The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight as the US turns up the heat on Iraq, we debate what should happen next, also the latest heart disease research, the impact of cheaper Canadian dollars, a David Gergen dialogue with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Robert Pinsky with a Veterans Day poem. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: More than 200 United Nations weapons inspectors and other UN staff pulled out of Iraq today. They did so as President Clinton sharpened his warnings that force will be used if Iraq does not exceed to UN weapons inspections. Defense Secretary Cohen dispatched additional bombers, stealth jet fighters, and troops to reinforce US firepower already in the Persian Gulf. UN weapons sleuths were ordered out by Chief Inspector Richard Butler. He explained his actions at a news conference.

RICHARD BUTLER: The fundamental point I'm putting to you is that I formed the view last night that I would be making a serious mistake if I didn't act in the interest of the safety of our people by removing them from Baghdad immediately. This is a precautionary measure only but one that I believe was justified, as I will explain to the council this afternoon, and I sincerely hope is temporary.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: An emergency meeting of the Security Council convened this afternoon at Russia's request. Russia opposes using force against Iraq and wanted a further explanation of the inspectors' sudden pullout. Also today the State Department advised US citizens to consider leaving Israel, Kuwait, and Palestinian areas, all within striking distance of Iraqi missiles. Non-essential personnel and family members were being withdrawn from American embassies in Israel and Kuwait. We'll have more on the Iraq story right after the News Summary. The Israeli cabinet today narrowly ratified the latest peace agreement with the Palestinians. The 8-4 vote with five abstentions followed seven hours of debate and a two-week delay. Prime Minister Netanyahu attached stipulations. One declared Israel's right to annex West Bank land if the Palestinian Authority unilaterally declares an independent state in May. Another demands a vote by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to annul the anti-Israel clause in its founding charter.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: There is no serious way of affirming something, other than voting. I don't care if it's voting by hand or putting it in ballots, in green boxes, or blue boxes, but organizations vote. That's how they make determinations on policy and especially when they change a policy that has called for Israel's destruction for all of 35 years, it is time to see a change; it's time to see a vote for change, a vote for peace.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Israel's parliament is scheduled to begin debating the agreement on Monday. In a related development the Washington Post and the New York Times reported today that CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign during the Wye River peace talks if Jonathan Pollard, an American convicted of spying for Israel, was freed as part of the deal. Pollard's release was a last-minute demand by Netanyahu. Mr. Clinton rejected the demand but said he would review Pollard's life sentence. Thousands of people were still without power today in the midsection of the United States. The season's first winter storm dumped a foot of snow in the Dakotas and Minnesota. Residents in Michigan dealt with fierce 95-mile-an-hour winds but toppled power lines. Eight people died in storm-related accidents, most caused by falling trees. The storm weakened as it moved North into Canada. And on the Hurricane Mitch story today Agriculture Secretary Glickman said in Washington the United States would donate 20,000 metric tons of wheat and wheat products to Honduras and Nicaragua. Vice President Gore's wife, Tipper, is touring the region. She was in Nicaragua today, where she announced a US pledge of another $1.5 million in medical aid and a dozen helicopters. That's in addition to the $10 million package announced yesterday in Honduras. Today is Veterans Day, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I. President Clinton placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Cemetery. In his remarks he reminded Americans of the debt they owed the servicemen and women who sacrificed for their country. Earlier, he signed legislation increasing veterans' benefits and improve their health care. US Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky reads a Veterans Day poem at the end of our program tonight. And between now and then US options in Iraq, the latest heart research, the cheap Canadian dollar, and a David Gergen dialogue.% ? UPDATE - FACING OFF ... AGAIN

