The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight two views of the decision to ease restrictions on Cuba; Dan Balz of the Washington Post updates the Paula Jones case; Mark Shields and Paul Gigot analyze that and other events of the week; and Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky welcomes spring. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton today eased restrictions on Cuba. He said direct humanitarian charter flights between the United States and Cuba would be permitted, reversing a two-year ban, and Cuban exiles around this country will be allowed to send U.S. dollars to relatives and Friends on the island. Secretary of State Albright said the steps were designed to help the people of Cuba hurt by the policies of Fidel Castro.

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: We will allow humanitarian, but not tourist or business flights, and we know that we will have a better chance of seeing that remittances go to the intended recipients if they are regularized in transparent and legal channels. For far too long the Cuban people have been held back by the old thinking and brutal policies of Fidel Castro, a leader they never chose. The time has come to move on and to look ahead to a new era of fresh thinking based on timeless principles.

JIM LEHRER: Castro said the announcement appeared to be a positive one, saying it would improve relations between Cuba and the United States. We'll have more on this story right after this News Summary. President Clinton called on the Senate to approve a plan to expand NATO today. He said Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic should be allowed to join the 16-member alliance. He spoke at an East Room event in the White House, joined by top National Security aides, military leaders, members of Congress, some of whom oppose NATO expansion.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me emphasize what I said many times before, and what all NATO allies have committed to: NATO's first new members should not be its last. Keeping the doors open to all of Europe's new democracies will help to ensure that enlargement benefits the security of the entire region, not just the first three new members.

JIM LEHRER: About an hour later, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott postponed action on the matter, probably until late April. Mr. Clinton is to leave Sunday for a 12-day trip through six nations of Africa. He said it will focus on human rights, trade, and economic development and on preserving Africa's wildlife and environment. It will be the longest tour of Africa ever by an American president. On the Paula Jones matter today the President's lawyers said there was not an iota of evidence to support her civil suit against him. He again asked the court to dismiss the case in papers filed today. Jones is suing the President for allegedly making a sexual pass in an Arkansas hotel when he was governor. Her lawyers said they expect the case to go to trial in May as planned. We'll have more on this story later in the program. On Wall Street today the Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed 8900, gaining 103 points to close at 8906.43, the fifth straight record-breaking day. The suicide rate among black teen-agers more than doubled from 1980 to '95. That was the finding of a report by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention released yesterday. Firearm-related suicides accounted for 96 percent of the deaths. The report said a white teen still commits suicide 42 percent more often than black teens. In Northern Georgia at least 12 people were killed by a tornado early this morning. It cut a 10-mile path through the town of Gainesville 50 miles Northeast of Atlanta. The Weather Service had not issued a warning before it hit. Some 80 people were injured, and at least 35 mobile homes were destroyed. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Cuba decision, the Jones lawsuit, Shields & Gigot, and spring poetry. FOCUS - EASING UP

JIM LEHRER: The Cuba sanctions story. We begin with some background by Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Today's changes in U.S. policy came less than two months after Pope John Paul II's historic visit to Cuba last January. It was the first papal visit to Cuba since the Cuban revolution nearly 40 years ago. And at virtually every stop the Pope was critical of Fidel Castro's Marxist government. But the pope was also critical of what he called the "blind market forces" of capitalism and, indirectly, of U.S. efforts to isolate Cuba, both politically and economically. En route to Havana, the pope was even more explicit--calling on the U.S. by name to improve its relations with Cuba and to end the longstanding U.S. trade embargo against the Cuban government. Although the pope's visit did not produce any immediate changes in Cuba, it did refocus the world's attention on Castro and reportedly, President Clinton's attention on U.S. policy toward the Castro government. Last month, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the pope at the Vatican to discuss Cuba. And today, she explained why the administration was acting now.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: We are taking these steps now not because of anything the Castro regime has done. Nor are we doing it to improve official relations with the government of Cuba. On the contrary--we are acting because of the new possibilities that exist outside the government's control. Those possibilities were brought into open this past January by Pope John Paul II's historic visit to Cuba.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Albright announced three major changes in U.S. policy: First, that Cubans in the United States will be allowed to send $300 every three months to help relatives still in Cuba; second, that several U.S.-based humanitarian groups, including the Catholic Church and its relief organization, Caritas, will be able to charter flights from the U.S. to Cuba, instead of having to go through third countries; and finally, an easing of bureaucratic restrictions on the export of medicines and medical supplies to Cuba by Caritas and other nonprofit groups. The administration also said it would work with Congress to permit the sale of basic food supplies to Cuba. Several of today's changes ease restrictions first imposed by the Clinton administration in 1996, after the Cuban air force shot down two civilian aircraft in international waters between Cuba and the United States. The planes were flown by a Miami-based Cuban exile group called Brothers to the Rescue, and had been used to drop leaflets over Cuban territory. Four Cuban American members were killed when the planes were shot down, and the incident caused yet another disruption of already-strained U.S.-Cuban relations. In Havana this morning, Castro said today's announcement appeared to be a positive step.

