The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, excerpts from today's impeachment trial debate over calling witnesses, with commentary by Tom Oliphant and Stuart Taylor; then, a Newsmaker interview about Kosovo with General Wesley Clark; and an appreciation of Robert Shaw and Sarah Delaney, two special people who died Monday. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: There were four hours of debate at the senate impeachment trial today about calling witnesses. House managers asked for Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. The senate began its own debate on the issue behind closed doors immediately afterward. We'll have more on the story right after this news summary. The death toll from an earthquake in Colombia rose to more than 1,000 today. Rescue officials said some 2,700 were injured. We have more from Terry Lloyd of Independent Television News.

TERRY LLOYD, ITN: The provincial city of Armenia, perched in the Andes Mountains, was devastated by the earthquake. Hundreds of bodies have already been found, but many hundreds more people are still missing. A frantic search for survivors is now underway. Countless were buried alive beneath the debris. The earthquake measured 6 on the Richter Scale and erupted just 20 miles below ground. Its power and the poorly constructed buildings accounted for the high number of victims. Twenty outlying towns and villages were hit, two of them wiped off the map. Scores of fires broke out, hampering rescue work in the aftermath of Colombia's worst earthquake for a century. Much-needed aid is now finding its way to the area, but more blood, medicine, and water is needed.

ANNETTE BOKENHAUSER, Red Cross: We have sent rescue teams to the affected areas. We have sent teams with dogs that can find people lost in the ruins. We have sent ambulances. People here in Bogota, they are queuing up to donate blood.

TERRY LLOYD: President Andre Pastrana canceled a trip to Munich to visit the earthquake scene. He called for more humanitarian aid to be sent. Many families are now living in the streets. They survived the shock waves, but lost their homes. "I have been left with nothing," said this elderly woman. And from this young boy, the words, "I am very cold and very frightened." Tonight, more of the dead and injured are being found every minute.

JIM LEHRER: U.S. jets fired again on military sites in northern Iraq today. A Pentagon spokesman said they reacted to radar targeting by anti-aircraft units. He also confirmed that a stray U.S. missile hit a residential area in Southern Iraq on Monday. National Security Advisor Samuel Berger said President Clinton expanded the rules of engagement. Pilots may now bomb not only the source of an attack, but other air defenses as well. President Clinton welcomed Pope John Paul II to the United States today. He did so in St. Louis on the pope's arrival from Mexico. The pope and the president were expected to discuss Vatican criticism of the U.S. attacks in Iraq, among other things. Mr. Clinton said this.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We honor you for your work to bring peace to nations and peoples divided by old hatreds and suspicions, from Bosnia and Kosovo, to Central Africa, to Indonesia, to the Middle East, even to our own communities. People still need to hear your message that all are God's children. All have fallen short of his glory. All the injustices of yesterday cannot excuse a single injustice today.

JIM LEHRER: The pope will leave for Rome late tomorrow. Also today, Mr. Clinton authorized up to $25 million to assist ethnic Albanian refugees in Kosovo. The money would go to humanitarian groups helping displaced villagers. The U.S. and Russia agreed today on one step to end the Kosovo crisis. Both demanded Yugoslav President Milosevic grant substantial autonomy to the Kosovars. We'll have a newsmaker interview with NATO Commander Wesley Clark later in the program tonight. The Kosovo talk was part of Secretary of State Albright's mission to Moscow. She also spoke with the ailing President Yeltsin by telephone. He said U.S. plans to build a new missile defense system could threaten the A.B.M. Treaty between the two countries. King Hussein of Jordan headed to the United States today for more cancer treatment. He did so after naming his eldest son heir to the throne. Hussein's younger brother, Prince Hassan, had been the designated successor for 34 years. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to today's senate impeachment trial session, with commentary by Tom Oliphant and Stuart Taylor; General Clark of NATO; and remembering two special Americans.

FOCUS - THE WITNESS ISSUE

JIM LEHRER: The debate on calling witnesses inthe impeachment trial: Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: The House impeachment managers began today's session by submitting for senate approval a list of witnesses they'd like to depose in the trial.

SPOKESMAN: The House moves that the senate authorize and issue subpoenas for the appearance of the following witnesses at a deposition for the purpose of providing testimony related to the impeachment trial: One, Monica S. Lewinsky; two, Vernon Jordan; and three, Sidney Blumenthal.

KWAME HOLMAN: Also included with the motion was a request that the senate ask President Clinton to give testimony in a deposition.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Mr. Manager McCollum.

