And Fred de Sam Lazaro tells a story of poisoned water in Bangladesh. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The senate continued its closed-door impeachment deliberations today. Majority Leader Lott said a final vote on the two articles of impeachment could come as early as Thursday evening. Three Republicans -- Jeffords of Vermont, Specter of Pennsylvania, and Chafee of Rhode Island -- announced they will vote against conviction and removing President Clinton from office. Specter said this to reporter s:

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I think it is important to make a distinction that I do not believe the president is not guilty. I believe that there's been a pseudotrial, or as I say in my statement, really a sham trial and it's a trial on which you can't really come to a verdict because of the absence of witnesses and the absence of relevant evidence. And to register that protest in a legal context with Scottish precedent I'm saying not proved.

JIM LEHRER: Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin read his floor statement to reporters. He criticized Kenneth Starr as being "out of control." We'll have more on the Starr story right after this news summary. American Airlines pilots were ordered today to end a work slowdown. A federal judge in Texas also told both sides to resume bargaining. 900 flights were canceled because pilots called in sick or refused overtime. 2,500 flights were dropped this week, disrupting travel for 200,000 passengers. In France today, rescue workers called off the search for survivors of two avalanches that struck near the Alpine Ski Resort Chamonix. Ten people were killed; two others remain missing. We have more from Bill Neely of Independent Television News.

BILL NEELY, ITN: These heaps of shattered wood and rubble and snow were once chalets, each with a dozen or more rooms. Today, they are like match wood; outside, bedding, clothes-- whatever's left after an avalanche without precedent.

ALICIA BOYES, Avalanche Survivor: We were sitting there on the couch, and just like a normal afternoon. The next thing we saw was the windows were turning black, and a cloud of snow came in, and it was black, you know, and we were pushed into the corner; the roof collapsed on us.

NATHAN WALLACE, Avalanche Survivor: We were sitting underneath the concrete block two feet above our heads, and we were alive, but then you hear the machines on top, and you don't know. We didn't know for an hour and a half that the machines were going to cause the roof to collapse on top of us, or the digging would cause the other concrete blocks to crush us.

BILL NELLY: 20 people have been pulled out of all of this alive, including at least eight children. Suspended from underneath helicopters, the rescuers carry whatever digging equipment they can into an area that's almost impossible to reach by road. Other helicopters try to free dangerous blocks of loose snow with propellers and with explosive devises. The force of the avalanche was enormous, a block of snow 600 feet across and 100 feet deep traveling at 60 miles an hour; ahead of it, a gale that stripped trees and just blew down buildings.

JIM LEHRER: U.S. aircraft fired missiles at two more air defense sites in the southern no-fly zone of Iraq today. U.S. Officials said they were responding to three separate provocations by Iraqi jets entering restricted airspace. The U.S. pilots returned safely. On Kosovo today, Serbs and Albanian Kosovars remained far apart at peace talks in France. In Belgrade, Yugoslav President Milosevic demanded all participants swear that Kosovo will remain part of Yugoslavia, but the Albanians pushed for a referendum on independence. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to investigating the investigator, the return of the "Salesman," some politics of education, and bad water in Bangladesh.

FOCUS - INVESTIGATING THE INVESTIGATOR

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner begins our coverage of the Kenneth Starr investigation story.

MARGARET WARNER: As the senate winds up its impeachment trial of the president, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is coming under investigation on a growing number of fronts. Today's "New York Times" reported the Justice Department has decided to open an inquiry into whether Starr's prosecutors misled Attorney General Janet Reno about possible conflicts of interest when they obtained permission to investigate the Lewinsky matter in January 1998. At issue, the "Times" said, is whether Starr's "prosecutors should have disclosed the contacts between Mr. Starr's office and the Paula Jones legal team" in the weeks leading up to Starr's request to expand his inquiry into the Lewinsky affair. According to the "Times," Starr's prosecutors denied any such contacts at the time, but subsequent news stories have reported otherwise. Starr spokesman Charles Bakaly would not comment to the "Times" about whether the Department was opening an inquiry. But Bakaly insisted, "there was no misleading of justice." Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa jumped on the "Times" story this morning.

SEN. TOM HARKIN, [D] Iowa: And if you believe the rule of law applies not only to the defendant-- the president, in this case-- but also to the prosecutors and those sworn to uphold that rule of law, then it is important to look at how this case got here. It's interesting to note that in today's February 10th "New York Times," "the conduct of the independent counsel is so suspect and potentially violative of Justice Department policy and law that now he is under investigation for a number of reasons."

MARGARET WARNER: In a related matter, the "Washington Post" reported yesterday that the Justice Department is asking "Starr to respond to allegations that his prosecutors violated department procedures when they first confronted Monica Lewinsky last year." Among the issues, according to the "Post," is whether Starr's prosecutors acted improperly when they discussed a potential immunity deal with Lewinsky without her lawyer being present. Starr has repeatedly denied any impropriety in the way his office handled Lewinsky. The Justice Department has only limited authority over an independent counsel. The law says an attorney general may remove an independent counsel for cause, subject to review by a judicial panel, if the attorney general finds the independent counsel has been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. No other disciplinary action is authorized. Last week, Independent Counsel Starr drew fire on yet another matter. The "New York Times" reported that "Starr has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of President Clinton before he leaves the White House in January 2001." The article cited as its sources "several associates of Mr. Starr." The next day, the president's lawyer, David Kendall, announced he would ask a federal judge to hold Starr and his staff in contempt for leaking grand jury information to the "Times."