FIDEL CASTRO: [speaking through interpreter] That would be a positive thing, constructive measures which would be helpful and conducive to a better climate in relationships between the United States and Cuba, but as I'm telling you, we would have to study them fully, in order to be able to express our views in that connection.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But today's announcement does not end the decades-old U.S. trade embargo that prohibits most U.S. citizens from traveling to Cuba and all U.S. businesses from investing there. Nor does today's announcement change the Helms-Burton law, which attempts to restrict not only U.S. but non-U.S. companies from investing in Cuba. At the State Department Albright said that until Castro makes additional changes in Cuba, the embargo will remain in place.

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Over past the past two decades, the Americas have been transformed from a hemisphere dense with dictators to one in which every single country, except for Cuba, has an elected government, if you will look at your maps. We believe the Cuban people deserve the same rights and liberties as their counterparts from Patagonia to Prudo Bay. With that goal in mind, we will maintain economic pressure through the embargo and the Helms-Burton Act.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Since the pope's visit, Castro has announced the release of nearly a hundred political prisoners. But there's been no other sign of a political opening.

JIM LEHRER: Phil Ponce takes the story from there.

PHIL PONCE: We get two views now: Florida Republican Congressman Lincoln Diaz- Balart was born in Cuba and came to the United States in 1960. Alfredo Duran is vice president of the Cuban Committee for Democracy, a non-profit organization, which favors dialogue with Cuba. He also was born in Cuba and left right after the revolution in 1959. Gentlemen, welcome.Mr. Duran, your reaction to the President's announcement that he wants to ease--that he plans to ease some of these restrictions.

ALFREDO DURAN, Cuban Committee for Democracy: I think it's a very positive sign. In the words of Sec. Albright, it's about time that the United States applies some fresh thinking to Cuba policy. It's a failed policy. It hasn't worked in the past, it isn't working now, and it will not work in the future. The United States should engage in a process of changing and reviewing the U.S. policies towards Cuba. The embargo has only served as a Berlin Wall around Cuba that has prevented it from being contaminated by fresh ideas on economics, on politics, on social, and on democratic changes. It's about time that that situation changes.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, about time?

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, [R] Florida: It's about time for the Berlin Wall to come down all right, but it's not the embargo that's a Berlin Wall. The only embargo that is imposed upon the Cuban people is the embargo on freedom, the embargo on democracy, the embargo on human rights, the embargo on sovereignty and self-determination, that is imposed by a 39-year-old dictatorship. I do not believe, by the way, and there were a few inaccuracies in the introductory story I think that need to be clarified, if we have time. No. 1, the Helms-Burton Law does not seek to stop investment in Cuba. Only investment in stolen property from American citizens knowingly by foreign investors--it's a difference that may seem subtle, but it is not. With regard to the shootdown of two years ago, which is directly related to the actions today, I do not believe in second-class American citizenship. Three American citizens were shot down in a totally unprecedented way by the Castro regime, the terrorist state, over international waters just two years ago. The ban on direct flights was instituted as a sanction for that unprecedented shootdown of unarmed civilians, Americans, by President Clinton. It was instituted as a sanction on Castro just two years ago. A unilateral gesture of just telling Castro, well, two years have passed, it's long enough, I know you shot down American citizens over international waters, we're going to lift the sanctions that we imposed on you, I think is extremely disrespectful to the memory of those unarmed American citizens who were shot over international waters. And with regard to the embargo, it's in law, I think the most disturbing part of Sec. Albright's statement today was when she said we're just doing these two measures, we're not going to lift the ban on tourism, massive tourism, and business travel to Cuba. Of course they can't. It's law. Only the Congress--and I wish that the administration would realize that in our system the executive executes, the Congress passes the law, and everyone has to follow the law.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, Secretary Albright said that this did not reflect a change in basic--in basic policy, that it's just--it's just easing of these recent restrictions. Do you see this as a change in basic policy, the kind of policy you're referring to?