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, moving closer to a showdown with Iraq. We begin with excerpts from the President's remarks at the amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery today.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, if Saddam Hussein is really serious about wanting sanctions lifted, there is an easy way to demonstrate that. Let UNSCOM do its job without interference -- fully comply. The international community is united that Saddam must not have it both ways, by keeping his weapons of mass destruction capability and still getting rid of the sanctions. All of us agree that we prefer to resolve this crisis peacefully, for two reasons: First, because accomplishing goals through diplomacy is always preferable to using force. Second, because reversing Iraq's decision and getting UNSCOM back on the job remains the most effective way to uncover, destroy, and prevent Iraq from reconstituting weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. But if the inspectors are not permitted to visit suspect sites or monitor compliance at known production facilities, they may as well be in Baltimore, not Baghdad. That would open a window of opportunity for Iraq to rebuild its arsenal of weapons and delivery systems in months -- I say again, in months -- not years. A failure to respond could embolden Saddam to act recklessly, signaling to him that he can with impunity develop these weapons of mass destruction or threaten his neighbors, and this is very important in an age when we look forward to weapons of mass destruction being a significant threat to civilized people everywhere. And it would permanently damage the credibility of the United Nations Security Council to act as a force for promoting international peace and security. We continue to hope, indeed pray, that Saddam will comply, but we must be prepared to act if he does not. (Applause.)

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We get four views now on the looming confrontation with Iraq. Rolf Ekeus was chief UN arms inspector from UNSCOM's inception in 1991 and 1997. He is now Sweden's ambassador to the United States. Charles William Maynes was an assistant secretary of state during the Carter administration and is now the president of the Eurasia Foundation. Paul Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense for policy during the Gulf War. He is now dean at the Paul Nitze School ofAdvanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. And Edmund Ghareeb is an adjunct professor of Middle East Studies at American University and the author of several books on Iraq. Thank you very much, all of you, for being with us.Ambassador Ekeus, is the ability of the weapons inspectors to do their job worth going to war over?

AMBASSADOR ROLF EKEUS, Former UNSCOM Executive Chairman: The weapons inspectors are the only guarantee that Iraq and Saddam Hussein does not acquire the terror weapons -- biological, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons. There is no other absolute guarantee, and, therefore, I don't say to go to war, but they are definitely the ones who stand between zero weapons and fully armed Saddam Hussein with terror capability.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Edmund Ghareeb, how do you see that, worth going to the brink of war with?EDMUND GHAREEB, American University: I think primarily -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: -- over?

EDMUND GHAREEB: -- what we have to look at is what has this policy accomplished so far. UNSCOM has destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But, instead, also we are seeing the continued suffering of the Iraqi population. We are seeing 6,000 dead children every month. We are seeing one policy for Iraq - a weak Iraq - and we are seeing another policy for friends of the United States or strong countries that violate international law. We also know that Resolution 687 talks, for example, about making sure that the whole Middle East is a zone free of mass destruction weapons, but the United States focuses on Iraq. What we are seeing here is that there one policy for Iraq and another policy for the rest of the world, instead of focusing, giving - providing incentives to Iraq to comply with United Nations resolutions, while at the same time seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. We are not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and this is why, in fact, we are seeing this sense of d j vu. We are seeing this crisis again. The Iraqis are making an appeal to the whole world by saying please pay attention to what's happening to us; please pay attention to the degradation of human and health resources in Iraq.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How do you see it, Mr. Ambassador?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ, Former Defense Department Official: Well, people talk about Iraq as though Saddam Hussein was Iraq. Iraq is a big country with a lot of people who are suffering terribly under his rule. And I think what we're seeing now is a failure of American policy and a failure of American policy to take advantage of our greatest strength and his greatest weakness, which is that 98 percent of the people of Iraq would like to be rid of this tyrant, and they need some help in doing so. And, frankly, it's true that without UNSCOM, Saddam Hussein will get weapons of mass destruction. But I think it's pretty clear he can defy UNSCOM, he can defy the UN. It's been almost a hundred days now without effective inspections in Iraq. I think the only real way to deal with this problem is to deal with the heart of the problem; that's Saddam Hussein, himself. And it's not as hard as people say it is, because so many people in that country - not just Shia in the south and Kurds in the north, but Sunnis want to be free of this man. He kills his own people; he murders his own associates. He's a terrible tyrant, and that creates a weakness which we ought to be taking advantage of.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But just on the specific question of whether there is to be military action to get the weapons inspections going again.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Well, what we haveis a failure of administration policy. If they don't do anything, then they're going - it's true - they will look weak; they will lack credibility. But they have no credible options either. The military actions they're talking about, they, themselves, admit aren't going to get inspectors back in, aren't going to get rid of this capability, may in the end strengthen him some more. They've resisted - and I don't know why they've resisted - what the Congress has voted overwhelmingly to support, and that is to provide serious support to the democratic opposition of Iraq.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you see it like that, Mr. Maynes, that here we are again in this situation where Saddam Hussein is sort of calling the shots, he's pressed to this point and military action is again threatened, troops are on the way, costs millions of dollars, and then perhaps there will be a deal in the end?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES, Former State Department Official: That is what he's doing. I would just say that if we bomb, that means that the inspectors are never going to go back in. If we bomb, we have to do it because we have decided that there is no possibility of getting the inspectors back in, and we're taking military action to take out discreet military targets, and that those would be related to the weapons of mass destruction. But if we go to war now, that means that the inspection regime is over, and we are moving to a new policy of containment and I suppose occasional military action in order to prevent any actual development of a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Maynes, I'm going to come back to the goal of military action. What possible options are there now - and I'll ask you all about this - short of military action?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, there aren't many, although I did notice that the President in his speech does say something that I think does open up actually a door that wasn't opened up before. He says explicitly that if Saddam Hussein is really serious about ending the sanctions, there's one easy way to do it, and that is comply, and let UNSCOM do its job. Before, it's been a little unclear if Iraq actually did comply with UNSCOM fully that the sanctions would be lifted. And this statement moves that closer to a position where our goal is to deal with the weapons and not the regime. At least, that's the way I read this sentence, because in October, we had been unwilling to make a statement like that in New York.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you're saying there may be some negotiated settlement that is possible?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I'm just saying this statement - one of the issues here has been what is the American goal, is it the weapons of mass destruction, or is it Saddam Hussein's regime? Very few regimes will commit suicide even under the threat of sanctions. So this was a disputed issue. This sentence implies that if there is full compliance with UNSCOM, the sanctions could be reviewed and lifted.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I think the record shows that there's never going to be full compliance with UNSCOM and if the deal of the kind that's just been described is done and sanctions are lifted, it's only a matter of time and probably a very short time before he kicks UNSCOM out again. And then there's no sanctions to work with; there's no coalition to work with; there's no -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you think we're at the end of that road?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I think our policy has collapsed, and it's going to continue collapsing further and see the restoration of Saddam to full power and enormous influence in the Gulf unless we change course and make it clear that supporting the Iraqi people to get this man off their back is our goal.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you - how do you see that?