DAVID KENDALL, President Clinton's Lawyer: The office of independent counsel has once again engaged in illegal and partisan leaking as manifested by yesterday's page-one story in the "New York Times" headline: "Starr is weighing whether to indict sitting president." We're filing today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a motion to show cause why independent Starr and members of his staff should not be held in contempt for improper violations of grand jury secrecy.

MARGARET WARNER: Starr spokesman Charles Bakaly responded on ABC's "Good Morning America."

CHARLES BAKALY: We did not leak this information and that's all I can say about that.

MARGARET WARNER: Separately, a special master appointed by federal Judge Norma Hollaway Johnson last fall is believed to be still investigating whether Starr or his deputies improperly leaked grand jury material about the Lewinsky probe to the press.

JIM LEHRER: Now the perspective of two columnists who feel very differently about Kenneth Starr and have expressed those differences in print and on this program before -- Anthony Lewis of the "New York Times" and Stuart Taylor of the "National Journal" and "Newsweek." Gentlemen, let's begin with the last question and work back. Should Attorney General Reno remove Ken Starr, Tony Lewis?

ANTHONY LEWIS: I think it's a little soon to answer that question, but I think that the reasons for removing him are adding up. I think it's quite clear that he leaked, Steve Brill's magazine "Content" showed, I thought, conclusively that Starr's deputy, Jackie Bennett, Jr., leaked wholesale when all this began a year ago, just limiting it to that. I think it's absolutely clear that his deputies and FBI agents violated Monica Lewinsky's rights and specific -- a specific Justice Department rule against making an immunity deal with a person who has a lawyer unless that lawyer is present. And, of course, they did all they could to keep Monica from talking to her lawyer. That was a clear violation, I think. And now we have this ethical question, the fact is that between November and January a year ago, at least one lawyer in Mr. Starr's office was in communication with a lawyer who was advising the Paula Jones lawyers and had been for years and that contact was not disclosed to Janet Reno's deputy, Eric Holder, when permission was granted by the Justice Department for Starr to extend his inquiry from Watergate into the Monica matter. And, you know, the rules simply bar that kind of ethical violation. It's not just that there's a conflict of interest, the rules bar something that would have the appearance of a conflict and that certainly had that appearance.

JIM LEHRER: Stuart, let's take that specific one, today's and work back to the general question. Do you read it the same way Tony Lewis does, this contact between the lawyers, et cetera?

STUART TAYLOR: Let me rewind the clock. I think if he did all these things that Tony says, he should be removed but I think there's no evidence that he's done any of them or at least certainly not substantiated. To start with the last, what we have are charges in the "New York Times," which I think has been very free in making unsubstantiated charges against Starr, now being investigated by the Justice Department, which probably should investigate them, that Starr, in essence, was colluding through his subordinate, Paul Rosenzweig with Paula Jones' lawyers. Now today Jackie Bennett, Jr., who Tony mentioned a moment ago -- after I pounded on them to respond to this - said -

JIM LEHRER: Just by phone, you called him on the phone?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. And I said, "come on, this has been floating around for a long time, what have you got to say?" He said, "we neither lied to nor misled the Justice Department and they know it." And where this fits in is that the whole charge is that they were [a] engaged in collusion with the Paula Jones lawyers from November to January of -- November of 1997 and [b], that they hid it from the Justice Department. Well, they certainly didn't tell the Justice Department we've been in collusion with Paula Jones's lawyers; they said they hadn't. So the question is were there? If they were in collusion with Paula Jones's lawyers, then I would agree with Tony that they misled the Justice Department and that's serious. But I think there's no strong evidence that they were in collusion and I'll detail that if you'd like.

JIM LEHRER: Why is that important -- that if, in fact, there was this contact ahead of time before Starr went to Janet Reno and one of his lawyers had, in fact, been in contact with a lawyer for Paula Jones, why is that a big deal?

STUART TAYLOR: I think it's initially at least troubling because it raises the specter-- if it happened and I don't think it did -

JIM LEHRER: Okay. If it happened.

STUART TAYLOR: -- and if it happened in a substantial way -- well, were they sort of plotting to trap the president somehow? Let's get Paula Jones' lawyers and Linda Tripp and Starr together and see how we can get a trap. That's sort of been the underlying suspicion that's fueled this conspiracy theorizing, and that would be troublesome and it would be especially troublesome because now, since Starr never disclosed to the Justice Department, has forthrightly denied it, the question would be, if they had such contacts and there were nothing wrong with them, why didn't they just admit it? So the real question is, if they had substantive collusive contacts with Paula Jones' lawyers, I agree with Tony that it would be possibly cause for removal. I don't think there's any substantial evidence that they did and I can run through the details.

JIM LEHRER: I'm going to ask you to do that in a moment. Your point, Tony Lewis, is that based on at least what your newspaper reported on the front page today that there may be evidence of that, right, or is it still an unresolved issue for you as well?

ANTHONY LEWIS: Well, there's no doubt that it isn't just a collusive or conspiratorial contact, as Stuart said. Starr's deputy, Jackie Bennett, according to one of his own colleague's notes quoted in the "Times" today said at that meeting, "We've had no contact with the plaintiff's attorneys. We're concerned about appearances, so if it had any contact, that statement was false and misled the Justice Department. Thousand, I can't prove they had a contact, that's a matter for the investigation. But it's been quite fully reported by a number of people with the names.

JIM LEHRER: You've looked at it and you don't think the case has been made yet?