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: It cannot be a change in basic policy because we in Congress codified that policy. We have said in law the embargo will remain as an instrument of pressure so that those who find themselves in the situation of provisionality after Castro dies or is killed, they will want to lift the U.S. embargo, and so that they are encouraged, pressured to hold elections. That's the purpose of our policy. Free elections is the purpose, is the goal of our policy. That's law. And that cannot be changed by the administration. It can only be changed by Congress. And so that's why, obviously, the essence of our policy, which is to make sure that there is some form of external pressure, as, by the way, therehas been in every single democratic transition in the last 50 years--if you look at every single democratic transition, whether it's Franco's Spain or Trudiow's Dominican Republic or Chile, there's been some form of external pressure. We are going to maintain that form of external pressure--the U.S. embargo, so that the Cuban people have the right to free election. That's our goal. And we're going to hold out and deny our market to the Castro regime until there is a democratic transition in Cuba.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Duran, do you think the easing of sanctions could promote the transition to democracy, in your opinion?

ALFREDO DURAN: Absolutely. There has not been one single embargo in the history of modern days that has worked. It is very sad that four young men were shot down. They were shot down by the Cuban air force. There is no reason to condemn 11 million Cubans to hunger and illness affecting a whole generation of Cubans, the youth, the elderly, and the whole population, in general. The embargo hasn't worked, and everybody knows it. And it will not work. The only way that you can change things in Cuba is by engaging it. The only way that you can change things in Cuba is by taking away from the Castro government the fear that he imposes on the people of Cuba that he is at a state of war with the United States. And evidence of that is the embargo. The embargo to the Castro government justifies its whole failure in the government structure and the failure in its policy for economic and social recuperation of Cuba.

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: I am certain that Mr. Duran knows that the embargo is not the cause of the destruction of Cuba. The embargo is not the cause of the hunger and the destitute way in which the Cuban people have to languish day in and day out.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, if I can interrupt you, along those lines, today there was a U.N. report that was issued that said that the Cuban government continues to violate human rights but says that the U.S. embargo "serves as a ready pretext for keeping the population under strict control and for punishing or suppressing those who work for political change or social space for the individual." Your reaction to that report.

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ- BALART: I'm well aware of the pretext argument. Mr. Duran has just brought it up as well, and it's often repeated. When Castro began his systematic destruction of the Cuban economy in 1959 and 1960, he had no embargo. And yet, he had plenty of pretext. Tyrants, dictators will always be able to come up with pretexts for their destruction and their oppression. The reality of the matter is that I differ profoundly with the analysis of Mr. Duran with regard to democratic transitions. He says that no embargo has functioned in the last--in the last--in the recent past. My analysis of history is that there has been not one single democratic transition without external pressure. When there has not been external pressure, we see examples like China. I mean, I think there can be no clearer example--

PHIL PONCE: Congressman--

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: There can be no--

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, I'd like to get Mr. Duran's reaction.

ALFREDO DURAN: I believe--and Congressman Diaz-Balart knows very well that the situation in Cuba is a situation that the embargo has created. In fact, the justification for the Castro government, for all its failures, the failures of the Castro government is its own inability to resolve the Cuban problem. But that is justified to the Cuban people by the ghost of the embargo hovering all over Cuba all the time. Indeed,this is a policy that has not worked. If the U.S. government was run like a corporation, the chief executive officer would have been fired a long time ago for ineptness.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Duran, let me ask you--what impact--what do you think the practical impact of the easings of--the easing of sanctions might have?

ALFREDO DURAN: I think the practical impact is that you're going to see a whole bunch of thousands of Cubans who are now doing the same thing but doing it illegally, sending money illegally. The embargo and these things on the sending of money has really created a society here in my annual--people who are forced to break the law when they're going to do this now-- you're going to see substantial change in the social structure here. You're going to become--the Cuban government has become more and more irrelevant to the people. And when that starts to happen is when you're going to see changes begin in the society and in the political system.

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: It's often interesting to see how the example of Poland and the activity in the 1980's, that the pope was very involved in, obviously the Church, in helping that country achieve freedom is mentioned as a relevant example. I think precisely we have to look at what was done by the pope, by the Church, by the United State government, led by President Reagan in the 1980's, to help Poland achieve freedom. The emphasis of that policy was to help the internal opposition. Nobody in this equation, nobody in this analysis talks about the internal opposition in Cuba. There is a growing internal opposition movement that is being oppressed, repressed, thrown in dungeons on a day in and day out basis, and yet, it has demonstrated extreme courage and is growing. That has to be the focus of our policy. We have to help the internal opposition, like in the 1980's, Solidarity and the internal opposition was helped in Poland. That's who we have to be looking at, not seeing how we can increase even if marginally, like with this decision, how much cash is going to be received by the Castro regime. That's not what's important. I just see no policy from the Clinton administration focusing in on the internal opposition. On the contrary, when people here in this community seek to send assistance to the internal opposition, they are denied licenses by the Clinton administration. The policy's got to be the internal opposition helping the people of Cuba, the internal opposition of Cuba that is fighting day in and day out to free that country.