EDMUND GHAREEB: It's up to the Iraqi people to decide who they want as a leader, not for the United States to decide for them who they want as a leader. There's no doubt that there have been problems with the Saddam Hussein regime for the Iraqis and for the neighbors, but it's up to the Iraqis to solve that problem. I think the issue here is where do we go from here? The issue is that the United States must engage with countries of the region - must begin to look at a new and imaginative, a creative policy to try to resolve the issues behind this. And I think what Mr. Maynes has said is a very important point here. What is it that the United States wants? Do you want to end the regime, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, or do you want compliance with the sanctions? If you really want compliance with the United Nations resolutions and if you want to see that Iraq does not threaten its neighbors, there are ways to define what are the problems, to define the way to -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But isn't that what they've been trying to do over all these years?

EDMUND GHAREEB: No, they have not. That's the problem. On the one hand, we say we are supporting opposition to the Iraqi government. We financed the opposition. We say that there's an Iraq Liberation Act, and at the same time, we say that if the Iraqis comply with the United Nations resolutions, then perhaps the sanctions would be lifted. But recently - and this is why I think this crisis was triggered at the United Nations, Iraq, for example, there was - Kofi Annan's visit to Baghdad, and a deal talking about a comprehensive kind of reassessment, re-evaluation of the situation in Iraq. And this would have been the opportunity for the United States to use this as an opportunity to show that Iraq should be given incentives if it complies with the monitors, if it complies with UNSCOM, then sanctions - some sanctions - economic sanctions -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You mean, if one file is closed by UNSCOM, a certain sanction - one of the economic sanctions would be dropped? You're talking about specific tit for tat?

EDMUND GHAREEB: Yes, very much. I think these are the sanctions. If a chemical file is closed, then perhaps some -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me just get to Ambassador Ekeus. Is that - is there - do you see an option, short of military force here?