KWAME HOLMAN: Managers were given two hours to make their case for calling witnesses. Florida's Bill McCollum said the managers wanted to call more witnesses, but limited the number in deference to the senate.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, Impeachment Manager: The House managers have always understood the senate sets the rule on these matters, and we don't question that fact, but I think it's important to set the record clear here today to say at the outset that we have always believed, and we still do believe, that ten or twelve witnesses are what we should have and should have been permitted to call to prove our case. We've estimated that this could be done in a matter of two weeks at the outside, including all cross-examination. That's what we think the normal order would have been. It's what we think it should have been. But we have been told again and again, and we believe it's true, that if we made such a request, it would not be approved. And a few weeks ago we thought-- maybe even a few days ago-- that we could submit a list of maybe five or six witnesses and there would be a reasonable chance that for deposition they would be approved and maybe two or three of them could actually be presented here live on the floor. Now we have been led to believe and we think it is an accurate assessment that in order to get a vote to approve the opportunity to take depositions alone, whether or not anyone's called, that we cannot submit more than two or three witnesses to you, and that's what we've done today. If our motion is granted -- I want to make this very, very, very clear -- at no point will we ask any questions of Monica Lewinsky about her explicit sexual relations with the president, either in deposition, or, if we're permitted, on the floor of the House. They will not be asked. That, of course, assumes that White House counsel does not enter into that discussion, and we doubt that they would. We believe that you do need -- we need -- to bring in witnesses to resolve conflicting testimony, to give you a true picture of the president's scheme to lie and conceal evidence for the other obstruction of justice charges, and certainly for the last perjury charge. They are more complex. They are more depending on circumstantial evidence and inferences that you logically have to draw. And that's why you need to hear from Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Sidney Blumenthal, to tell you about these things themselves. When you do, you're just plain going to get a different flavor. You're going to feel the sense of this. We believe that you would find at the end of the day, once you've done that, even though you don't need to use this standard, that the president is guilty of the entire scheme we've presented to you, in every detail, beyond a reasonable doubt.

KWAME HOLMAN: Tennessee's Ed Bryant was called on to argue further the need to call Monica Lewinsky as a witness.

REP. ED BRYANT, Impeachment Manager: She is probably the most relevant witness -- that is, aside from the president himself -- who, so far, has indicated through his counsel that he would not testify, and, I might add, has also not answered the questions that at least some senators sent to the White House for his answering, based on his attorney's statement that he would be willing to answer questions. So, with that aside, Ms. Lewinsky is probably the most important witness left. And wouldn't you at least like to see and hear from her on this? As triers of fact, wouldn't you want to observe the demeanor of Ms. Lewinsky, and test her credibility? As I say, look into the eyes and test the credibility of these witnesses. Compare her version of the testimony to the contested events. And, remember, the president's attorneys in numerous ways in their vigorous defense of the president have challenged Ms. Lewinsky's version of the facts. And, senators, she does have a story to tell. And given the link that she has, that common thread that she is in most of the charges in these articles of impeachment, I would suggest that she should be permitted to testify. I would go further to say that a closure of this case is somehow necessary and without the direct presentation by Ms. Lewinsky, we all, political and public, would be denied the complete picture that she should be able to give us to better sort this out. It's even possible that she could help the president in some ways. But I assure you that she is an impressive young lady, and I suspect that she still very much does admire the president and the work that he is doing for this country, yet she would be a person who in all likelihood would be forthcoming.

KWAME HOLMAN: Arkansas's Asa Hutchinson presented several reasons the managers say show the need to call Vernon Jordan for a deposition.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, Impeachment Manager: His testimony goes to the heart of one of the elements of obstruction of justice, and that is the job search and the false affidavit, and the connection -- the interconnection -- between those. I have tried, during my presentation of this case, to present portions of his testimony -- excerpts, if you will, from his testimony. But if you will see, he has testified five times before the federal grand jury. I've read all of this, and I'm not going to ask for a show of hands, but how many of you have read all of this? And so, you have had to rely upon a trial, an ordeal by lawyers, rather than a trial by witnesses, because I have had to present the testimony of Vernon Jordan in excerpt fashion, limited quotes here and there, as the defense counsel has done likewise. Now, that makes it difficult, because the problem is, one, you're hearing it from me, but secondly, it's not a story. It is excerpts. And there's no way you can assess the truth because of that.

KWAME HOLMAN: Finally, California's James Rogan argued the senate hear from White House aide Sidney Blumenthal.