ALFREDO DURAN: Congressman, Congressman, Diaz-Balart, the policy should be the same as it was in Eastern Europe, a policy of openness, of encouraging and stimulating debate and dialogue, and the only way that you're going to be able to achieve that is by engagement. It is this first step that has been taken today, and I think it's a very positive and every important step in creating that.

PHIL PONCE: Well, Mr. Duran, Congressman--

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: You let him interrupt but not me.

PHIL PONCE: Congressman, he responded to you. I'm afraid we're out of time. Thank you both for joining us.

REP. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: Okay. It's obvious you permit one kind of interruption. Thank you. UPDATE - TRACKING THE STORY

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has the update of the President's legal problems.

MARGARET WARNER: Today attorneys for President Clinton once again urged a court in Little Rock to dismiss Paula Jones's sexual misconduct damage suit against the President. It was the latest step in a legal back and forth over whether Jones's case against the President should go to trial. The President's lawyers originally moved for dismissal in February. Last Friday, Jones's lawyers responded with 700 pages of briefs and documents designed to prove that she did have a case. Today the President's attorney, Robert Bennett, filed his rebuttal. He then spoke to reporters in Washington. Bennett said Jones's lawyers' claim that she now suffered from sexual aversion because of the alleged harassment was a joke.

ROBERT BENNETT: This alleged incident happened in 1991. And until two/three weeks ago no such claim was in the case. Until two or three weeks ago there was not a single expert witness named under the rules who provided us information that they're required to provide us under the rules. And there all of a sudden to fill a gap in their pleadings, when we show a massive deficiency in their case, the lack of damage, there pops up a Ph.D. in education who gives them an affidavit that there is now a damage claim of sexual aversion. That's what I mean by saying it is a joke.

MARGARET WARNER: One of Jones's lawyers, John Whitehead, responded shortly afterwards.

JOHN WHITEHEAD: Well, obviously, the 700 pages that we filed and now the 200 pages he's filed in response to our response, the President's motion for summary judgment, as we're saying here, obviously raises some genuine issues and material fact, and her claim to sexual aversion has always been part of this case. We've always claimed that she's suffered intentional emotional distress, a number of things related to what occurred in that hotel room on May 8, 1991.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on this we return to the Washington Post's news room and to Dan Balz, a correspondent on the Post's national staff. Dan, what were the most significant points raised in Bob Bennett's filing today?

DAN BALZ: Margaret, today's filing was in many ways a restatement of the initial filing he made last month in which he asked for dismissal of the case. The main argument is simply that Paula Jones and her lawyers have not proved the case; that they have not in any way proven that she was sexually harassed or, as they asserted last week, may have been the victim of a sexual assault. They indicated that she had not suffered job discrimination at any point after what happened in the hotel room, if it occurred, and that she was not a victim of someone who was working in a hostile work environment. So they said, based on everything that was filed last week, they still say they haven't proved the case.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, explain this back and forth over this claim of sexual aversion. What is that? How did it come up?

DAN BALZ: Well, it came up as a result of a document that was included by Paula Jones's lawyers last week. It was a short document based on what the Jones's forces said was an expert on sexual addiction and stress. He claimed, after having recently examined Paula Jones, that she suffered from--I believe it's called post traumatic stress, as well as sexual aversion. What sexual aversion is exactly was not defined in the Jones' filing.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, there was a lot of discussion in Washington, and at Mike McCurry's briefing at the White House about why Bob Bennett did not file anything to undercut this claim as your paper had reported this morning he was planning to do. Tell us about that.

DAN BALZ: Well, briefly, what happened was that yesterday Bob Bennett sent a letter to Judge Wright in Little Rock saying that he intended to raise some sensitive matters about sexual conduct involving Ms. Jones, which he planned to do under seal, not as part of the public filing. Now, this raises the whole issue of whether the President's attorneys intend to go into questions or history about her past sexual activities. When McCurry was asked today--the President's press secretary was asked today--whether the President thinks it is appropriate to do so, he said, no, the President thinks it's inappropriate. But there is on the table now this question of how or when or if Bennett will attempt to rebut the claim of sexual aversion. Now, there was also some controversy over this because Peter Baker of our staff obtained a copy of the letter that Bob Bennett sent down to Judge Wright. We published a story based on that indicating what their intentions were. Sometime in the middle of the night Bob Bennett changed his mind about what they were going to do and decided not to include that material in the filing.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, and he suggested today that, in fact, all the furor over it, which started last night, was part of the reason. Where did the Post get the letter, and why did you print a story about it?