AMBASSADOR ROLF EKEUS: I think Saddam Hussein - we are not clear about his priorities. There are two alternatives. One is the most important thing, is to get sanctions lifted, and then you know what to do. He has to cooperate and give up his hope of keeping weapons of mass destruction. Where the option is open, that his priorities to keep the weapons of mass destruction - and then he would never go along. This is -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In other words, you're not sure which the goal is -

AMBASSADOR ROLF EKEUS: Well, I think I'm pretty sure after six, seven years, that he has decided that the weapons are more important; they are decisive in his policies, so the way to get him to change these priorities is not - I believe - to just wait and hope that he will change his mind, but to take diplomatic action first of all, and I think the President's statement today is pointing in that direction, because what the Council - permanent members sometimes have got - that is to go back to the fundamental, and the fundamental are the weapons - and if they can be clear there that this is not a matter of eliminating Saddam, it's not a matter of keeping sanctions on forever, but to get rid of the weapons, at least he will be given a chance to accept that he can no longer play on what he has seen, differences between certain parties.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Ambassador, what should - if there is military action - let's move to that possibility - what should the goal be?

AMBASSADOR ROLF EKEUS: The goal should definitely be -- I would say military sanction, which is not military action but it is preparation for military action. That's the most important state - namely to give Saddam Hussein a signal that this can hurt you if you don't do the right thing -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But let's assume that that fails and there are air strikes. What should the goal be in that case?

AMBASSADOR ROLF EKEUS: I don't want to - I think the key is to put maximum pressure to get back to the fundamentals and make clear to Saddam that he is in deep trouble if he does not -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think the goal should be?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: The only thing that's really going to hurt him is action, and it can't be only military action, action that aims at overthrowing him. And -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You don't want just pin prick military strikes?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: We've had a series of them. We had them in 1993, when they attempted to murder former President Bush, this administration responded with a true pin-prick attack, when he rolled up our people in Northern Iraq in 1996, we did the same thing again. I think Saddam gains from that sort of action, and he probably would welcome it. Look, a diplomatic solution is always better than a war, but the best thing of all here would be to truly let the Iraqi people decide who's going to govern them. It's fine for Professor Ghareeb to say the Iraqi people should decide. I couldn't agree more, but they're not free to decide now. Anyone who suggests - even hints at the possibility that the government in Iraq faces the prospect not only of his own death but the death and torture of his extended family, that's why everybody in that country hates him so.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think the goal should be?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, we should have two goals if we're forced to use military action. We should try to take out any facility that involves weapons of mass destruction that we can identify and we should also try to do it in a way that does not destroy the American position in the Middle East. In other words, if we engage in a military campaign that totally erodes our position in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein will have won. So I think that's the reason why we have to concentrate on military targets as -- to the degree that we can, and also try to rally as much support as we can from our allies.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: First, Mr. Ghareeb, your reaction to the talk about military targets, and then what do you think the reaction in the Middle East would be?

EDMUND GHAREEB: I think, first of all, I just want to make a brief point on the weapons of mass destruction. I think there has been a great deal of exaggeration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also, and this is - I think deterrence is the best way. When Iraq had a mass destruction capability, when it had a powerful army, it did not use these weapons because there was deterrence during the Gulf War, and today, Iraq -- after eight years of sanctions, after a devastating war of over a hundred thousand tons of bombs dropped on Iraq, Iraq is not in a position to threaten its neighbors, and it should know, and there should be red lines that if it uses weapons of mass destruction, then there will be severe response. So that's on the one hand. Secondly, I think in terms if there's military force, this will undermine many of the friends of the United States in the region. It will radicalize the region, to radicalize the Iraqis. It will create further tension. It might vulcanize the whole region, and in addition to this, it will raise the issue again of US double standards when it comes to its policies in the Middle East. There's one policy that seeks absolute verbatim implementation of every UN resolution, every "i" and "t" dotted when it comes to Iraq, but then we look the other way when it comes to friendly countries to the United States. The last couple of days Turkey has sent over 20,000 troops into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish rebels against the Turkish government and what have we heard from Washington? There has been no response, even though Washington talks about Iraq's territorial integrity and independence.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.% ? FOCUS - MATTERS OF THE HEART