REP. JAMES ROGAN, Impeachment Manager: Mr. Blumenthal's testimony puts him in direct conflict with the claims of the president and shatters the myth of the president's truthful but misleading answers given under oath. And I said to the president, "What have you done wrong?" And he said, "Nothing. I haven't done anything wrong." And I said, "Well, then that's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Why would you do that if you've done nothing wrong?" And it was at that point that he gave his account of what happened to me. And he said that Monica, and it came very fast, he said, "Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me." He rebuffed her. He said, "I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people, and I'm not going to do that again." She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it, and if she had an affair or said she had an affair, then she wouldn't be the stalker anymore. Now, the question is was this a mere coincidence, that the president's false statements to Mr. Blumenthal about Monica Lewinsky being a stalker quickly found their way into press accounts, even though those accounts are attributed by the press to sources inside the White House. Mr. Blumenthal needs to be questioned now under the light of the fact as we now know them. All we have from Mr. Blumenthal are the facts as he testified before the revelations saw the light of day. And he needs to be questioned for the benefit of those who most -- who must make the determination of credibility and the determination of guilt or innocence. This is the reason we've included Mr. Blumenthal on our proposed list. He is just one example of several aides whose testimony is already before you in the record. But we feel it would be beneficial not only for the body to hear him but certainly to question him in light of the revelations that occurred following his grand jury testimony.

JIM LEHRER: David Kendall, the president's private lawyer, argued against calling witnesses. But Kendall said if senators approved witnesses for House managers, they could expect the president to call witnesses as well. Kwame Holman continues.

KWAME HOLMAN: David Kendall said he would not use his allotted two hours to repeat his defense of the president against charges brought to the senate by House managers. His main point, he said, would be to show there is no need to add more testimony to an already voluminous record in the case.

DAVID KENDALL: Just recall, in the House the managers believed that this was an adequate record to come to you and urge removal of the president. They rested on that record in the House, and they impeached an elected president on the basis of that record. They cannot now complain that it is for some reason unfair to submit this same record to you for judgment at this point. The able House managers have kept insisting on their need for witnesses, but they haven't indicated what substantial, material and relevant questions the witnesses would be asked which haven't already been asked or why such questions are essential or even relevant to the resolution of this proceeding. Frankly, I think this is because there just aren't that many more questions to ask of these witnesses. And Mr. Manager McCollum kind of let the cat out of the bag on this one when a week ago Friday he told you "I don't know what the witnesses will say, but I assume if they're consistent, they'll say the same thing that's in here." I say this respectfully, but I am duty bound to observe that it is, in fact, a dereliction of duty to have come this far in the process, to have made this serious a set of charges as have been made against the president to seek his removal and not to have talked to the witnesses on whom they purport to rely. How can they have come this far and now tell you, oh, yes, we now need to meet face to face with the witnesses? We don't know what they sound like, we don't know how credible they'll be; we rested our judgment on this; we need to see them personally. This procedure, I submit to you, is just backwards. First, they file the charges, which have been spoon fed by Mr. Starr, they don't bother to check these out. They take them at face value. Now they finally want to talk to the witnesses and they again use Mr. Starr to threaten Ms. Lewinsky with imprisonment unless she cooperates with them. No, it's no answer to say that the witnesses didn't want to talk to us. There was a way to talk to them in the House of Representatives. And that was through the subpoena power that the House could have used if they had wanted to talk to their witnesses, if they had fulfilled the obligation they had before they proffered these charges to you. This has been a partisan process on the part of the House managers. In the House, they had the votes; they didn't think they needed to talk to witnesses. When you have the votes and the independent counsel on your side you don't need to independently develop the evidence. Indeed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Manager Cannon provided some insight -

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chief Justice -

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the senator from Arkansas.

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON: I would object to the White House counsel's continual reference to comments made on television programs outside of the record that is before the senate.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: This is on a motion to call additional witnesses. And the argument has been very free form and kind of far ranging. I think this is permissible comment and so I overrule the objection.

DAVID KENDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chief justice. I think Mr. Manager Cannon's comments did provide some insight into the need for witnesses or the justification for witnesses here. He noted that the Republicans had lost five seats in the November election, and he went on to say accordingly the Republicans felt a need to speedily complete impeachment in the lame duck session before the 106th began its session. The House managers are like the character in David Copperfield, Mr. Makorber, who was always hoping that something would turn up. They continue to hope that something will turn up for them. They don't know what it is, but they believe they'll know it when they see it and they hope for the first time in these proceedings they actually talk to the witnesses on whom they've relied, they'll find something to persuade you to overcome the evidence in the record. Now, the managers have said, well, we told the White House that it could have called witnesses. They could have called witnesses in the House if they want to and they chose not to do so, so it's really their fault. I respectfully submit to you, however, that only in the world of Franz Kafka do you have to present evidence of your own innocence before you even hear the charges or the allegations against you. It was the burden of the House to establish by an adequate evidentiary basis a case for impeaching the president. They failed to do that, I respectfully submit, and they're a little like a black jack player who sees 20 on the table and has 19 and is going to try to draw that 2, hoping against the odds. Here they're simply gambling and gambling may have its place as a recreation. I think it has no place in the impeachment trial here in the -- when the fate of the president is at stake. Now, I don't want to be uncharitable -- [laughter in room] -- to the House managers. And they are able. But I think it is perhaps appropriate to remind you, as my partner Ms. Seligman did in her argument yesterday, that in their own chamber, in their own chamber, the House managers sang a very different song about the need for witnesses.

