The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight Kwame Holman and four House members preview tomorrow's impeachment inquiry vote in the House [Update - Impeachment Inquiry]; leaders [Focus - Showdown] of the two sides in Kosovo explain their very different positions, and William F. Buckley continues our conversation series [Conversation - Perspectives] on the conduct and investigation of President Clinton. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton said today tomorrow's House vote on an impeachment inquiry should be one of principle and conscience. He denied trying to pressure any members, especially Democrats. He told reporters it was up to others to decide what happens to him and ultimately the American people would make their will known. The vote tomorrow is on a Republican proposal to authorize an open-ended inquiry. Some Democrats are also expected to vote for it. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Republicans and Democrats said today they were working together to avoid a government shutdown. Federal agencies would have no funds to operate if Congress fails to approve a '99 fiscal year appropriations plan by the end of the week. The sticking points are funding for the International Monetary Fund and conducting the year 2000 census, among other things. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Livingston had this to say.

ROBERT LIIVINGSTON: None of us want a shutdown. That means we ought to be able to work through our problems within the next few days and our hope and expectation is that by Sunday we'll be through the process. I think that the major issues to be resolved between our leadership and the White House are fewer than ten and can be resolved without any undue difficulty.

JIM LEHRER: Livingston said some controversial issues could be dropped and then taken up next year. But House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said he was not sure how the spending negotiations would conclude.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT: This whole negotiation may collapse, and they may have to use a one-month or a two-month straight, continuing appropriation of present policy, which would be kind of the cap stone of this Congress after grinding away for nine months working on all these appropriation bills, just throw it all in the trash.

JIM LEHRER: The Justice Department sued Visa and Mastercard today for limiting competition. The two largest credit card companies account for 75 percent of all credit card purchases in the U.S. They were accused of violating antitrust laws by restricting banks that issue their cards from doing business with smaller rivals like American Express and Discover Card. The action grew out of a complaint made two years ago by American Express. The number of AIDS deaths in the United States dropped by 47 percent last year. The findings were released today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The decline was credited to potent new AIDS-fighting drugs. The disease dropped to 14th on the list of leading killers. It had been in the top ten since 1990. President Clinton warned Serbian President Milosevic today to call off his troops in Kosovo or face a NATO air assault. He spoke to reporters at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If he completely complies, he doesn't have to worry about military force, but I do not believe the United States can be in the position and I do not believe NATO can be in the position of letting tens of thousands of people starve or freeze to death this winter because Mr. Milosevic didn't keep his word to the Russians in the world community one more time. So the way to avoid NATO military action is for Mr. Milosevic to honor the UN resolution. That's what should be done.

JIM LEHRER: U.S. Envoy Richard Holbrooke took the president's words right to Milosevic again today. Holbrooke wrapped up three days of talks with the Serbian president in Belgrade, the Yugoslavian capital. Holbrooke said the Kosovo situation has reached a decisive moment. Afterward, Milosevic issued a statement decrying what he called the threats which are delivered to our country. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Israeli and Palestinian leaders made significant progress toward exchanging land on the West Bank. That's what Sec. of State Albright said today after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Leader Arafat on the Israeli-Gaza Strip border. She said she hoped a deal could be reached during their talks with President Clinton next week. Netanyahu later said only a small step had been made toward handing over a further 13 percent of West Bank land to Palestinian rule. In Russia today there was a nationwide protest against the government and President Yeltsin for back wages and pension payments, among other things. We have a report from Mark Webster of Independent Television News.

MARK WEBSTER: Crowds did come to the Kremlin and gathered in cities across Russia. But there were not the millions of people predicted by the Communists and trade unions. Even so, protesters warned that with no sign of the country's current economic crisis abating, many who stayed at home shared their growing unease.

MAN: Our president is not suitable for the country.

MAN: We cannot get salary.

WOMAN: I think that it's going to be worse.

MARK WEBSTER: Fearing the protest would turn violent, the government drafted 15,000 police and soldiers into Moscow in the event they were largely kept out of sight and the demonstrations were peaceful. Tens of thousands of people have turned out to show their anger at what's happening in Russia today. However, few agree on what needs to be done about it. Some of these people are here to protest about the disastrous state of the economy. Others want President Yeltsin to go, while others still want a complete change of government. And though the numbers were smaller than many expected, only a clear plan of action on how to improve Russia's economy will lessen the tension here.

JIM LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to tomorrow's impeachment inquiry vote, the two sides in Kosovo, and a conversation with William F. Buckley.% ? UPDATE - IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman begins our preview of tomorrow's important vote in the House.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Clinton met with Hungarian President Viktor Orban at the White House this morning. Their discussions and statements to the media afterward dealt primarily with the possible use of NATO forces in Kosovo. However, the first two press questions from CBS News Correspondent Scott Pelley focused on impeachment.