STUART TAYLOR: Well, let's talk about what happened. Paul Rosenzweig was a close friend of Jerome Marcus. Jerome Marcus, we now know, was secretly working with the Paula Jones lawyers. Paul Rosenzweig in November of '97 went to work in Starr's office. I believe there's no -- I have heard it said --although I haven't talked to Rosenzweig -- that he denies having discussions with Jerome Marcus about the Paula Jones case - after - during the relevant period of time -- with the exception of one on January 8th, just before Linda Tripp showed up. He may have talked to him, they're friends, friends talk. But he -- my impression is that, according to Rosenzweig's story, they didn't talk about the Paula Jones case. And the other point, and as Tony points out, Jackie Bennett said we had no conversations with the Paula Jones lawyers. Well, they did have a conversation with these lawyers on January 8th. How do you square that? One way you might square sit that it was a secret at the time from the world that this fellow, Marcus, was working with Paula Jones. Maybe Rosenzweig didn't know he was. Maybe if Rosenzweig knew, he didn't tell anyone else in his office.

ANTHONY LEWIS: Can I - Jim -

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

ANTHONY LEWIS: I'd like to say something a little broader on why this is important because if, in fact, the ethical rules barred Kenneth Starr from taking on that case a year ago January, I don't think we'd be where we are for a simple reason: In my judgment, a professional prosecutor would never have taken on this matter -- would never have responded to Linda Tripp's tapes by saying we're going to investigate the president. He'd have told Linda Tripp to go peddle her tapes. I've said in a column and this I -- it's a bit awkward quoting myself but I have a reason.

JIM LEHRER: It's all right.

ANTHONY LEWIS: Last October, I said that in a column. And I used an example. I said, I didn't believe, for example, that Robert Morgenthau, the district attorney of New York County and one of the most respected prosecutors in the country, would have investigated such a case after Linda Tripp brought the tapes -- would have regarded it as beneath investigation. And Ihadn't talked to Morgenthau. The next day I got a phone call and the secretary said Mr. Morgenthau wants to talk to you. And I thought, oh, dear, I got it wrong. He got on the phone and said, "you're right."

STUART TAYLOR: May I offer a counter example?

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

STUART TAYLOR: Henry Ruth. Henry Ruth, who is a deputy to Archibald Cox, that's Watergate's special prosecutor, he took over the office after the Saturday night massacre, he became the deputy to Leon Jaworski and then he became the Watergate special prosecutor. He's a liberal to moderate Democrat, who wrote a series of articles in the past year taking very seriously the need -- I don't know if he specifically said yeah, if I'd been Starr I would have investigated this. But he certainly said that he thinks there's very serious evidence that crimes were committed, serious crimes, Watergate-type crimes. So there's one. I've talked to others. Just to double back to one point since Tony accused Jackie Bennett of illegal grand jury leaks. That's been denied, it's never been proven. There's lots of allegations, never any proof. I would be surprised if it ever turns out when the litigation is finished if that's what the courts hold, but we don't know. Tony also said that they clearly violated Monica Lewinsky's rights, by which I assume he may have been referring to her constitutional rights. Judge Norma Holloway Johnson had that case litigated before her, she held that they very clearly did not violate Monica Lewinsky's rights.

ANTHONY LEWIS: But, Stuart, at the time that Judge Johnson made that ruling -

JIM LEHRER: Let him finish.

ANTHONY LEWIS: -- it was on a collateral matter and she didn't have facts before her and, in fact, she expressed concern about the matter that I mentioned before, the trying to get Monica to sign an immunity agreements which is specifically forbidden by Justice Department rules.

STUART TAYLOR: Let me address that. Judge Johnson did say she's troubled by that. That's not a matter of Monica Lewinsky's constitutional rights.

ANTHONY LEWIS: No. I agree, that's the rules.

JIM LEHRER: Hold on, Tony. Let him finish here.

ANTHONY LEWIS: Sorry.

STUART TAYLOR: My understanding of the facts is there may have been a mention in the course of this long conversation with Monica Lewinsky on January 16th that, well, maybe we could have an immunity agreement. It didn't go anywhere, they didn't agree to immunity, she got a lawyer, it took many months before they actually had an immunity agreement. If there is a technical violation there, it was not a very serious one and no harm came of it.

JIM LEHRER: Look, we're not going to be able to resolve all of these individual issues tonight but I want to get -- go to the broader - back to the broader issue. Is it time, Tony, for whatever -- however he got there and all of that, that will all be sorted out somewhere, is it time now for Kenneth Starr to go one way or another, either on his own, step aside, or for Janet Reno to remove him, get out of the picture? What's your view of that as an individual?

ANTHONY LEWIS: I think it would be in Kenneth Starr's interest to go, but I believe for a long time that he will not go because he is determined to criminally prosecute this president if not before he leaves office, which is what our story last week said he was considering, then the day he leaves office or soon afterward. I've always thought that Mr. Starr would stay in that job until January 20 or 21, 2001, so he could indict Bill Clinton. Now, I hope I'm wrong because I think it would be in Mr. Starr's interest and certainly in the country's interest to get rid of this thing.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read Kenneth Starr's desires and intentions at this point, Stuart?