KWAME HOLMAN: Kendall produced several charts showing what individual managers had to say about the need to call witnesses during the impeachment phase in the House.

DAVID KENDALL: For example, on November 5th, Mr. Manager Hyde said, "We believe the most relevant witnesses have already testified at length about the matters in issue. And in the interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry, we will not require most of them to come before us to repeat their testimony. He added that "Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp have already testified under oath. We have their testimony. We don't need to reinvent the wheel."

KWAME HOLMAN: And Kendall showed a videotape to bolster his argument against the need to call Vernon Jordan as a witness.

VERNON JORDAN: I have answered every question over and over and over again. I suspect that I will have to answer the same questions over and over and over again.

DAVID KENDALL: And guess what? Mr. Jordan was clairvoyant, because he was called back to the grand jury for a fifth time on June 9th. Should the senate decide to authorize the House managers to call additional witnesses, live in this proceeding or have their depositions taken, we will be faced with a critical need for the discovery of evidence useful to our defense. Our dilemma is this: We do not know what we do not know. That's what discovery means. You've got to get discovery so you can find out what is available. It may not necessarily prolong a trial, but it makes you available to defend your client in the way you've got to be able to do as a lawyer. It doesn't turn on the number of witnesses. The calling of these witnesses, you know, produces a need in us to be ready to examine them, to cross-examine them. It initiates a process that leaves us unprepared and exposed unless we have adequate discovery. This is a proceeding, I need not remind you, I know everyone recognizes its gravity, to remove the president of the United States. You have got to give us, and I believe you will, the discovery that will enable us to represent the president adequately, competently and effectively.

KWAME HOLMAN: By prior agreement, the managers reserved some of their time to rebut the White House team's arguments.

REP. HENRY HYDE: Their defense has never been on the facts. If they can come up with a good fact witness that has something to say, we will see a reenactment of the Indian rope trick, it seems to me. We will see professors, though, if past is pro log. I don't know. But the threat of -- the threat of prolonged hearings I suppose is supposed to make you tremble. It doesn't to me. But then different things, different strokes, I guess, for different folks. But their defense has been to demonize Mr. Starr to a fare-thee-well and to yell about the process. That has been their defense. And I'll be frank with you. I'm not sure I could stand a lot more of that. But that's what they will do. As far as the information not available to them, maybe not. Maybe some of the stuff we got from the independent counsel was held in executive session. But it was available to Mr. Conyers. It was available to Abbe Lowell. It was available to every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and they went through it. I wrote with Mr. Conyers to Mr. Starr a letter saying show us what you didn't send us. Let's look at what you've got over there. There might be some exculpatory material. And Mr. Conyers sent his people over and they looked, and they looked and they looked. And I would assume they were in touch with you folks. I would assume they were. If they weren't, they should have been. That's a breakdown in communication. Now, we can -- we have a good case. We have an excellent case without the witnesses. But the witnesses help you. We have narrowed it down to three, a pitiful three. And I should think you would want to proceed with that minimum testimony and Mr. Kendall can try his cross-examination skills on them. And that I want to watch. Thank you.

FOCUS - OVERVIEW

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: In addition to the hours of public arguments in the senate over witnesses, there have been extensive negotiations behind the scenes. Some insight into both now from "Boston Globe" columnist Tom Oliphant and "National Journal" columnist Stuart Taylor, who is also a contributor to "Newsweek."

MARGARET WARNER: Tom, the senate is behind closed doors debating this. Why has this witness dispute become such a big issue in these proceedings?

TOM OLIPHANT: Because I think, Margaret, it is a metaphor for how long is this trial going to last. I don't think witnesses per se have importance. I think the claims on both sides today made it clear that no one is saying that somebody is going to come forward and say something dramatic. But rather than argue about the specific length of the trial, witnesses have in a sense become the metaphor. What's happening now I think has been arranged inside the senate Republican family. It appears to be working in the sense that it will have a majority. But it makes the House managers livid.

MARGARET WARNER: Why does it make them livid?

TOM OLIPHANT: Because they feel that their opportunity to put on the kind of trial that could have persuaded the senate, that could have persuaded public opinion has been limited to the point of ineffectiveness. And their expressions of frustration on the floor today and yesterday, but particularly yesterday, I think are just the surface of a genuinely deep fury at having the rug pulled out from under them.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Stuart? I mean, they made an incredibly passionate case for these three but they're livid about it and they feel they need more.