SCOTT PELLEY: Good morning, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good morning.

SCOTT PELLEY: When you talk to members of Congress about impeachment what doyou tell them?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, I have received a large number of calls from House members, and I have tried to return those calls. I haven't been able to return them all because we have other things to do, and I'll try to call the rest of them today. But I think the vote should be a vote of principle. It's up to others to decide what happens to me, and ultimately it's going to be up to the American people to make a clear statement there.

KWAME HOLMAN: The president didn't say whether he initiated those calls, but this morning's New York Times said he did, and reported that the vice president and First Lady, among others, also made calls to Congress about impeachment.

REPORTER: Some Democrats, sir, have complained that they're being pressured by the White House on the subject of impeachment. Is that appropriate?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There have been conversations with members -- as I said yesterday, a large number called me; I'm attempting to call them all back and I will try to do that. But I want them -- more important than anything else to me is that they do the people's work and then let -- the people will decide where we go from here.

KWAME HOLMAN: Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is likely to approve a Republican proposal that would allow the Judiciary Committee to begin open-ended impeachment inquiry. Every member of the Republican majority is expected to vote for the plan. But Ohio's John Boehner, a member of the Republican leadership, said his party colleagues won't be told how to vote.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: The speaker reiterated that, that there will be no whipping of our members, there will be no arm twisting, that members need to take this vote as a matter of conscience and we'll let the chips fall where they may tomorrow.

KWAME HOLMAN: Nor will Democrats be told how to vote, according to Minority Leader Dick Gephardt.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT: I think they're going to vote their conscience. I think they're going to vote for what they think is right.

KWAME HOLMAN: Members of the Senate will remain spectators to the process unless and until the full House charges the president with an impeachable offense. The Senators then will sit as jurors in what would amount to a trial. That could be months away, however, West Virginia's Robert Byrd, considered to be the Senate's constitutional scholar, talked about that role this morning. He cited Sunday's Washington Post, which reported White House officials considered but backed away from a plan to line up the support of Democratic senators in advance of House action. Byrd warned against any tampering.

REP. ROBERT BYRD: I would suggest by way of friendly advice to the White House, don't tamper with this jury -- don't tamper with this jury. I would also utter a few words of friendly advice to my colleagues. Don't let it be said that we allowed ourselves to be tampered with - no matter who attempts the tampering, no matter how subtle the attempt. So I warn Senators and I warn those at the other end of the avenue to exercise the utmost care, lest somebody be prejudiced because of tongues that wagged too easily and too early.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon at the White House reporters asked about the president's phone conversations with members of Congress. Spokesman Joe Lockhart tried to clarify who was calling whom.

JOE LOCKHART: Let me give you some context for this. I think you know what it's like when this building gears up to run an aggressive campaign, whether it be the Brady Bill, whether it be NAFTA, or whether it be fast track. I mean, fast track is an issue where we came up short, but I think you saw that this building mobilized and tried to do what we could to generate as much support as we could. Now, so you know what that effort is, and I thinkyou know what it isn't, and that's not what this is. This is whether it be staffers here or the president reaching out and talking to members, listening to their concerns. And I think over the last couple of days there's been, you know, three, four, five calls that he's generated, and probably about the same amount of calls that he's returned.

KWAME HOLMAN: Lockhart also was asked several times if Democrats who vote for the Republicans' proposed open-ended impeachment inquiry should fear retaliation by the president. Lockhart would not give a definitive answer.

JIM LEHRER: Now to four of the 435 members of the House who will be voting tomorrow: two Republicans, George Nethercutt of Washington State, and Zach Wamp of Tennessee; and two Democrats, Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. First, let's just go around. Congressman Wamp, how are you going to vote tomorrow?

REP. ZACH WAMP: I'll vote yes. I think it's clear we should move forward, and there's bipartisan consensus that the inquiry should go forward.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Nethercutt.

REP. GEORGE NETHERCUTT: I'll vote aye, Jim. I think that we can't turn our kids away from the information that the Judiciary Committee has received already, and I think it's justifiable that we look further.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Fattah.

REP. CHAKA FATTAH: Well, I'm going to vote, along with the majority of the American public, who want this foolishness to stop. I'm going to vote no. And I think that this Congress at some point will have to turn its attention to legislating, rather than investigating.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Taylor.

REP. GENE TAYLOR: I'm going to vote for the inquiry.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now you're a Democrat. Why are you voting the way you're going to vote?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: Because I have reason to believe the president perjured himself. And I think we ought to go forward and see if he really did. But in my heart I think he intended to mislead the American public; it was done under oath; and perjury is a very serious crime that's punishable by five years in prison. It is - telling the truth in the courtroom is the basis of our American legal system. We try to pass good laws. Policemen try to enforce them. District attorneys press charges. Juries have to vote on right and wrong in a courtroom. If we say it's okay for the people who go before the courtroom to lie, we pull the whole chain apart, and I can't be a party to that.