STUART TAYLOR: You know, I'm not a mind reader and I haven't any idea what his intention is. I tell you - I wrote a year ago this month that he should resign because he had lost credibility -- fairly or unfairly. And the investigation would be more credible headed by someone else. He didn't do that. I frankly don't think it would make sense for him to resign right now while people are accusing him of being a criminal. It would look like he's cutting and running. If the president -- if the attorney general finds solid evidence that he has committed gross prosecutorial misconduct, she should fire him. If she doesn't and this peters out, I think it would be -- it would make sense for him to resign when the dust settles and hand this off to someone else who can make the important decisions still to be made on whether to prosecute President Clinton to someone who can make it without being instantly attacked as -

JIM LEHRER: You would agree, though, that Kenneth Starr shouldn't be the one to make that decision on whether to prosecute the president?

STUART TAYLOR: That's my personal opinion.

JIM LEHRER: And you agree with that, Tony you just said that.

ANTHONY LEWIS: I do.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, gentlemen, thank you both very much.

STUART TAYLOR: Thank you.

CONVERSATION - ENDURING PLAYWRIGHT

JIM LEHRER: Now, the "salesman" lives again. Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston reports.

PAUL SOLMAN: February 10, 1949, "Death of a Salesman" starring Lee J. Cobb premiered in New York. Tonight, exactly half a century later, Willy Loman returns to Broadway with Brian Dennehy as America's most tragic traveling salesman.

SCENE FROM PLAY:

PATRICK DENNEHY: Why don't you open a window in here -- for God's sakes!

ACTRESS: They're all open here.

PATRICK DENNEHY: The way they boxed us in here, bricks and windows, windows and bricks.

ACTRESS: We should have bought the land next door.

PATRICK DENNEHY: Lined with cars. Not a breath of fresh air in the neighborhood. The grass still growing, and, boy, you can't raise a carrot in the backyard. They should have had a law against apartment houses!

PAUL SOLMAN: This is the play's third Broadway revival. George C. Scott played Willy in 1975, Dustin Hoffman in 1984.

ACTRESS: Willy?

ACTOR: It's all right.

PAUL SOLMAN: But off Broadway, usually way off, "Salesman" has been performed non-stop for five decades. Robert Falls directs the current revival first staged in Chicago's Goodman Theater last fall. They're working on the New York set in the background.

ROBERT FALLS, Director: You can go to Kansas City, you could go to Miami Beach, you could go to a college in Utah, you could go to a theater in Japan, you could go to a theater in the Soviet Union, and this play is sitting in the repertoire of the world theaters and of American theaters. It's a play that for 50 years has never lost its popularity.

PAUL SOLMAN: Playwright Arthur Miller was only 33 when he won a Tony Award and the Pulitzer Prize for "Death of a Salesman" in 1949. The play takes place in Brooklyn during the last 24 hours of Willy Loman's life, as he's play played by his failures and those of his sons, especially the older one, Bif. The idea had come two years earlier when he bumped into his Uncle Manny, the salesman, after a performance of his first hit play "All My Sons. "

ARTHUR MILLER, Playwright: I was coming out of the theater and there he was -- I hadn't seen him in- I don't know -- 10 or 15 years, and I greeted him and without a word he said the equivalent of "Biff is doing very well."

PAUL SOLMAN: Biff, the son of Willy Loman in the play?

ARTHUR MILLER: And I'm using Biff but the real name was not Biff. And the idea suddenly struck me that he's living in two different eras at the same time.

PAUL SOLMAN: Because he's talking about his son, your cousin?

ARTHUR MILLER: He's talking about his son, my cousin. I haven't seen this man in 15 years, but you see what he was carrying forward was his competitive race with me between me and his son as of 30 years before.

PAUL SOLMAN: And so here you had your play and he's saying to you, "hey, your cousin's doing just as well."

ARTHUR MILLER: Just as well. It was very touching. At the same time, it was miraculous that the human brain could be running on two different tracks like that. So the play is filled with these concurrences where somebody -- he's talking to a man that he's playing cards with and at the same time he's talking to somebody who died 25 years before.

SCENE FROM PLAY:

WILLY: I've got to talk to you.

ACTOR: I haven't the time, William.

WILLY: Ben, Ben, nothing is working out! I don't know what to do!

ACTOR: Now, look here, William. I bought timberland in Alaska and I need a man to look after things for me.

WILLY: You have timberland? Me and my boys, the grand outdoors.

PAUL SOLMAN: Assailed by voices from the past, exhausted by years of false cheer on the road, Willy is unraveling. He begs his young boss for a desk job at almost any salary, instead he's fired from the only job he's ever had. In the end, Willy kills himself, as Miller's Uncle Manny did not long after his encounter with his nephew at "All My Sons." For the audience, watching can be almost unbearable.

BRIAN DENNEHY, Actor: I see extremely sophisticated very successful New Yorkers with absolutely no questions at all about who they are, how far they've come, and how right their lives are. I see them dissolve in tears, their shoulders shaking, ready to just go home.

PAUL SOLMAN: That's also an apt account of the cast's condition at the end of this three-hour performance. In the preview we saw, Elizabeth Franz, Willy Loman's wife wept so desperately at the end of the play that when the curtain call came, she was still shaking with sobs.

ARTHUR MILLER: Originally, of course, when we first performed and people didn't know what to expect, they didn't applaud at all for a good three, four minutes.

PAUL SOLMAN: Three or four minutes?

ARTHUR MILLER: Oh, yeah -- and then suddenly would remember to applaud because there were actors behind the curtain. And it would take them several minutes to think about it.

WILLY: [in play] But you can't sell that.

PAUL SOLMAN: For both actors and audience, then, it can be a truly cathartic experience. But why would a 50-year-old play about a pathetic small-time loser still resonate so powerfully?