STUART TAYLOR: I think that's true. I think they might be satisfied if they got what they're asking for now. I'm not sure they'd still be livid, frankly. But one dramatic factor here is if they don't get the witnesses vote, this will be over by Friday and they will lose, and the president will be acquitted and he will have a victory party rather quickly. And they will slink back with their tails between - well, maybe not with their tails between their legs. So not only do they feel that in fairness they deserve this, but they know they will lose and be humiliated if they don't get it. And they're arguing that this is -- it's going to take a week or two. Why not do it right.?

MARGARET WARNER: Do they think they can change enough votes to win the conviction of the president with witnesses?

STUART TAYLOR: I very much doubt that any of them would bet money on that happening. Some of them probably haven't entirely given up on something dramatic happening. But I think really what they want to do is make a record, try and affect public opinion and move maybe some votes. I think they probably do hope and realistically hope that they can get more votes against the president with witnesses than they can without. I doubt that many of them think they can get to the two-thirds needed to remove him.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Flip this around. Why is the White House so concerned about having these -- as Henry Hyde called them -- "pitiful three witnesses"?

TOM OLIPHANT: Maybe I'm wrong about them but my sense during the course of yesterday and today, Margaret has been that public White House opposition or expressions of peak or anger or even threat, i.e., David Kendall, dissipate with every hour that passes, and that, in fact, if one could try to describe a consensus White House view, I would stick my neck out and say it is that if we hear this right, this is a scenario for ending this trial sometime next week, it seems very cut and dried, sharply limited, boundaries constructed around these three witnesses, what's the problem, let's go through, it we see an end, no big deal.

STUART TAYLOR: Although that's not what David Kendall seems to be suggesting on the senate floor today when he talked about discovery, thousands of documents, dozens of people, months and months.

MARGARET WARNER: Explain briefly for non-lawyers, what's discovery?

STUART TAYLOR: Discovery is the use of legal compulsion to get information for one side in a legal fight. In this case he's claiming he needs to see everything in Kenneth Starr's files. In a normal criminal case there's a very limited right of the defendant to have anything that the prosecution has that exculpates him, that suggests he's innocent. I'm sure the House managers and Starr would say in this case the president already has all of that and more.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you saying this is a bluff?

TOM OLIPHANT: Not a bluff. I mean, he is trying to preserve the president's rights as they go forward and there are contingencies and you have to be prepared. But remember you've been talking a little bit about the Senate Republican House manager relationship. There is a Senate Democrat White House relationship. And I think as this unfolds in an end game, you will see the senate Democrats acting somewhat to restrain the more truculent impulses of the White House lawyers. It hasn't really popped into public view yet but I think if David Kendall submitted a discovery request on Friday, Stuart, that was this high, you would see Tom Daschle saying something about it.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Stuart, let's turn now to the political calculation for the senators. Very, very tough?

STUART TAYLOR: Well, it looked tougher, I think, at a distance than it may coming up close for the moderate Republicans, for the ones who are in play here. When the managers were talking about in a way that made them think sex, salacious stuff on the floor, Monica Lewinsky, days and days, it's going to go on and on, lots and lots of witnesses -

TOM OLIPHANT: Sounds great.

MARGARET WARNER: High TV ratings.

STUART TAYLOR: Now the managers came in today and they've been backed into a corner and they're saying three witnesses, a couple affidavits, three or four days, no sex, no sweat, over. Think of the Republican senators running for reelection in 20 months. Is this going to make a difference saying okay, let's do that? I doubt it. I think it's getting easier politically.

TOM OLIPHANT: Fairness, you know, has been a word that works on both sides of this battle. And we're familiar with the White House claims with regard to what happened in the House of Representatives in November and December. But there are -- if you think about it -- analytically anyway, there are concerns on the House managers' side about fairness that seemed quite legitimate to me. And that to, you know, Henry Hyde did those synonyms for dismissal yesterday. He used the normal English instead of the legal point about putting a case aside. But he's right if it looks like you took this thing and threw it in the waste basket, is that respectful of the constitutional process? Of course not. So, they have a point, too.

MARGARET WARNER: So, when Tom Daschle said today, as he did during one of the breaks, that he thought on the witness issue it was going to be a party line vote and then one reporter said what about those soft Republicans you were talking about earlier? He said "I think they've gotten hard." How do you explain that? Do you think he's right? And how do you explain it?

STUART TAYLOR: I would never think of second guessing the minority leader on the vote count. I assume he's right. I assume they've gotten hard because maybe they see the balance of political advantage differently than they did before. Now it is a concrete, limited proposal. I think one interesting question is whether some Democrats vote for witnesses because the same Tom Daschle two or three weeks ago said that Democrats were universally unanimously opposed to any witness, one witness. Well, if one or two or three Democrats vote for witnesses, that's sort of interesting.