DAN BALZ: Well, we got the letter from Jones's lawyers, and we believed that it was important and relevant to the matter under discussion today. And it was our impression that this letter, itself, was not under seal.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Bennett today in his press conference also directed reporters' attention to chunks of his cross-examination of some Jones' witnesses that he released today. Again, I know that there were a couple of hundred pages of documents, but from what you've been able to tell about the cross- examination that's been released what's significant in there?

DAN BALZ: There's nothing particularly explosive in what Bennett's filing included today from the deposition with Kathleen Willey. Mostly, it was a series of questions that, one, asked her whether she had suffered any job discrimination as a result of any, you know, sexual activity that may have occurred. She said, no; any threats, no; was she given any favors as a result of anything, no. The other had to do with just the sort of general nature of the friendly relationship between the President and Kathleen Willey.

MARGARET WARNER: And Kathleen Willey, of course, I'm sure everyone in America knows who she is, but she's the one who went on "60 Minutes" on Sunday and said that she and the President had had--he had made a sexual advance in the Oval Office, or off the Oval Office.

DAN BALZ: That's right. Now, one other thing that Bennett's filing did include related to Kathleen Willey is the argument that all of her testimony should be dismissed from the case because it bears no relevance to the claims of job discrimination. And it's those portions of the deposition that he filed that help to support that argument that he makes.

MARGARET WARNER: So, in other words, he's saying because there's no--there was no quid pro quo and Kathleen Willey says there wasn't between whatever occurred of a personal nature and any job- related thing, that it isn't relevant to the Jones case because that's at the heart of the Jones case.

DAN BALZ: Right. And he makes that argument about a number of the depositions that were released by the Jones' lawyers last week. He said most of them are not relevant at all to the main legal issues involved in the Paula Jones case.

MARGARET WARNER: Yet, Kathleen Willey remains a very important potential witness or witness for independent counsel Kenneth Starr in his separate investigation.

DAN BALZ: Well, in many ways she's now more important to the Starr investigation than she is to the Paula Jones case, and for two reasons: one is that she made a direct accusation that the President committed perjury in his deposition as to what happened between him and her when they were together in the Oval Office in November of 1993. The second reason that she has become important to the Starr investigation is that she has brought Starr to investigate whether Nathan Landow, who is a wealthy Democratic fund-raiser and contributor, attempted to pressure her to change her story, not to tell the story that she told in the deposition. Now, at this point we know that Landow has been subpoenaed for some records, but he has not yet appeared before the Starr grand jury.

MARGARET WARNER: And the White House and the President's lawyers have gone to some lengths this week, since "60 Minutes," to undercut Kathleen Willey's credibility certainly.

DAN BALZ: The argument that they have made all week is that what America saw on "60 Minutes" last Sunday night--and they acknowledge that it was a powerful 40 minutes of television, and that she appeared to be a strong and credible witness against the President--but what they say is that's not the entire story, and they have spent the week or during the week we learned more about her in several ways. First of all, the White House released on Monday a series of letters that Kathleen Willey had written to the President after the encounter took place. They were all of a friendly nature. One was signed, "Fondly, Kathleen." They suggested that she may not have been as angry about the incident as she said she was when she testified and when she appeared on "60 Minutes." The second thing we've learned is that she did shop her story around. She attempted to get a book contract. She was seeking a $300,000 advance; that she also talked to a tabloid or associates talked to a tabloid about selling the story to them. And, finally, there was an affidavit released by a long-time friend of hers, Julie Steele, who claimed in the affidavit that Ms. Willey had asked her to lie about the incident to basically back up her version of events that the President had made a sexual advance toward her at the Oval Office and that she was very upset about it after it happened.

MARGARET WARNER: And then very briefly--because we're almost out of time--has there been any--what significant has happened at the grand jury, at Ken Starr's grand jury?

DAN BALZ: Two things: One is that there have been a number of friends of Monica Lewinsky who have been in this week, along with several White House officials, including the White House diarist. We don't know all of what that's about, but we think some of it has to do with E-mail. The other and last thing, which has been going on today, is an important hearing which we think has to do with executive privilege.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Dan. Thanks again very much.

DAN BALZ: Thank you, Margaret.