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, new research on heart disease. We begin with some background from Susan Dentzer of our health unit, a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.SUSAN DENTZER: Since 1910, heart disease has been the biggest single killer of Americans. It now causes almost half a million deaths and costs an estimated $175 billion each year in health care outlays and lost productivity. A rarity in previous eras, heart disease is a 20th century affliction that stems largely from fattier diets, bad habits like smoking and couch-potato lifestyles. The good news is that healthier living and new treatments like drugs are already pushing down the death rate from heart disease. And at this week's annual convention of the American Heart Association in Dallas, researchers unveiled dozens of breakthroughs that could make deaths from heart disease a rarity again in the 21st century. The results underscore that the war on heart disease will have to be waged on multiple fronts. Take prevention. It's long been known that increased physical activity can reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke. But new research unveiled this week showed that vigorous exercise can even help people who already have heart disease drastically cut their risk of recurrent heart attack and deaths. It's also been known for several years that one to two glasses of red wine per day can lower rates of heart disease -- but until this week, it hasn't been clear why. Researchers at the AHA reported that it's probably the grapes used in winemaking that make the difference, rather than the alcohol. They found that plain old bottled grape juice actually discourages platelets in blood from clotting and helps to widen the body's blood vessels. But far and away the most excitement in Dallas stemmed from news about genetic treatments for cardiovascular disease. These techniques could augment or even replace today's conventional therapies, such as costly heart bypasses and angioplasties that as many as a million Americans undergo each year. The potential savings to the health care system could be tens of billions of dollars annually. Researchers reported that injecting extra copies of a gene called VEG-F into the heart produces a protein that prompts the growth of new blood vessels. That can overcome the arterial blockages that cause heart attacks and chest pain. In effect, a person could be helped to grow his or her own bypass in what is being called a "biobypass." Dr. Ronald Crystal of Cornell Medical School in New York City is one of the lead researchers.

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: What we're doing essentially is what the body does naturally. And all we're doing is giving a boost to the heart so that it makes more of this protein and can build its blood vessels.SUSAN DENTZER: Dr. Jeffrey Isner of St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston has tried the technique on patients with clogged blood vessels and damaged hearts.

DR. JEFFREY ISNER: In this group of patients what we observed was the development of new blood vessels that we could actually see with an angiogram. This collection of vessels here, those were not apparent a year before.SUSAN DENTZER: The results of early trials of the procedure have been so impressive that researchers plan to begin testing it soon on a large sample of patients at a number of medical centers across the country.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Phil Ponce has more.

PHIL PONCE: With us now, Dr. Ronald Crystal, whom we just saw on Susan Dentzer's piece, Professor of Medicine at Cornell University Medical School in New York City, and Dr. Valentin Fuster, President of the American Heart Association. He's the director of the Cardiovascular Institute at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City. Gentlemen, welcome.Dr. Crystal, just to make sure that we have it clear, one can, and you have induced the heart to grow new blood vessels and, in effect, create its own bypass?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL, Cornell University Medical Center: Well, it's still early, and too early to tell whether it really works. Large-scale trials will have to be carried out. But the concept is to use genes the body normally uses when we're embryos and babies, to grow new blood vessels in the heart, inject those directly into the heart, to tell the heart to make its own blood vessels to get around areas that are clogged up.

PHIL PONCE: And is this something that would be useful for somebody before, or after that person has heart disease or a heart attack?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: Well, after large-scale trials are done, and we know that it works and that it's safe, we see it as a possibility for adjunct to bypass surgery, to angioplasty or opening up arteries with catheters, and possibly by itself as well, perhaps even earlier, to prevent these other major methods from being used.

PHIL PONCE: Doctor, you tried it on a group of patients. What kind of results did you see, and what - what impact did it have on these people?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: Most importantly, we've shown that genetic modification of the heart for a brief period of time - for the human heart - is safe, and that's very, very important. In terms of whether it works or not, the numbers are too small to be definitive, the trends certainly are in the right direction, and now large-scale trials in 1999 will be carried out in many different centers throughout the country to determine whether or not it really works.

PHIL PONCE: But give us an example of how it affected the people that you worked with.

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: Well, the patients, of course, many of them better; they say they have less pain, and they can do more, and some of the tests are consistent with that. But, again, the study's too small to be definitive, and that's why we have to do what are referred to as control trials, so we can determine whether or not it really works.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Fuster, your reaction to this development?

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER, Mt. Sinai Medical Center: I think Dr. Crystal's comments, which are very - to be cautious, but I think this technology is very, very promising. I think what it has been shown in this meeting of the American Heart Association is that genetic therapy in making new vessels is very safe, and I think this is important at this time.