ROBERT FALLS: You cannot come out of it without going, "I know somebody like that. That's my father, that's my brother, that's my son, that's my uncle." And that's a work of genius to have that happen.

SCENE FROM PLAY:

ACTOR: Where'd you go this time dad?

WILLY: Well, I got on the road, went north to Providence, I met the mayor.

ACTOR: The mayor of Providence.

WILLY: He was sitting in the hotel lobby.

ACTOR: What did he say?

WILLY: He said, "Morning." And I said "You got a fine city here, mayor." And he had coffee with me.

ROBERT FALLS: This is about a father who loves his son so much that he sort of passes on all the sort of wrong values, if you're liked, if you're handsome enough, if you're charming enough -- it's all about sort of surface appearances. And I think that's still a lesson that we see today. I mean, if anything, we live in a society which is far more disposable than ever, the fact that we're always looking for the newer - the hotter - you're going to be displaced sometime for a younger guy, a younger, more attractive guy than you are. I'm going to be displaced for exactly the same reason.

PAUL SOLMAN: "Death of a Salesman" has lived through its share of historical changes. Written early in the Cold War, its cynical take on the American dream made it a political hot potato. When the film version was made in 1951 starring Frederick March the studio decided to release it with an accompaniment.

ARTHUR MILLER: Columbia Pictures made a film called "The Life of a Salesman" which they wanted to show with the "Death of a Salesman." It was short, the brunt of which was that "the life of a salesman" was. -- couldn't be better; that it was a wonderful profession, that people thrived on it, and there were no problems at all.

PAUL SOLMAN: In fact, the Frederick March feature itself made Willy into a very untypical salesman -- a sort of lunatic.

ARTHUR MILLER: And, indeed, the film suffered because they tended to make him crazy. And it was a real politically influenced film and I complained about it. But I didn't have any control over it at the time.

PAUL SOLMAN: You didn't have any control over the total film?

ARTHUR MILLER: No.

PAUL SOLMAN: But what about this short?

ARTHUR MILLER: The short I complained about and pretended I knew what I was talking about and I said, "I'll sue you for --" whatever I invented. And they -- I think they showed it once or twice, but it was so dreadful that they simply withdrew it. And it's the only time that a movie company put out a picture to destroy the film that they had just made. That's how terrified people were.

PAUL SOLMAN: This was the terror of the McCarthy era when hundreds of prominent Americans were called before congress to testify about their left-wing affiliations and name those with whom they'd associated. In 1952, two of Miller's colleagues from the original "Death of a Salesman" production --Director Ilia Kazan and actor Lee J. Cobb -- named names before the House Un-American Activities Committee. The 1954 movie, "On the Waterfront" was a sort of defense of their actions. When it came Miller's turn to testify before the committee, however, he refused. In fact, he didn't take the fifth, the amendment that protects Americans from self-incrimination, but the first, the right to free speech. Miller was convicted of contempt and sentenced to a year in prison. The Supreme Court later softened the blow.

ARTHUR MILLER: They suspended the sentence but I still had to pay a $500 fine, which hurt. And so -- but I must say that my thing came at the sort of -- near the end of the whole fever that was not on the front pages anymore.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, you were on the front pages?

ARTHUR MILLER: Yeah, well, they -- that's why they brung me in; it was to get back on the front page. That was the whole thing. The chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities told my lawyer that he'd call off the hearing if he could take a picture with Marilyn Monroe. That was what the whole thing was all about.

PAUL SOLMAN: You mean it was because you and Marilyn Monroe were married at that point?

ARTHUR MILLER: Sure. Had we not been -- I would never have been subpoenaed, in my opinion.

PAUL SOLMAN: It was during the Cold War that Miller wrote "The Crucible" and a parable of the so-called McCarthy witch-hunts. It also plays worldwide to this day. His "View From the Bridge" has often been revived as well, and he's been writing plays throughout, many of them critical of American culture -- but none more critical nor more popular than "Death of a Salesman."

PAUL SOLMAN: So the dog-eat-dog competitive capitalism that you see in "Death of a Salesman," are you more resigned to it, sympathetic to it?

ARTHUR MILLER: I object to it, but formally I thought that a socialist solution would resolve some of these problems. The only thing is, is that where we have had a socialist solution, it has raised up innumerable other problems that you stand and pause a bit before you really could go down that road.

PAUL SOLMAN: So you don't know what to do?

ARTHUR MILLER: So -- I don't know what to do.

PAUL SOLMAN: America's most famous living play right is better known for his early than his later plays. He's been celebrated in England for decades but less so in America. Just last week, however, a street in New York City's theater district was named "Arthur Miller Way."

ARTHUR MILLER: If I could only park my car there. But I can't.

PAUL SOLMAN: But how does it feel to be -

ARTHUR MILLER: Well, it feels great. I'm glad that in my own country, finally, this kind of recognition takes place and I just am pleased, immensely, with the fact.

PAUL SOLMAN: Arthur Miller, thank you very much.

ARTHUR MILLER: Thank you, Paul.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Secretary Riley and Congressman Goodling on education, and poisoned water in Bangladesh.

FOCUS - POLITICS OF EDUCATION

JIM LEHRER: Phil Ponce has the education story.

PHIL PONCE: The 106th congress has not released a fiscal year 2000 budget, but on the first day of the session, the new Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, called for more spending on education. And the former high school wrestling coach made clear his stance on who should call the shots.