JIM LEHRER: A reminder: The Washington Post's full coverage is available after 10:30 PM Eastern Time on their web site and on ours. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now, Shields & Gigot. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Mark, first, how do the Kathleen Willey allegations on "60 Minutes" look five days later?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, I think initially, Jim, they were powerful. I think the audience was enormous, and I think the impact was enormous. Since then there's been a withering, counter- offensive from the White House to undermine Kathleen Willey's story in all manner of ways.

JIM LEHRER: Things that Dan just outlined, right?

MARK SHIELDS: Dan Balz was just telling Margaret. And--but it comes at some cost. It comes at some cost, not simply that Kathleen Willey, her credibility comes at some cost. Whatever happened to legacy? I don't know. And whatever happened to the agenda that the President was so dominant on just two months ago? And it just seems to me that what they're in to now is hand-to-hand combat. Every charge that comes up they're going to wrestle it to the ground, beat it to death, and that's what this White House is doing this week.

JIM LEHRER: Paul.

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: The President's main and only priority right now, I think, is survival, and everything takes a back seat to that. The Willey charges, though, while undermined somewhat, some doubts raised about her story may have changed a little bit over time. I think they're still dangerous to the President in a couple of ways. One is politically; one is base. This was the first accusation which really got the feminist supporters of the President engaged. They've been accused of hypocrisy in the past regarding Paula Jones's accusation. But this one they came out and said this bothers us. They have been the President's most loyal supporters. And if they have problems with the President, it really could erode some of his base support, and that's very dangerous politically. The other one is, as Dan Balz suggested the other day, is legal. The charge of contradiction with this President's story, perjury, and potentially obstruction of justice with her testimony that a presidential supporter, Nate Landow, may have talked to her about changing her story.

JIM LEHRER: Now, there's been a lot of toing and froing this week about--among and about the Republican leadership of the House as to what to do about all of this if, in fact, it gets dropped in their laps. What's that all about?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, it's about politics.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Jim, I mean, I hate to say you've got a President--not arguing with Paul--but there's been enough hypocrisy in this to go around. I mean, some people, very sensitive conservatives who were trashing Anita Hill a few years ago, are now just really--just wringing their hands and knitting their brows over these terrible things that have happened to women. So the hypocrisy has been a two- way street, and there's been enough to turn off a lot of people in politics. But the Republicans are in a bind. Republicans have one ace in the hole. That ace in the hole is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde of Illinois. There is not a more respected member on either side of the Capitol Hill, either party. And yet he's got a very weak committee. He's got some real full mooners on that committee, some really--

JIM LEHRER: I'm not going to ask you to define that.

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, there's guys that, you know, are howling--

JIM LEHRER: Howling.

MARK SHIELDS: --howling at the moon. I mean, they've got Bill Clinton in Mena, Arkansas, and flying in UFO's and everything else, okay, and these are guys that do it for a living. And so there's a concern. I mean, not that Henry Hyde wouldn't be masterful and respected, but to turn it over to that committee. You've also got Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich wants to run for president. And Newt Gingrich faces a problem--the most zealous and partisan and activist Republicans are the ones most upset by these allegations against the President. So you can't be indifferent to their anger.

JIM LEHRER: If you want to run for president as a Republican.

MARK SHIELDS: If you want to run for president as a Republican. And secondly, he doesn't want the impeachment to take over the House because then you lose control of the House completely because then truly the full mooners are heard. So you've got both of those factors at play, and you've got a President who remains just sailing along at 70 percent favorability. And so that's the dilemma; that's the conundrum they face.

JIM LEHRER: How would you define the dilemma, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: I think there's an awful lot--been a lot more reporting about the impeachment planning than there has been planning for impeachment frankly. I think the Republicans are smart enough to know that Henry Hyde is a great asset; that committee he's on is a little bit like the bar scene from "Star Wars" and he's Obi-Wan Kinoby. He's the sage. The rest and the Republicans are very worried that you would create an impeachment spectacle, which would deteriorate into a partisan food fight. There are Democrats on there who aren't camera shy either, Mark, and--

JIM LEHRER: They have their own--

PAUL GIGOT: They really do. And of course you have the brother of Ann Lewis, the White House communications director, Barney Frank, who's been the most zealous and articulate defender of the President and can, you know, really stir up a hornet's nest. And I think Republicans fear he will.

JIM LEHRER: And he's the ranking Democrat on the committee.

PAUL GIGOT: No. John Conyers is the--

JIM LEHRER: Conyers is the ranking--

PAUL GIGOT: --ranking Democrat.

JIM LEHRER: That's right. Right.