TOM OLIPHANT: And, of course, there may be one or two or three Republicans who vote the other way, not in a way that affects the outcome, only at the margins. And I think it's important to underline that. The fundamental position is still Democrats against Republicans for.

MARGARET WARNER: Is there any way, Tom, in which if you're a Republican and maybe thinking of not voting for conviction, that you would want to vote for witnesses?

TOM OLIPHANT: See, this is the way I want to know what happened when the doors closed last night and I want to know what's going on with the doors closed now because I think that is the easiest point for Trent Lott to make to these people until the world. We're going to let you go on the final vote. It's your conscience completely. But help us out here. We've tightened this boundary around the witnesses, we've done everything we can to keep it from going crazy so come on, give us a vote. I think what's happening is that nearly all of them are finding that a very easy thing to do.

STUART TAYLOR: You know, one thing that happened in the House and that the senate, I think, doesn't want to happen, they don't want the American people mad at them for a long trial, is that if either side goes away saying we didn't get a fair trial, this was not fair, we were not given a chance to prove our case, if either the White House or the House goes away saying that, the senate has failed. And the House will go away saying that if the senate doesn't give them some witnesses.

MARGARET WARNER: And we should point out that the vote tomorrow to depose witnesses doesn't even necessarily mean live witnesses.

TOM OLIPHANT: Not at all. And, in fact, the introduction of one idea into these negotiations within the senate Republican family, namely videotaping them, appears to be part of what the conservatives would call a plot to keep these witnesses off the floor if all you have to do is sit back and watch videotapes once the process is done. So absolutely.

STUART TAYLOR: With the videotape coming to the floor, I think it would. And, frankly, from the House manager's standpoint or any standpoint, if they can use excerpts of videotape as a floor presentation, that's just as good as having a live witness and in some ways better.

TOM OLIPHANT: Because if you're really telling me that this is over Tuesday or Wednesday, no harm, no foul.

MARGARET WARNER: So are you both predicting that we will have witnesses?

STUART TAYLOR: I'm predicting that the Minority Leader Daschle will probably be right again on vote counts and he thinks we will.

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes, of course. He counts well.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, thank you, Tom and Stuart.

STUART TAYLOR: Thank you.

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks very much.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, General Clark, and remembering two special Americans.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco has the General Clark interview.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Last October, the threat of NATO air strikes against Yugoslav President Milosevic stopped much of the fighting between his forces and ethnic Albanian separatists in the Serbian province of Kosovo. But fighting has now flared again, culminating last week in the massacre, apparently by Serbian forces, of 45 Kosovars just south of the capital Pristina. In response, NATO began moving forces into place in northern Italy and the Adriatic for possible air strikes if the killing does not stop. And European, U.S., and Russian diplomats met in London and drew up a settlement that would grant reportedly autonomy to Kosovo. The head of NATO forces in Europe, General Wesley Clark, is with us now. He met with President Milosevic in Belgrade last week. Welcome, General.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe: Thank you, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Will NATO air strikes and perhaps even NATO ground forces be necessary to stop the fighting in Kosovo?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think what's clear is that President Milosevic has to be persuaded that he is not going to be allowed to continue to seek a military solution to this problem. He has it in his mind and his advisors have it in their mind, I believe, that they can stall the international community, put us off balance, divide us, confuse us, befuddle us and somehow continue to conduct military and police operations with heavy weapons against these people in Kosovo. And that idea has to be taken out of their heads.