JIM LEHRER: So your vote tomorrow should be read as you're saying I believe the president committed an impeachable offense, not just to start an inquiry?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: Well, let's put it the other way. You know, if I think he committed perjury, which I do, how can I vote any other way?

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Fattah, should your vote tomorrow be read as if you believe - you do not believe the president committed an impeachable offense?

REP. CHAKA FATTAH: I think it should be read the same way when all of us voted that Speaker Gingrich should be censured by the House, even though he admitted that he had misled and provided inaccurate information to the House Ethics Committee. I'm on the Ethics Committee. It was clear then and it's clear now that it was an offense. However, we felt that the known good outweighed the known bad, and that we were going to be mature about this. That's where the American people are on this issue. The president misled the public. He admitted he misled the public. He had a girlfriend. There's a desire to punish him. I don't think we should punish our country, our economy, or our system of government by going through this - this impeachment process, when we know at the end of the day in the Senate, there's no vote - there's no 2/3 of the Senate that's going to impeach him. So we're going through this masquerade. I guess it's close to Halloween but I think the public would like us to get to their work.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Wamp, are you voting because you feel the president committed an impeachable offense, or it's only for the inquiry?

REP. ZACH WAMP: Tomorrow's for the inquiry, to start the process, and then if the resolution vote comes about later, I think both votes really are an individual vote of conscience based on how we determine our own oath of office, based on how we see the rule of law, and how we think the House should respond based on the Constitution, and so I think, frankly, there's a lot of noise out there among the American people and through the media, and actually from people trying to influence this process. But this comes down to 435 people in the House and then maybe 100 Senators we don't know making an individual call based on their own particular oath of office and how they believe they need to uphold the Constitution.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Nethercutt, much has been said here about partisan, non-partisan, bipartisan or whatever. Would you be voting the way you're voting tomorrow if the president involved with the exact same charges were a Republican?

REP. GEORGE NETHERCUTT: I would hope I would, and I would expect I would, Jim. I think we have to have some blinders on in this case. We have to judge the facts as we see them. We have to judge the issues, regardless of party affiliation. I know there's going to be an attempt to - you know - I guess polarize Republicans versus Democrats on this issue. I think what we're looking for and what I will expect is more Gene Taylors and other Democrats who look at this, regardless of party affiliation, but on the facts and on the merits. It's a very personal decision. It's a very serious decision. And I'm going to actually size it the way I see fit. And if it were Republican, I believe I would exercise it the same way.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Taylor, you are a Democrat and yet you're going to vote with the Republican --

REP. GENE TAYLOR: I'm going to vote for what I think is best. This is not a partisan issue. And if ten years from now a Republican president does the same thing, I hope my constituents know I'm going to vote the exact same way.

JIM LEHRER: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Are you catching any heat from your fellow Democrats?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: There are 206 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Of those 206, two of them have made snide remarks. I think that's pretty remarkable for the other 203.

JIM LEHRER: Snide remarks along what lines?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: We'll just leave it at that.

JIM LEHRER: Has somebody from the Democratic leadership, or the White House, said, hey, come on, Taylor, you're a Democrat, do the right thing?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: I think they know that I'm doing the right thing.

JIM LEHRER: No. But I mean do the right thing for the party.

REP. GENE TAYLOR: You just answered my question. They know that I know that I'm doing the right thing.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. But nobody has said to you, Congressman Taylor - has nobody called on you as a Democrat to vote against this proposal because you're a Democrat?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: I had a conversation along those lines yesterday, and I said I came here to serve the American people. You know, all of those kids who died in Vietnam, all those kids who died in Normandy, theydidn't die for the Republican Party; they didn't die for the Democratic Party; they died for our country. The Constitution -- I took an oath of office to this country, not to a political party, and I think this nation would be much better served if 434 other congressmen came to the same conclusion, the sooner, the better.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Fattah, what do you think of what Congressman Taylor's doing?

REP. CHAKA FATTAH: Well, I think as Gerald Ford, who's a former Republican president, stepped forward and said this needs to stop and we should not proceed to impeachment, that as he crossed party lines to offer his opinion, my colleague and my good friend from Mississippi has every right to do so. There are a number of Democrats who from time to time vote with the majority. But the majority of Democrats tomorrow on this question, the vast majority, will vote not with the Republican Party but with the majority of the American people. And I think that we might have differing opinions about all of this, but I think we've heard from a host of people on both sides of the aisle as to what is in the national interest. We know when Nixon was forced out of office and resigned and we went through this impeachment process, it sent shock waves through our economy. If the same would have happened today, we're talking about 2 million jobs, not just in my district but in Gene Taylor's district -- we saw a 25 percent drop in the stock market in the Nixon circumstance. Are we prepared as a country to punish this president for having a girlfriend and misleading people about it by punishing innocent Americans? This is a weighty matter. And we should judge on all of the circumstances and think about what is in the national interest.