REP. DENNIS HASTER: In my 16 years as a teacher, I learned that most of the decisions having to do with education are best left to the people closest to the situation-- parents, teachers, school board members. What should the federal government's role be? It should be to see that as many education dollars go directly to the classroom where they will do the most good.

PHIL PONCE: But two weeks later, in his state of the union address, President Clinton said the federal government should do more than just give schools money; it should demand accountability on how that money is spent.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We must do better. Now each year, the national government invests more than $15 billion in our public schools. I believe we must change the way we invest that money, to support what works and to stop supporting what does not work.

SPOKESPERSON: Can I have a silent hand for the first step that I gave?

PHIL PONCE: In what the administration is calling a "sea change in national education policy," the president proposed legislation called the Education Accountability Act. It would require states and school districts receiving federal funds to do five things: Put an end to social promotion, the practice of promoting students to the next grade even if they aren't academically ready. Students who haven't met certain standards would have to be held back. Turn around schools with the worst performance ratings or to shut them down; the act calls for $200 million to help states meet this goal. Require teachers to pass performance tests in the subjects they teach. Require states to give parents annual report cards for each school and school district so parents can judge how the schools are performing. And fight the breakdown of classroom discipline, the Education Accountability Act would require states and school districts to adopt and implement so-called sensible discipline policies. States that failed to comply in these areas could lose federal funding. Mr. Clinton also asked congress to help communities build or modernize 5,000 schools across the country, and he also called for funding 1,900 more public charter schools for a total of 3,000 by early next century.

PHIL PONCE: Two key players in the federal education debate are with us now: Secretary of Education Richard Riley; and Republican William Goodling of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Welcome, gentlemen.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, the president says he wants to improve the quality of the nation's schools and to do that there has to be greater accountability. How do you react to his plan?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Chair, House Education Committee: Well, I was the only one that jumped up when he made that statement during his State of the Union. The only time I got up, but I shouted "Amen." You know, I'm beginning to educate Democrats after 24 years. They're beginning to say things that I've said for a long time. Where is the accountability in Title I? Where's the accountability in Head Start and on and on and on? But that was heresy to Democrats up until this particular time.

PHIL PONCE: And accountability in the areas that he's talking about and the way that he plans to -- he would like to implement it.

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: The devil could be, of course, in the implementation. The president was speaking as a governor, and what he was saying as a governor certainly should have been said. Now, keep in mind, of that $15 billion, $7.5 billion of that is spent on Title I. There's no question we should be able to do anything under the sun to improve Title I?

PHIL PONCE: And Title I being funds specifically for -

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: For children who are disadvantaged, as far as education, because that's where most of our money goes, that's where the problem comes. Can you deal with the rest of the school when all of our money really goes for disadvantaged students? So when you talk about it Title I, amen.

PHIL PONCE: But getting back to these other specific areas, what's your reaction to the level of involvement that the federal government might engage in?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: As I said, there's where the problem could be. The devil could be in the implementation. If that means a lot of regulations and red tape and so on from the secretary, I don't want any of that -- and neither does anybody back in the local school district. The point I'm trying to make is our money specifically goes to disadvantaged and whatever we can do to make sure that those children get a better cut than they've been getting for 20-some years, I'm for it. However, the rest of the education program is funded by local government and by state, and we don't have any right to dictate to them how it is done.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Secretary, some people are saying, following up on what the congressman just said, that if this act is implemented the way the president envisions that the president will be the nation's superintendent and congress will be the nation's board of education. Will the federal government be engaging in that kind of micromanaging?

RICHARD RILEY, Secretary of Education: Well, of course not. And we have always supported accountability and the congressman mentions Title I -- I'd say right at 98 percent of Title I dollars get to the school district. And for all of k-12 programs around --over 95 percent of the money gets to the school district. You don't hear that out a lot, but that's the truth. We're for local control, but nobody, nobody -

PHIL PONCE: And, again, you're talking about Title I as being money for needy kids?

RICHARD RILEY: Well, Title I and these other programs, the social promotion issue and the low-performing schools. Nobody is for unqualified teachers. That's what the president's talking about. No one is for having low performing, non-performing schools sending federal dollars in there under Title I or whatever and having them go on and on and on and on. Nobody is for continuing that. Nobody is for passing students right on through school who are not qualified and who are not ready to perform in society. That's what social promotion amounts to. Many of these ideas, all of them, in fact, -- social promotion, low-performing schools, report cards, discipline codes -- are things we gleaned from the states. And where the states are using those accountability features, they're doing well. And our job, we think, then, is to expand what's working well, as the president says, what works well we ought to try to expand; what doesn't work, we ought to try to stop.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, the different things that the secretary just mentioned, the different features, are you comfortable with all those?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Sure, I'm comfortable with all those and as he said, the states are doing it. And you know why they're doing it more than any other reason is because of the Title VI money that we send out. And you know what the president put in his budget?

PHIL PONCE: And what is Title VI money?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: He zeroed it out. It gives them the opportunity, the flexibility, to make the reforms, and that's how they've come about and that's why the states are so far ahead.

PHIL PONCE: Are those block grants?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Block grants.

PHIL PONCE: Title VI, where the states just get money and where they have a lot of discretion to use it?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Just as they did in Goals 2000.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, one of the arguments the president makes is that if a private company were investing $15 billion in an enterprise, that company would certainly expect some accountability and some controls, and that the federal government should do the same. Your reaction to that.