MARGARET WARNER: Can he be persuaded? What did you think after meeting with him for - what was it -- seven hours last week?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It was seven and a half hours. General Klaus Naumann and I went down at the direction of the North Atlantic Council. We went down there on what in military terms we'd call an unarmed reconnaissance mission in that no political decision had been made to actually go in and say comply or else. We were directed to go down there, find out exactly what his positions were on the key issues and promises that he'd made to NATO and the international community. We discussed in length his willingness to admit Louise Arbour, the chief prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal, we discussed his complaints against the head of the O.S.C.E. mission and we discussed the many promises which he was flagrantly violating, the promises he made to NATO in October that enabled to us relax the threat of air strikes then. In every case the answer was through great dialogue essentially no. And we explained to him what might happen. We had a long dialogue on this, but it was stubborn, difficult and there was a very obdurate mood in Belgrade.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So if that obduracy continues and the fighting doesn't stop, what would NATO do then?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, NATO is the agency, the alliance of 16 sovereign nations that is capable of applying credible threats of force and, if necessary, applying force. President Milosevic has felt NATO's hand in the past. It was NATO in 1995 which I think ultimately persuaded him to cease his support of the conflict in Bosnia and brought the conflict to a conclusion that Richard Holbrooke and the team did atDayton. And I can recall very well President Milosevic saying at the time to us in Belgrade, as we were discussing with him and the bombing had begun, saying "you must stop this bombing, it will not promote peace." And of course it was precisely the thing which provided the key incentive there to end this conflict. Now, this is a different situation. But it is NATO that has the capacity to apply force, to threaten force and do it effectively.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, General Clark, what would the goal of NATO action be?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, first of all, understand that we believe this problem has to be resolved by peaceful and democratic means, negotiation, dialogue. Let's give the people in Kosovo their autonomy. That's what the international community has called for. And so what NATO has to do is to reinforce all of the other pressures that are coming to bear on Mr. Milosevic. We've got to get all the other international agencies involved. The Russians have a stake in this. Let's have Russia put strong pressure on -- and many other diplomatic efforts that are currently under way. NATO's function is we're there if force has to be threatened or used, NATO is the agency that's standing there at the direction of its members to do this.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So, General Clark, what is the situation exactly right now? There was a meeting of the contact group, the European nations, the U.S. and Russia, that oversee what's happening in Yugoslavia by the international community and they've called for apparently some kind of autonomy --autonomy, not independence, for Kosovo. Now, will they try to get the two parties, Milosevic and the Kosovars to the table? And if they can't, then NATO will threaten to launch air strikes?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, Elizabeth, I'm not going to go into any specific scenario. There are many ideas under discussion in the international community today. Frankly, NATO is just one member of that community. We're listening to the dialogue, we're preparing our own capacities, we've got our plans done, we've got our equipment ready, our forces are available if need be to be called on. But I think that what has to be recognized is we're in a vital period of decision making now in each of NATO's sovereign nations; in their own ways, each nation is weighing the alternatives, figuring out how to harness its resources and put the concerted pressures out there to bring on Milosevic and to the Albanians to come together and resolve this problem peacefully.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Looking at the NATO planning, would NATO have to take action against both the Serbian security forces but also against the Kosovo Liberation Army, the K.L.A.?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, we have a variety of plans in place. And this will depend entirely on the nature of the dialogue and the direction that NATO receives from its member nations. So the military has a lot of capabilities. But I'm not going to get into all those plans right now.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what provisions are being made, if necessary, to withdraw the 700 verification members, the international verification group which is there overseeing what was supposed to be a cease-fire?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, we do have in Macedonia right now a 2,300-man NATO extraction force. Now, this is a force that's composed entirely of our European allies. It's been there on the ground, some elements, for almost two months. But full force has been complete for about two weeks. They're trained, they're ready to go. And if required, they could go in and extract the unarmed verifiers.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And if it moved to this point, would they have to be extracted before NATO took any action?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, that's a decision that will have to be made by the appropriate authorities. But certainly everything would seem to suggest this.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Would you have to put troops into the ports in Albania and on the border in order to stop guns from going through, weapons from going through to the K.L.A.?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, there has been discussion of that plan. And we've looked at many such eventualities.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Would NATO action be limited to air strikes, or would ground forces have to be used? And I want to put something to you that was said on the show last week, the former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Robert Hunter was on the show, and he said NATO may have to put troops on the ground to redeem its credibility in Kosovo.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think NATO credibility is very, very good in Kosovo and in Europe. This is an institution that's stepped up to every problem, it's proven itself to be extremely responsive and adaptive. Now in this case we have got a whole family of plans, ranging from the lightest and the smallest to something much, much heavier. It's going to depend on the actions of the parties, the diplomatic goals that are established and what we in the military are going to be looking for are clearly defined missions, clear objectives and we'll recommend the appropriate military actions to attain those objectives if required.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I think the credibility issue came up because Mr. Hunter and others were saying that NATO threatened action in October, then when a peace agreement or an agreement was signed, NATO didn't have to follow through on the threat. But, in fact, the fighting continued, which is what the whole thing was - NATO was threatening action to stop. So NATO's credibility would be threatened in something didn't happen now. I think that was the point they were making.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, when we stopped the Serb offensive that caused this humanitarian outrage in October by the NATO activation warning, we knew that what we were buying was a period of relative tranquillity for two to four months, during which ambassador Chris Hill and his European colleagues could try to mediate some sort of an agreement. We're three months into that period now. It's been a rocky road. And the question is are we going to be able to muster enough cohesion in the international community to get the kind of outcome we want? Or will this conflict go into another more violent phase.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: General Clark, what's at stake here? Why should Americans be concerned about what happens in this province in southern Serbia in Yugoslavia?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, we've spent probably ten years now in the international community dealing with a man who has emerged as the president of Yugoslavia. We've seen a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. We've seen hundreds of thousands of casualties -- two million people displaced. The nations of Europe and the United States have spent tens of billions of dollars dealing with the consequence. And history teaches us that when you're talking about transatlantic security and in Europe when problems start, if they're not dealt with effectively, they have a tendency to escalate and grow over time. We saw this as Yugoslavia began to disintegrate. It got worse and worse. So what we're seeing here is this is a problem that could, if it's not properly dealt with, become more severe. We can't allow a dictator to -- to run the agendas in a Europe and a transatlantic community that's becoming ever more democratic, ever more open, looking to the West. It's time for all of the people in this region to have a chance to participate in these wonderful prosperities and the beauty of democracy. And that's what I think all of Europe is hoping for.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: General, as the allied commander in Europe, are you afraid you're not going to get the unity among the nations that would permit NATO to do what it feels necessary?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: No, I'm not. I've got every confidence in the decision-making processes in all of our nations. I think this is an alliance that when it starts to work a problem it may take a while to work it. And those who might be on the other side have got to be careful and not be deceived because when NATO comes together, it comes together with an iron grip. And once it grips a problem, it doesn't let go. So I'm very confident in NATO.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you very much, General Clark.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Elizabeth.

FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, remembering two American originals, and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: Sarah Delaney, who died yesterday at age 109, had an extraordinary life's tale to tell, and with her sister, Elizabeth, she told it in a 1993 memoir, "Having our Say: The Delaney Sisters' First 100 Years." The best-selling book was written with journalist Amy Hill Hearth and later turned into a play. Their father was born into slavery in Georgia, but rose to become the first African-American bishop in the Episcopal church. Their mother was born free in Virginia. By the turn of the century, the Delaneys and their ten college-educated children were one of the nation's most prominent black families. Ms. Delaney, known as "Sadie," earned her masters in education from Columbia university in 1925, and later became the first African-American woman to teach home economics in white New York City schools. Younger sister Elizabeth, known as "Bessie," was the second black woman licensed to be a dentist in New York State. Dr. Delaney died in 1995, when she was 104. Charlayne Hunter-Gault spoke with the Delaney sisters in 1994. In this excerpt, Sadie Delaney tells how she handled discrimination in the North when she first went to get a teaching job.

SARAH DELANEY: [1994] When I got appointed, you had three years to get appointed after you passed this examination, which was no easy job for a colored person. And they wrote me. They took the three top on the list. And of course, if you were colored, they'd just skip over you, and take the other two. And so, my brother knew a fellow that worked down at the Board of Education, and he told Hubert -

ELIZABETH DELANEY: Who was colored.

SARAH DELANEY: Yes, he said, "You tell your sister, when they write for her to come for an interview at the school," he says, "don't go." He said, "They won't know she's colored, and then they'll appoint her, and then when you go up there and you're appointed, you can't do nothing about it." So I made an excuse, and I didn't go. And they just appointed me. And when I appeared there, this colored girl, they could do nothing about it, because I was appointed.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: When you look back, what do you think has been harder, being black or being a woman?

SARAH DELANEY: Black -- being black, being black.

PHIL PONCE: A nephew said Sadie Delaney died peacefully in her sleep.

[MUSIC IN BACKGROUND]

PHIL PONCE: The world of music also suffered a loss yesterday. Robert Shaw was widely regarded as the nation's preeminent choral conductor. He first gained fame as head of the Robert Shaw Chorale, which he founded in 1948. He held posts at the San Diego Symphony and Cleveland Orchestra, and was music director and conductor of the Atlanta Symphony from 1967 until 1988. He won 14 Grammies for conducting, and was known for fostering the careers of many singers and teachers, and for his strict attention to detail, as seen in this 1997 rehearsal footage.

ROBERT SHAW: We're responsible for every - every 32nd value of every quarter. We're responsible to do something with it. The responsibility does not end when the note begins. We have a responsibility to either crescendo or diminuendo, or to stop singing or to do a crescendo and diminuendo and stop singing. And we're responsible for every 16th to 32nd note of every quarter note. There's something must happen at each instant in the life of that note. And you somehow think -- it's like fathers who start a child and then don't give a damn about what happens to the child. You start the note and then you don't take care of it. You don't give it a finish or a middle life. You know. You just from then on it's on its own. And now and one, two and -

PHIL PONCE: The end result: A Carnegie Hall performance of Mendelsohn's "Elijah." Here's the finale.

[CARNEGIE HALL PERFORMANCE EXCERPT]

PHIL PONCE: Robert Shaw was 82 years old.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday. House managers asked to call three impeachment trial witnesses. The senate debated that in secret. The death toll from the Colombian earthquake reached more than 1,000. And in St. Louis, President Clinton welcomed Pope John Paul II to the United States. We'll see you tomorrow at 1:00 P.M. Eastern Time on many PBS stations for our continuing coverage of the senate impeachment trial, as well as on-line, and again here at our regular time tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.