JIM LEHRER: Should this vote tomorrow, Congressman Fattah, be judged - let's assume it goes the way everybody thinks it's going to go by - by - it's going to be passed - the Republican proposal is going to be passed with all the Republicans voting and maybe some Democrats, should it be seen as a Republican attempt to remove the president, a Democratic president from office?

REP. CHAKA FATTAH: Democrat or Republican, I think it's going to be seen as the Congress has been seen in the past, that is, out of step and out of touch with the parties of the American people. This Congress has a set of, for instance, appropriation bills - nine out of the thirteen that haven't been passed and sent to the president even though we're days beyond the fiscal year. We have a set on HMO reform and patients bill of rights. There's work for this Congress to do. But we're going to set aside a day tomorrow to vote to inquire into the president, after we've already spent more than $40 million looking into - all of the facts are on the table. So whatever judgment this Congress really wants to make about the president's actions, we could make now. To say that we're going to play Dick Tracy and go out there and continue some inquiry when Ken Starr has subpoenaed every person who has any information and they have provided it under the threat of perjury, which Gene has talked about the importance of that, we have that information. This Congress, if it wants to be in a majority, they should be mature enough to step up to the plate and render their judgment now, not drag this out to the detriment of our country.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Wamp, what about that, what more is there to find out about this situation?

REP. ZACH WAMP: Well we don't know. But, frankly, we've got an obligation to look into it. You know the economy comes and goes. A lotof things come and go. But the Constitution and the rule of law are both constant, and I really think we should respond today quietly, methodically, but out of a real commitment that 25 years from now we'll look back and say that we did the right thing based on our founding fathers and those that came before us. And this is all about what the Congress should do based on its constitutional role, based on the evidence that's been presented, not what's popular, or not. And we hate this. I don't know a single member of the House that likes this. This is the most difficult thing to be called on to do, other than the declaration of war. And we take it very serious. And I think we ought to be quiet and methodical and effectively, we ought to be slow to ever move in impeachment of a president. But if you have to do it, you have to move forward.

JIM LEHRER: Have you, Congressman Wamp, just based on what you know about the case at this time, have you made a decision yourself? In other words, if you had to vote today, if you did what Congressman Fattah says, hey, all the information is out there, we can vote today, would you vote to impeach President Clinton?

REP. ZACH WAMP: I intentionally -- when this started decided to glow slow, read, learn the evidence, and wait for the Judiciary Committee, I was hopeful all along that there would be some bipartisan integrity that would set into this process so that this is never a partisan exercise. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I've intentionally waited and I'm going to wait to make an ultimate decision because the evidence has to be presented and the process must be held up. This is nothing that we should decide on Larry King Live. This is an important process for the history of the country.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Nethercutt, what's the state of your - the openness of your mind on the issue of whether or not President Clinton committed an impeachable offense - tonight?

REP. GEORGE NETHERCUTT: My mind is open. I think it would be improper for me to make my judgment today on the evidence against president and vote for impeachment. And this is the reason why. My sense is we don't know what the facts are completely. We've gotten a version of the facts from Kenneth Starr, and I've read that report. And it's a damning report against the president. The president hasn't really had a chance to defend himself, or we haven't had a chance to cross-examine witnesses who may have testified in a grand jury proceeding, which is much different than a jury trial or an inquiry. So I have not made up my mind, and I've made it clear to my constituents. I'm not a wind sock, and I don't intend to be a wind sock and sway with the wind blowing one way or the other on these issues. My mind is open. My job is to exercise my judgment fairly to the president, to the process of law in this country, and I intend to do so and I will.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Taylor, is it fair to read what you said - from what you said a while ago that you have already decided that the president - you pretty much decided the president committed an impeachable offense?

REP. GENE TAYLOR: I will agree with Chaka in one thing. I really do think we have enough information right now. The strongest charge to date is perjury. We can take a look -- the January 17th testimony is public testimony. What he said on August 17th has also been public testimony now. You could take a look at it too. I've made the decision, having watched both, that he intentionally misled the American people . That's perjury. This is not some dumb guy they just grabbed from off the farm. This is a graduate of one of the premiere law schools in America. He knows exactly what he's doing. And I think he intentionally misled the American people. And I'm ready to send it on to the Senate. I think these guys are more objective than I am. Of course, if they want to look at all these other things, fine, and that's what we're going to vote to do. But I do think there's enough right now, when it comes down to perjury, which in my mind is an extremely serious crime, because, again, we can't send a message out there to every rapist, every mugger, every murderer, hey, the president lied under oath; you can do it too. It's wrong. No one can do it.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Fattah, you have definitely decided that the president has not committed an impeachable offense, correct?