PHIL PONCE: But there's also a question about the long-term impact. Does anyone know if this is - if the improvements that have been seen in the - admittedly small group that Dr. Crystal talked about - that those are going to be long-lasting?

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER: We do not know, and certainly this can only be known with the scrutiny of good trials, and follow patients for a long period of time. I suspect that in about two or three years we will know the answer.

PHIL PONCE: And Dr. Crystal, people who would be candidates for this, again, just to clarify, people who - for example, people who have already had bypass surgery and for some reason can't have that kind of surgery again, this could conceivably be helpful?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: The initial trials have been carried out in individuals who together with bypass surgery in areas that can't be bypassed, for individuals who have had bypass surgery and atomically we can't do the bypass surgery again, and also individuals as we get more information that it's safer and safer, then we'll be able to move that to individuals earlier and earlier, and perhaps even before they have these other procedures.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Crystal, you talk about these trials that are going to be taking place. How does one get to participate in something like that? Just luck?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: Well, it'll be announced at various medical centers and of the large medical centers around the country, we'll be doing these kinds of trials, and their doctors can know the physicians carrying out these trials, can refer their patients to the trials.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Fuster, one of the studies had to do with physical activity. It's long been know that physical - at least there's been a connection between physical activity and overall good health. What new has been learned?

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER: A breakthrough, I believe, is defined by the group at Harvard that patients with myocardial infarction or heart attacks engaging in an exercise program two to four days a week, a rather vigorous program, can decrease new heart attacks and death by nearly 40 percent over a period of five years. I think this is a very spectacular finding.

PHIL PONCE: And is that because - what - some doctors have been reluctant or fearful to put patients who've had a heart attack through a rigorous exercise program?

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER: I think we have been cautious, and this is why we learn slowly, and I think this finding may be surprising, is very important.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Crystal, when Susan Dentzer's piece was on the air and she was talking about the grape juice, the grape juice test, there was a smile on your face. Why is that?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: Well, whether grape juice will work or not, I think, again, you have to do trials and see.

PHIL PONCE: Some skepticism on your part, though?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: I think some skepticism, but that's because it's early, and I think studies have to be carried out to determine whether or not, in fact, it would be useful.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Fuster, your reaction to the grape juice findings?

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER: Well, the finding shows that blood clotting is decreased but there is no information at all about whether or not this helps people.

PHIL PONCE: And, Dr. Fuster, you've personally done some work on a new way of looking at plaque in the arteries. Describe that to us briefly.

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER: Well, one of the challenges that we have is to identify the individuals who are prone to heart attack or to a stroke before they develop these events, and up until now we didn't have any technology that was able to give us this information. With magnetic resonance imaging at our institution we have been able now to identify not only the individuals that are developing disease of the arteries and may be predisposed, for example, to stroke, but at the same time we can see if the disease is so-called benign or is malignant, and in the patients that we feel that the plaques that we see directly non-invasively, this is like an X-ray, that they have this plaque's prone to rupture, to lead to a blood clot - a blood clot and to a stroke - we have been able to change treatment in such patients, and I can see in the future rather than an individual stopping smoking at the time of a heart attack, he may stop smoking at the time that we can tell such individual, you are developing disease and the disease is malignant, as we can see with this new X-ray type of technique.

PHIL PONCE: So, Dr. Fuster, before this new imaging technique, one had to - one had to what - perform surgery in order to see how bad the plaque was in artery, how bad the substance was that was blocking the artery?

DR. VALENTIN FUSTER: Well, we didn't have really technology. The most - the gold standard is what we call coronary angiography, which is to inject material into the coronary arteries and then you see the degree of narrowing, but now we have learned over the last few years that the degree of narrowing has nothing to do with the predisposition to a blood clot and to a heart attack. So this new technology not only will make us able to see the degree of narrowing but most importantly, what is the composition of the plaque that can lead to the blood clot, and then we might modify therapy.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Crystal, in the very short time we have left, how is the medical profession doing in the fight against heart disease?

DR. RONALD CRYSTAL: Well, it's moving along very strongly. We're reaping the benefits of the investment of our nation in biomedical technology and research over the years, and I think now with the information from the Human Genome Project we can put genes into hearts now, we can use this information to begin to really help people with heart disease.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Crystal, Dr. Fuster, thank you both very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Canada's cheap dollar, Gergen with Chief Justice Rehnquist, and a Veteran's Day poem.% ? FOCUS - TRADING DOLLARS

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, trading dollars with our Canadian neighbors. Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Television reports.