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: No question about it and that's why I said, where we put that money is for disadvantaged youngsters. We don't have anything to do with the rest of the operation of the school. So we don't have a responsibility for accountability there. The accountability responsibility is the local district and the state. That's why I said he was speaking as a governor. We have it when you talk about Title I because most of -- although some states have compensatory programs themselves -- most of that Title I money comes from the federal level. So we should be watching that money. As I said, for 20 years in the minority, I kept telling them, "Do you know what you're getting? Do you have any idea of how well we're doing?" First two studies came out on Head Start and said "they don't have a head start, they don't even have an even start." Study after study - including the last one that the Department just did in California in Title I says, boy, we've got problems.

PHIL PONCE: Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying you're comfortable with the level of control that could -

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Oh, no. No, no, that isn't what I said at all. I'm comfortable with the level of control when you're dealing with Title I, which is money that is coming from the federal government. But when you get into a lot of the other things that he is talking about, you can't dictate social promotion to the rest. You can demand everything you want to demand from Title I, but you can't dictate to the rest of the school. You can't dictate quality. I mean, every item he had is a Republican initiative, that's what made me so happy, that's why I jumped up and applauded. But, again, he also then talks about new programs that are duplicate of programs that presently exist. And, you know, I made charts and that's what I planned to do; I don't think he did before he made these proposals because he would notice that education technology, boy, we've spent -- we've upped better than 2000 percent money going into technology as far as schools are concerned. Educational technology software, there's a program for that. Project Serve, School Emergency Response to Violence - there are three programs for that, so right down the line - you know -- we need to take the programs that we presently have and we presently fund and reform them; we don't need new programs to duplicate them.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Secretary?

RICHARD RILEY: Well -

PHIL PONCE: Is there some dictating that's going to be going on as the congressman worries?

RICHARD RILEY: Well, let me speak generally to the subject. The congressman said that the states are doing these things, therefore, we ought not to be dictating to them. I would point out that for social promotion, I think 19 states have that. For the report card, I think 36 states have it. It's not like they all have it. And we're sending lots of federal dollars into the schools, and then if you have a policy there that is totally without responsibility where you can have no accountability, then obviously I don't think the people would say for us to keep throwing money in there and having no accountability.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Secretary, how do you respond to the argument that, yes, the federal government is contributing $15 billion across the country but that amounts to only somewhere between 6 and 7 percent of a school district's budget and, therefore, the federal government is asking too much for what they're contributing?

RICHARD RILEY: Well, what the federal government is trying to do is to expand on what's working in other states using information that we have gleaned from the states. And who out there, state governor, congressman or whatever, that wants to continue non-performing schools and sending lots of federal dollars in there? That really doesn't make good sense. So what we're saying, yes, federal dollars go into all those, but it's not a large percentage -- it's a right big percentage when you have this bill is talking about the real poor schools - for disadvantaged schools a right good bit of federal dollars go in there. We've got to see to it that those dollars are spent in an accountable way. What we're into is children learning, that's what's important. And if they're not learning and don't have a system that calls for them learning, then they ought to change it.

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: And you see, the problem with that is I have school districts, for instance, that get less than 1/2 percent of any of their funds from the federal government. Now, the way he recited -

PHIL PONCE: But with those school districts, they would have the same requirements as school districts -

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Yes. He's saying we'll require states and school districts to end social promotion. We'll require students to get more help. We'll require you to adopt performance examinations. We'll require -- you see, you can't go into a school district that's getting less than one half 1 percent and tell them, "you've got to meet these state -- federal mandates."

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Secretary, is that too many "we'll requires" for school districts not receiving that much money.?

RICHARD RILEY: As the president is saying, we're getting serious about accountability and I don't think there's any question about that -- and we're not trying to portray it in any other way. But I would say this, if you have a situation where a school is non-performing, we, as everyone knows, would come in and try to help them to get that school to perform well. We would do anything we can. We have money in here, some $200 million to help them do that. In social promotion we're recommending that, we're recommending $600 million for after school and summer school programs to help with that. We would prod, we would help, we would urge all ways in the world to make sure these children are learning. Then if they're not and they refuse accountability, then we have no other choice but to pull back on administrative funds or something. You can't keep pumping federal dollars into a non-performing school. And we're not going to do that.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Congressman, quickly, do you expect that some form of an accountability act will pass?

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Oh, yes. I'm sure of that. You know, as I said, I've been asking for 24 years to do something about accountability in the programs that we finance. All I'm pointing out here is what the president's talking about is everybody's school district and every school and that is not our business. Our business is to deal and make sure that the disadvantaged are getting a quality program. They haven't been getting it. I've been preaching that and so I'm glad to hear that others are now saying they haven't been getting that. Let me give you one example -

PHIL PONCE: I'm afraid -

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: We're out of time?

PHIL PONCE: I apologize. I'm sorry, gentlemen.

REP. WILLIAM F. GOODLING: Quality in reading.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, thank you.

RICHARD RILEY: Let me say this, I have enjoyed working with the chairman, and we work very well together on important things, on literacy, teacher quality and other things. And we'll continue to work together.

PHIL PONCE: Gentlemen, thank you both.