REP. CHAKA FATTAH: I think it's clear that the same judgment that this Congress rendered on Speaker Gingrich when he admitted to providing misleading, inaccurate information, when we all came to the decision that, yes, he did something wrong, there should be a punishment. It should be short of tossing him out of office. He's a constitutional officer. We had the same circumstance. I agree with Gene. The strongest allegation is perjury. Okay? We had the same circumstance, except it wasn't about having a girlfriend. It was about important issues of the conduct of his official responsibility. This Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, decided that we would not toss him from office. We need to think long and hard about how we're going to proceed here. And I just hope that the Congress, as we set these precedents, are willing to stick by them across the board. I hope that we would be more reasonable. The American public - in the Constitution set up the Congress, the House so that we would be closer to the people, not to be divorced from the polls, not to be divorced from the opinions of the American people, but that we would always be at - the impulse of the American people. Their impulse now is that the president has more important work to do and so does this Congress.

JIM LEHRER: All right. We have to leave it there, gentlemen. Thank you all four very much.% ? FOCUS - SHOWDOWN

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the showdown in Kosovo and a conversation with William F. Buckley.Robert Moore of Independent Television News begins the Kosovo story.

ROBERT MOORE: On a military level NATO forces are already in position in Italy and in the Mediterranean, ready to launch air strikes on Serb targets. But politically the western alliance is now struggling to overcome internal differences over how best to act. Much depends on the last ditch diplomatic effort by the American envoy Richard Holbrooke, who all afternoon has been meeting with the Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. The atmosphere is said to be grim, but some said forces clearly have pulled back from the battlefield of Kosovo. But as they were filmed leaving, the question remains whether this is enough to satisfy U.N. demands for a complete withdrawal and cease-fire. The British prime minister, who's visiting China, says the threat of force is essential.

TONY BLAIR: People like myself have been saying for a long period of time now if we don't act or threaten to act, then President Milosevic will simply take no notice of us.

ROBERT MOORE: The humanitarian situation remains serious. Some 30,000 Kosovan refugees are believed to be living without shelter, as winter approaches and as NATO engages in a last-minute debate on the wisdom of military action.

JIM LEHRER:And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Since Correspondent Moore filed that piece, Ambassador Holbrooke ended his negotiations in Belgrade and left for Brussels. He and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright planned to meet there tomorrow with NATO officials. Albright's spokesman said earlier today that there's no final consensus yet among NATO nations on how to proceed. We're joined now by Yugoslavia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vladislav Jovanovic. And welcome, Mr. Ambassador. What can you tell us about the outcome of today's meeting between your president and Ambassador Holbrooke? Did they come to any kind of agreement?

VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC, U.N. Ambassador, Yugoslavia: It's too early for me to learn more about that, but the fact is that we have been very cooperative in relation to the request of the last Security Council resolution. We have complied with practically everything, and it isn't for any action for military threat against Yugoslavia. We also have offered a lot of proof of our goodwill and political readiness to solve the issue of Kosovo peacefully and through dialogue. We have not only ceased any fighting there, which the other side didn't, but we have withdrawn all anti-terrorist forces called special police. We have withdrawn the army in their barracks. We have increased the number of the humanitarian centers from 12 to 16, and they are very active there. We have offered the full amnesty to all Albanians who have been involved in the terrorist groups, except those who are responsible for the crimes. We have also repeated our call to Mr. Waller and his team to resume talks, but unfortunately, we got the answer that we before resuming talks the air strikes of NATO should be realized. So -

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ambassador, just to interrupt you, you were referring to the Kosovo-Albanian leadership there, you're saying, that they didn't want to engage in talks. I just wanted to identify that for our viewers. Let me ask you this. Do you take the NATO threat of air strikes seriously?

VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC: Of course. We do. Only the same man can say that he doesn't do it - but we also know very well that there is not any justified reason for that. There is no - anything which can present us as a guilty side. The opposite to us - we have - the side which is very cooperative. We are part of the solution, not of the problem. The other side is unfortunately a part of the problem, but it seems that there is no readiness from NATO side to sit and to admit it.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you - you said that you had complied with the resolutions. NATO officials and UN officials say you haven't. They say thousands of Yugoslavian troops, the special forces, remain in Kosovo, for instance, and that the military police and others have not been withdrawn to the barracks. Are you saying they're completely wrong on that point?

VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC: I will say it depends on what is expected from us to do. If it is expected to evacuate that integral part of Serbia from any meaningful security forces, then it is - this is not to be expected to be realized, because we don't want to abdicate from the serenity of the best part of our country. But if it is expected that the special police, the anti-terrorist police, be removed and we can say with absolute certainty that that police was withdrawn, then there is not any other member of that police in Kosovo now. The army pulled back in the barracks, but nobody can expect us to pull the army entirely from the Kosovo region.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you a question about - excuse me for a minute - I just lost my train of thought - oh, about - you said that all the operations have ended. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, said in a report just to the Security Council yesterday they hadn't ended. Again, we have this big gap between what your government says and what the UN has found. He said that the - he called it a campaign of terror and violence against civilians is continuing.

VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC: The fact is that in the last seven days or eight days there have no - any operation from our side. But the fact also is that there were operations from terrorist side and unfortunately from the side of the republic of Albania. As a result of that, we suffered some severe cruelties. Seven policemen were killed in the various actions staged by the terrorist groups, and six of our soldiers grabbed - lost their lives as a result of the infiltration of sixty armed terrorists from Albania into Kosovo.

MARGARET WARNER: Can you explain something else, Mr. Ambassador, to our viewers, which is why any military operations have been mounted against civilians. Again, Secretary-General Annan probably talked about people were burned out of their homes, driven out of their homes, their livestock killed. There are some two hundred fifty or three hundred thousand displaced people now. Why is - why has the civilian population even come under any attack from your forces?

VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC: First of all, there is not any action or repression against civilians by our forces. Our operation there exclusively centered and concentrated against terrorists and their accomplices - it is possible that some collateral damages could happen, and some civilians could be a reality - but it has never been done intentionally - it has never been part of our policy. On the other side, a number of civilians were killed by the terrorists, themselves -- those who were loyal to Yugoslavia and those who refused to take arms against their own country. On the other side the practice of the terrorists were to deprive all those civilians from their identity cards - to give them arms by force and to put them outside of the villages in order to stage a picture for the foreign media. I would like to cite one very clear example-10 days ago the village - if I remember well - Resnick - was emptied from the people and as a result some thousand of civilians were seen in the woods by one international observer. When other foreigners were invited to track it, they haven't seen a single civilian in the woods because they all retired back in the village. It has been done purposely for the foreign media.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Mr. Ambassador, we have a very few - couple of minutes left. I just want to ask you to go back to now Amb. Holbrooke's mission and so on. The proposal he apparently was carrying with him would have you grant limited autonomy to the Kosovo Albanians for a couple of years, a kind of cooling off period for, I don't know, two to five years. No final decision made on the status of Kosovo but meanwhile military operations would cease on both sides. Would you amenable to that?

VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC: First of all, we have been close for the year of giving autonomy to Albanian countrymen. Even the present constitution offers the opportunity to Kosovo - in the - region - as it is the case with an order - a region - but - the Albanians is the only nationality of Yugoslavia which rejected that offer and preferred to play the role of the victim, expecting the sympathy from international community and mobilization of the tension from outside in order to justify their only objective, which is to get independence to destroy Serbia and Yugoslavia. Now we have already offered Serb government an autonomy which means full culture autonomy - which is already the case - for territorial autonomy and full representation of Albanians at all levels, including the level of Republican Federation. We are ready to discuss the statutes of the whole region with representatives of Albanian political parties, but we are not willing to discuss anything, because they know that they cannot get their result - to achieve their results from dialogue. We are not trading it to give them independence - international community is not ready to support them, so they are oriented toward aggravating the situation on the ground toward making matters worse in order to invite and justify one international military intervention.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

MARGARET WARNER: With me now is Dr. Bujar Bukoshi, who holds the post of prime minister in the self-declared government of the Republic of Kosovo. He's in Washington meeting with members of Congress and administration officials. Welcome, Dr. Bukoshi.From the body language, from what the ambassador said, and from the news accounts, it appears that there is no agreement between Mr. Holbrooke and President Milosevic. What should happen now?

BUJAR BUKOSHI, Kosovo Albanian Leader: I have no idea what will happen now, but I know as long as the Serbian regime is continuing to behave in such way I don't think any perspective and the improvement of the situation - and secondly, I have to stress that at this moment we are facing the genocide in Europe at the Balkans and the only thing which is necessary to do is to stop, to finally stop, the Serbian regime.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you want to see NATO air strikes?

BUJAR BUKOSHI: Yes. And I think this is the only way now to stop genocide. This is one of the biggest challenge after second world war after three wars in the former Yugoslavia provoked by Serbian regime to stop genocide and to create an atmosphere and time it to continue with the negotiating process.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think - how would air strikes really prevent or stop the killing? Explain that?

BUJAR BUKOSHI: It's - in my opinion - it's very - relatively easy because until now Milosevic manipulated the international community, promising things and continuing to give the same methods by killing Albanians and massacring the defenseless population in Kosovo, and now if NATO acts - and I am glad that the US policy finally accepted that - the only the way to stop Milosevic and the slaughtering in Kosovo is to use the force.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you believe that NATO will carry out this threat?