PAUL GIGOT: But Barney Frank will dominate the proceedings, as he usually does in these things, and--

MARK SHIELDS: On the basis of intellect. He's enormously smart.

PAUL GIGOT: I have never downplayed his ability. But he is--but they want the public--for this to work for the Republicans, they want it to be seen as sober; they want it to be seen as considered and judicious.

JIM LEHRER: And bipartisan?

PAUL GIGOT: And--and there's different points of view about that, but it only works if it's bipartisan,

JIM. It can't work any other way. The speaker is mistake in this, I think, was that he jumped the gun a bit on the leak about whether or not there would be a select committee. But in the end--

JIM LEHRER: And that would keep out the full mooners, right, to use?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Danny Burton was mentioned in it. I mean, Danny Burton is certainly seen as a zealous partisan and an anti-Clinton force.

JIM LEHRER: But at least that was the intent, right--

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: --for that to have--to have a select committee so they could really select various people that would be on their best behavior.

PAUL GIGOT: I think that that is right. It's not a crazy idea, and it may come to that. Or there may just be a task force, a group, subset of a Judiciary Committee, which considers it first.

JIM LEHRER: What about the story that was around two or three days this week that they were going to send a delegation of House members over and knock on Ken Starr's door and say can we take a look at what you got, and we can make some decisions now, what was that all about?

PAUL GIGOT: I think that was a non-story.

JIM LEHRER: A non-story?

PAUL GIGOT: You've got members of Congress who have been staying miles away from Ken Starr--they won't even defend him--and somehow they're going to seek a premature peek--I don't think there was any truth to that story.

MARK SHIELDS: I talked to a very experienced prosecutor just today, and he said to me--he said, they have no idea what Ken Starr has found, looked at; they don't know if it's the Filegate story--I mean, that he--was in his purview; they don't know if it's Travelgate. And what's he going to do? Turn over grand jury testimony to them?

JIM LEHRER: He couldn't give--no, he couldn't do that if he--

MARK SHIELDS: No. This is really--we're into a strange period.

JIM LEHRER: While we're on the subject of--not strange periods--it's not a good segway for my next question--

MARK SHIELDS: Semicolon.

JIM LEHRER: We're--right--while we're on the subject of the Republican leadership, Bob Livingston of Louisiana is running hard to replace Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. Now, does that mean that he thinks Gingrich is running for president or what, or knows he's running for president? What's that all about?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it's important to establish right now that Bill Clinton does not have the exclusive franchise on lack of candor and openness and honesty in Washington. Newt Gingrich has said he's not running for President. He is running for President, and that's what everybody in the House thinks, and that's why Bob Livingston--Bob Livingston learned from Bill Paxon's experience, who was the original challenger, undeclared challenger to Dick Armey. Dick Armey--

JIM LEHRER: Dick Armey, who is the majority leader and who wants to be speaker--

MARK SHIELDS: Wants to be speaker when Gingrich--

JIM LEHRER: --when Gingrich goes.

MARK SHIELDS: But he really doesn't want to be because he was part of a coup last summer, which he then denied.

JIM LEHRER: Right. Okay.

MARK SHIELDS: So he's not--he didn't win the candor award either. But Livingston understands that if Newt Gingrich is going to run, he's got to start running certainly by early 1999, and so there's going to be a vacancy there, and the way you get that is you start lining up votes.

JIM LEHRER: Is Livingston a strong candidate?

PAUL GIGOT: He is a strong candidate, especially since Paxon decided to leave. There is the--

JIM LEHRER: For those who haven't followed that, I mean, he decided to leave the House of Representatives.

PAUL GIGOT: Right.

JIM LEHRER: He's not--

MARK SHIELDS: He's not going to seek re-election.

JIM LEHRER: He's not going to seek re-election, right.

PAUL GIGOT: That's right. But he didn't help his case this week, I don't think, when he said in announcing that he already had the votes sewed up--

JIM LEHRER: This is Livingston.

PAUL GIGOT: Livingston.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

PAUL GIGOT: That could make it very uncomfortable for anyone who decided to try to gather the votes now that he had them sewed up--a little threat implied there, I think, and, in fact, 16 committee chairmen in the Republican side said to him let's cool it until we really have a vacancy; let's cool it until we know at least whether we're going to do well in this election or not. So it's really premature.

JIM LEHRER: They said that, and then he came right back and said, I'm not cooling it at all, didn't he?

PAUL GIGOT: And I think he's going to irritate some people who might be his natural supporters because the--one thing that is the most important thing for the Republicans is how do they do in November, and how Dick Armey is--

JIM LEHRER: Not in the year 2000 but in the year '98. Right.