FINALLY - POISONED WATER

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, arsenic poisoning in the South Asian nation of Bangladesh. Fred de Sam Lazaro of KTCA-Minneapolis-St. Paul has our report.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The first thing a visitor sees in the village of Hatkopa is its water pump, for years the source of drinking water for most residents. It's the symbol of one of the most successful public health campaigns in the developing world. It's also a symbol of one of the biggest dangers to public health in Bangladesh. Water has long been a mixed blessing in Bangladesh. Until the 1970's, rivers and ponds like these served as the only water source for bathing, laundering, and drinking. That compromised hygiene. The exposure to wastes and infections caused tens of thousands of deaths in children each year, so the charity UNICEF thought it had a way to stop the death toll. It began sinking thousands of tube wells, tapping the abundant groundwater in the soggy nation that would be safe from bacteria and pollutants that are found in surface waters. But starting in the late 1980's, doctors began seeing patients with unusual symptoms, like skin rashes and warts, conditions that prompted an Indian doctor to test the water supply. It turned out the water from many of these tube wells contained dangerous levels of arsenic, a deadly element that occurs naturally through much of this region.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: This is just five minutes old, and it's already quite -

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: Yes, just five minutes after.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Quite yellow.

DR. IFTIHKHAR HUSSAIN: Yeah.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Dr. Iftikhar Hussain, with the country's health ministry, carries a small test kit to check on which wells contain the deadly poison. Those that are safe are painted green; those that are contaminated are painted red.

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: So this is already quite higher than the national standard.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And the national standard is somewhere between these two.

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: Between these two.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And this is way past there, so at least -

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: Yes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: More than 100% worse than the allowable standard?

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: Yes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Hatkopa is one of 200 villages whose tube wells were recently tested under a UN program. Two-thirds of them of them were found to have unacceptably high levels of arsenic contamination. A staggering 15 million to 30 million Bangladeshis may be at risk. That would make this by far the worst case of mass poisoning in history. Also, the UN development program's Shireen Kamal Sayeed says it's slow and insidious.

SHIREEN KAMAL SAYEED: It's a very silent epidemic. It's a long-term effect, and it takes ten, 15 years for arsenic poison to accumulate in the human body.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So far, the vast majority of people affected are in the early stages of arsenic poisoning, showing signs of skin rashes and lesions.

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: Now it has gone into the second stage. It has one some nodular growth. And this is called hyperkeratosis.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Hyperkeratosis?

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: Hyperkeratosis.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Symptoms like those of Mohammad Abdul Barek's worsen if they're not checked. They can lead to warts, gangrene, and, in many cases, internal organ damage and cancers.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Any other symptoms?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But Barek's condition and that of his son Kokan actually have improved in recent months, after water from their contaminated well was fitted with an elaborate filtering system being tested by its U.S manufacturer. It works, but at $4,000 per unit is impractical in Bangladesh, where the average annual per capita income is about 1/20 of that figure.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Barek family recently installed a new well, deeper and about 20 yards from the old one. Dr. Hussain's field test was not fully conclusive, so the sample was taken to the lab for a more precise measurement.

SPOKESPERSON: As the problem of arsenic poisoning by groundwater is a recent and unfamiliar phenomenon, many health workers and doctors may not know all the symptoms.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: This video, produced for the British charity Oxfam and intended to train health workers, shows the damage wrought in subsequent stages of the illness.

SPOKESPERSON: When the situation deteriorates and becomes serious, treatment becomes difficult, and life is at severe risk.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The video also tries to educate doctors about the social as well as physical consequences. Women complained of being thrown out of their home by their husbands or becoming social outcasts after developing visible symptoms. What's especially frustrating for doctors is arsenic's varied impact from person to person, even within the same family. For example, Majid Khan shows only mild skin spots, but his father Ansar Ali Khan's body is covered with lesions.

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: The very prominent visible sign of leukomelanosis and melanosis and alternate white and black colors. The second stage in the hand; the hardening is done. There is the nodules in the hands.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: As he did in previous stops, Dr. Hussain tested water from a new well sunk by the khan family, one deeper than their old, contaminated one, but only a few feet away.

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: So I think that's okay. That's fine.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Even though their new well tested clean, the Khans aren't guaranteed clean water forever. To all the uncertainties in this epidemic, add geology. The arsenic level in wells does not remain constant.

SHIREEN KAMAL SAYEED: But that doesn't mean that the other well will not start giving off arsenic-contaminated water in three months' time, six months', or a year's time, so each and every well has to be tested.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And tested again and again. It will take years to just test for the first time the four million wells nationwide, a daunting logistical and financial undertaking. In the meanwhile, public health officials fear many of the poor and illiterate, lacking a sense of urgency or other options for drinking water, or the ability to test all wells, may continue to drink from contaminated ones.

DR. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN: The results we are getting about the contamination and informing the people is not enough, to them, to stop people from the contaminated water, until they get a good alternate source of water, because still, they don't want to take the water from the pond which looks dirty, and, you know, bacteriologically is not safe.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In the end, experts say it will likely be widespread disease and death that will be the catalyst for changed behavior.

SHIREEN KAMAL SAYEED: If people are made aware of the dangers of arsenic, and they obviously -- those who are infected right now and can see the symptoms in their hands, and they're suffering. They can't work; they've been thrown out of their houses; they've been sent out by their parents, not accepted by their husbands -- these are the people who will take heed, and then their families. So it will start coming into the community.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Sayeed predicts an explosion of serious arsenic exposure cases in the next five to 15 years. Still, ironically, public health experts say tube wells have prevented more deaths from water-borne infections than they will claim through arsenic poisoning.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday. Senate impeachment deliberations continued behind closed doors. A vote could come Thursday evening. Three Republican senators announced they would vote against convicting the president. And a federal judge ordered American Airlines pilots to end their work slowdown. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.