BUJAR BUKOSHI: I still don't know, because unfortunately there is still no consensus about this acting now, but I think if the international - the international community don't act now, we will face - with new additive complications and Milosevic will be more stronger and more - more arrogant as we see through his ambassador by manipulating and saying - talking only hypocrisy and, by the way, for Mr. Milosevic, talking is cheap.

MARGARET WARNER: You heard the ambassador say that as far as they're concerned, they have complied with the important resolutions. They've withdrawn the special forces, the attacks or operations on civilians have ended. What information do you have about that situation?

BUJAR BUKOSHI: During this interview with you we get information that Serbian artillery is shelling Albanian villages in Kosovo today now in this moment, so I have to use this word - lie - is characteristics of Serbians - as all statements - all what Serbian officials state and say is manipulating, hypocrisy, and lying.

MARGARET WARNER: As you know, in the UN resolution it does also call on both your leadership and the Yugoslav leadership to sit down and begin talking. The ambassador said it's the Kosovo leadership that doesn't want to talk and there are many news accounts that say the same thing. Is that the case? Why not? Why not negotiate?

BUJAR BUKOSHI: We are ready to negotiate, and we asked during this long nine years and negotiations political solution to talk with Belgrade about the problem of Kosovo but until now Serbia didn't show any interest and rejected everything even to talk about Kosovo and now - during this recent days - Serbia is trying again to manipulate and to postpone using of air strikes and to continue next day or next week with the same things.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you heard the ambassador say that your leadership has tried to manipulate the western press by encouraging some of these refugees to stay in the woods so their pictures can be taken and so on.

BUJAR BUKOSHI: I have to say this is also a cynicism. How could Albanians be happy to have destroyed Kosovo more than 400,000 Albanian refugees, more than - more than 500 destroyed Albanian villages have to ask or to play a victory? We would be very happy to - not to do anything with the Serbian regime, and this is the reason why the Albanians cannot imagine to remain under Serbian rule, because we always had the very bad experience with the Serbian regimes, and now we have - we are facing - we have the fascism in Europe and with the genocidal politics policy and this is why the international community is morally obliged to act to stop this and to make possible negotiations.

MARGARET WARNER: If the - if President Milosevic pulls back the forces either because of the threat of strikes or because of strikes, then would the Kosovo leadership commit or promise that the Kosovar military groups, the KLA, would not turn around and attack Serbs in the region?

BUJAR BUKOSHI: No. First of all, in Kosovo, there - we have never inter-ethnic conflict. We have no problems with the Serbs, who are living in Kosovo. During centuries we were together we had problems with the Serbian regime conducted by Belgrade, and special units, and criminals like Arkan and also people from Republika Serpska now - an army killing civilians - so we have no problem with the Serbs, and we are ready to talk about any solution in which Serbian - Serb population in Kosovo will never feel a handicap because it belongs to another nation, because we have - we know what is repression, what is apartheid, and we will not repeat the same game from other side.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thanks, Dr. Bukoshi. Thanks very much.

BUJAR BUKOSHI: Thank you.% ? CONVERSATION - PERSPECTIVES

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another of our conversations about issues raised by the conduct and the investigation of President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky matter. Last week, we spoke with Law Professor Stephen Carter and sociologist Orlando Patterson. Elizabeth Farnsworth has tonight's conversation.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And joining me now is William F. Buckley, editor-at-large of National Review. Welcome, Mr. Buckley.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, Editor-at-Large, National Review: Thank you. Nice to be here.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You were quoted in the New York Times last month saying of the president his lapse wasn't an aberration; it was a systematic deliberated violation during 18 months of elementary codes of professional and personal honor. Expand on that for us, please.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: Well, I think it's plain that the fact that he did what he is alleged to have done is on the record. I was delighted to hear Congressman Gene Taylor just a few moments ago saying there oughtn't be any doubt about this. In fact, he did it. He has confessed to doing it. To the extent that he pleaded in some kind of an out, it was really a technicality, which has brought a lot of discredit, I think, to him personally. I think that the whole country needs to ask itself whether we are engaged now in a bout of epistemological nihilism, i.e., you can't learn anything. There are, as you know, people who go around the country saying that the Holocaust isn't actually proved, and so we now sort of tell 'em to go away, not bother us with that kind of misstatement. But there are people going around saying that Mr. Clinton didn't engage in acts which manifestly he engaged in. So the question is: To what extent is a gravity involved in what he did and to what extent do we simply rely on a mechanical congressional process to take it to the other end of the question of impeachment.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: To what extent do you think there's gravity involved in what he did?