PAUL GIGOT: Right. And how the leadership is perceived from top to bottom is going to be in the wake of that election come--if anybody--if there is a new election for speaker.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mr. Shields just said, straight and forthrightly, that Newt Gingrich is running for President. Do you agree?

PAUL GIGOT: He's running both for speaker and for President. He's leaving all of his options open. I think he wants to be President. I think he would like to be able to be President. He has a big problem, and that is his approval rating, and it's still low. And it is--that is a big problem. And unless that gets up, I think he could go right up to the edge and say, well, maybe I'd rather be speaker, the sure thing, instead of gambling on the presidency.

JIM LEHRER: But his approval rating among Republicans and the folks who might nominate a candidate for President are still very high, are they not?

MARK SHIELDS: I think in the last Wall Street Journal poll he was at 25 or 26 percent approval.

JIM LEHRER: Of all folks.

MARK SHIELDS: Of all. Which is not good but it is an improvement, slight improvement, but,

JIM, I'd be willing to bet 90 percent of those 25 percent are Republican primary voters. I think Bob Livingston makes sense. I mean, Bob Livingston--look at the Republicans. This is a Congress up until today that has passed one law--one law.

PAUL GIGOT: Wait a minute. This year.

MARK SHIELDS: This year.

PAUL GIGOT: Come on. Last year--

MARK SHIELDS: This year. No, this year.

PAUL GIGOT: I know, this year.

MARK SHIELDS: Ronald Reagan National Airport; that's it. I'll tell you, the entire legislative program--

PAUL GIGOT: --this Congress--

MARK SHIELDS: This year! For goodness sakes, Paul, it's almost April. Now, one thing--

JIM LEHRER: Hurry, hurry, we got to go. Hurry!

MARK SHIELDS: --pass this year are appropriations, and Bob Livingston is the chairman of the Appropriations. He's going to be the one guy's who's effective, getting things done, and the people are going to be coming to ask for favors.

PAUL GIGOT: Well, sure they will be, but the appropriators--is not the best job to run for Congress--to run for speaker from for Republicans, who say at least in theory they don't really like all that pork in spending.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Good-bye.

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, whether or not spring is in the air, it did officially arrive today. NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, Poet Laureate of the United States, marks the arrival.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: There's a tradition of celebrating springtime and maybe encouraging the springtime to get going with a poem. Two great American poets, Robert Frost and William Carlos Williams, have written memorable poems for the very beginning of spring: These chilly, moist days when the vegetation seems just beginning to stir. Here's Robert Frost's poem "Spring Pools:" "Spring Pools; These pools that, though in forests, still reflect/ The total sky almost without defect,/And like the flowers beside them, chill and shiver,/Will like the flowers beside them soon be gone,/And yet not out by any brook or river,/But up by roots to bring dark foliage on./ The trees that have it in their pent-up buds/To darken nature and be summer woods --/ Let them think twice before they use their powers/ To blot out and drink up and sweep away/These flowery waters and these watery flowers/From snow that melted only yesterday."

ROBERT PINSKY: And William Carlos Williams, in the first section of his sequence, "Spring and All," captures this time of year when the twiggy, forked vegetation can't be distinguished, one plant from another, because the plants haven't put out leaves yet. His language, reddish, purplish, twiggy stuff, he calls the plants, is language that has some of the same familiar intimacy of Frost, saying, "Let them think twice." Also, I think you can tell that Williams is looking at this stuff from a car as he drives by, the 20th century American looking at nature as he drives by. "Spring and All," Part 1: "By the road to the contagious hospital under the surge of the blue-modeled clouds driven from the Northeast, a cold wind. Beyond, the waste of broad, muddy fields, brown with dried weeds, standing and fallen, patches of standing water, the scattering of tall trees. All along the road, reddish, purplish, forked, upstanding, twiggy stuff of bushes and small trees, with dead, brown leaves under them, leafless vines, lifeless in appearance, sluggish days, spring approaches. They enter the new world naked, cold, uncertain of all, save that they enter--all about them, the cold, familiar wind. Now, the grass. Tomorrow, the stiff curl of wild carrot leaf. One by one, objects are defined. It quickens, clarity, outline of leaf. But now the stark dignity of entrance, still the profound change has come upon them. Rooted, they grip down and begin to awaken." RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major stories of this Friday, the United States lifted restrictions on direct flights and remittances of U.S. dollars to Cuba. President Clinton called on the Senate to ratify the plan to add three new members to NATO, and the death toll rose to 14 in Northern Georgia, where a tornado hit early this morning. We'll see you on-line and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.