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: Well, the whole nation is convulsed on the question. Much of Europe says that they can't - they can't follow lines of argument without wondering whether or not the president's policy might in some way be affected in terms of his domestic considerations. People compare it to offenses of other people. But we have to be guided here by the reality, which is the bigger they come, the harder they fall. And the consequences have to be attuned to the notion of having disgraced his office. Mr. Clinton has disgraced his office. He has brought dishonor and shame to it. And the way to cope with that problem is to turn a new leaf, which the impeachment process permits us. If something of equal gravity had happened in other countries of the world, it certainly would have been from his resignation in Great Britain. In some countries, as in Japan, there would have been a suicide. We don't engage in that culture, but it is important, I think, for us to recognize that if we fail to deal with a sense of a moral equilibrium with a charge of this kind. We are, in effect, saying that we don't take gravely an offense of that dimension. That would be pretty unhealthy, I think.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How do you answer the criticism made by people who say, well, in France or in Britain this wouldn't be? I know you said in Britain the prime minister might have had to resign, but you once told a story I think in a speech last spring about Allen Clark, a British politician. Tell us that story and tell why it's so different from here.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: I think a lot depends on the context. It is true that the kings of France had mistresses and their children were named counts. And it is true that a certain residue of that lingers, but that is not a part of the American tradition to the extent that people say, well, Mr. Kennedy engaged in that kind of thing and so did LBJ. What became critical there was their judgment in keeping whatever it was they did out of the public forum. But it was done here by Mr. Clinton in a sense that requires us to pass our own opinion on his judgment. You can't say about Mr. Clinton that he suffered simply from a case of prior - he couldn't say no. He had 27 visits, and 17 of those he managed to get through without doing it. So the fact that he could exercise a judgment seems to be to undermine any potential defense. What are they going to come up with in defending what he did? And the notion that he hasn't had a chance to speak for himself is really laughable. He has a whole engine of people speaking for him. The front part of the New Yorker, this magazine, was a screed on the pro-Clinton side. Mr. Doctoro - William Styron - talking about the archetypal zealots like Kenneth Starr want to dismantle the presidency. That point of view has been I think to the extent that it can be. If there are any facts hidden there, we should certainly be acquainted with them and invite Mr. Clinton to come up with them. Did Monica have a secret perfume, an aphrodisiac effect that simply immobilized him? You get really to the sort of O.J. Simpson defense type of extremity when you try to fashion a case that simply erases the tons and tons of testimony we've heard.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I was struck by something else you said in the New York Times. You said the reclaiming of the presidency by Mr. Clinton could be viewed only as the triumph of formalism and of the non-judgmental ethos of the 60's generation. Do you blame the 60's generation for this?

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: Yes, I do, because I think that if we have just gone through in the last six months had -- so much has been suggested ten, fifteen, twenty years ago - he would have been simply out of office. He would have resigned. He said tonight that it was up to the American people. It is in a sense that, but it's also up to him. He says it's up to people to decide his future. I think he - having done what he did - should have the dignity to resign - even Guy Wills writing in the New York Times made the same point, how sympathetic he is to Clinton. The fact of the matter is that the gravity of the situation is something we can't walk away from. This is what people talk about. I was in Havana when the Pope was there in January. Three quarters of the press left Havana when the Lewinsky business came out -- such importance they attached to it. And this was before there was a record of what Mr. Clinton did by way of obstructing justice, failing to cooperate and perjuring himself. So to attempt to - to attempt to view the situation was trivial runs into an interesting episode. Years ago Professor Jode - leaving his lecture at Oxford - went to take the train to go back to London, but it wasn't there. So he waited, and all of a sudden the next train, which was the express train, unaccountably stopped. So he opened the door, went in, sat down, the train took off. A few minutes later, the conductor approached him and said, sir, this train doesn't stop here. He said, I know, and I'm not in it. That paradox wonderfully catches the situation of people saying this is just a trivial offense, this is just a gawky and fumbling sexual dalliance, to quote Mr. Styron. Well, if so, what are you and I doing here, giving it that kind of attention? It is a major moral and constitutional dislocation, and has to be treated as such.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And that is the metaphor that you would use to explain it?

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: Yes, it is.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally, you said also in a column in the New York Post "We have ahead of us not so much an inquiry into the facts of the matter, but what does a congress do when a president behaves as this one has behaved? We haven't much time, but what's your answer to that?

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: The answer is we ought to rely on the fact that there is a vice president with credentials. The laws of succession ordain what he does when somebody else is disqualified. We should think of ourselves as resilient and strong enough to go ahead and avail ourselves of the constitutional alternative.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Buckley, thank you very much for being with us.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: In coming days we'll hear from linguistics professor and author Deborah Tannen and writer Calvin Trillin, among others.% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton said members of Congress must vote their consciences tomorrow on a presidential impeachment inquiry. Congressional and White House negotiators said they were closer to agreements on spending bills which need to be passed before Congress adjourns, and Secretary of State Albright said Israeli and Palestinian leaders made substantial progress and agreed to an October 15th meeting in Washington. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with full coverage of the House impeachment inquiry vote. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.