LEE HOCHBERG: It's pure Hollywood - special effects lighting - cameras rolling. A comic book here come to life soars through the air to save the day. This TV series about "Nightman," a computer geek and jazz saxophonist by day, enemy of evil by night, is standard Hollywood fare. But this isn't Hollywood. Producer Allan Eastman films the program in Vancouver British Columbia to take advantage of the US/Canada exchange rate, a rate he says has saved his production $5 million.

ALLAN EASTMAN, TV Producer: It allows you to hire better quality of artists in many areas, acting, you know, in your wardrobe, and we spend more money on visual effects here because of having more money available.

LEE HOCHBERG: Nearby, another Hollywood team has built a 200-foot-wide, 14-foot-deep outdoor water tank to film a movie about a man-eating crocodile. Producer Peter Bogart brought his crew to Canada to take advantage of the exchange rate.

PETER BOGART, Film Producer: But it was the difference between making this movie and I believe not making this money. And I know people who don't think about shooting in the United States anymore. They just say, where are we going in Canada?

LEE HOCHBERG: The depressed Canadian dollar, nicknamed the "loonie" because it has a loon pictured on it, has made Canada a bargain for all sorts of Americans. It costs Americans only 65 cents to buy goods priced in Canada at $1. Twenty years ago the Canadian dollar was worth about the same as the US dollar. Then its value began to drop, reaching a low this summer of about 63 cents. The loonie's still close to that 140-year-low. Economists say it's fallen because Canadian industry has become less competitive. They blame some of Canada's industrial infrastructure, which they say is outdated and inefficient. Combined with high wages, that makes Canadian products expensive to manufacture. With 80 percent of the country's exports coming to the US and having to compete against American products, Canada has had to, in effect, discount its goods by lowering the value of its currency. Canadian economist David Bond.

DAVID BOND, Economist: The only way we could continue to sell goods to the United States was to take less American dollars for the same amount of goods, which means that the Canadian dollar was falling in value effectively.

LEE HOCHBERG: Bond, a consultant for Canada's Hong Kong bank, says economic problems in Asia have accelerated the loonie's dive. Asian demand for Canada's natural resources, like the sulfur at a Vancouver area dock, is down. This dampens demand for Canadian dollars and lowers the dollar's value.

DAVID BOND: If I'm in Japan and I want to buy a ton of wheat from Canada, I got to pay the Canadian in Canadian dollars, so I go to my bank and say here's some yen, give me some Canadian dollars. Well, if I'm not buying wheat, I'm not demanding Canadian dollars. Demand curve shifts down, the price falls.

LEE HOCHBERG: The falling Canadian dollar has been good news for some but bad news for others on both sides of the border. For companies like Oregon-based Pope and Talbot it's been a big plus. In February, this forest products company spent a bargain 69 million American dollars to acquire majority interest in British Columbia's Harmac Pacific. That's $4 million less than it would have needed to spend only weeks before. Pope and Talbot CEO Mike Flannery.

MIKE FLANNERY, CEO, Pope and Talbot, Inc.: The economy - the economic environment of the depreciating dollar certainly enhances that ability for us to do it. In a reverse situation we might have had cold feet on the subject.

LEE HOCHBERG: The weakness of the loonie may also be good for some Canadian sellers.

BOB RENNIE, Realtor: As long as our dollar says at these levels, American buying is going to continue, and I think we'll see an increase.

LEE HOCHBERG: With their land at a premium, Vancouver realtors like Bob Rennie are advertising the exchange rate in US newspapers.

BOB RENNIE: As a noticeable American buyer in town now, if I sell 20 sales here to American money at $150,000 average, you know, it's $3 million in real estate that I would not have sold if our dollar was stronger.

LEE HOCHBERG: And where are you two from?

TOURIST: We're from the Ft. Lauderdale area of Florida.

LEE HOCHBERG: And at a time when the number of Asians visiting Canada has dropped dramatically, Canada's tourist industry is getting a boost from Americans.

ANOTHER TOURIST: What a time to go. You get so much for your money. I just bought a beautiful oriental rug. It's a good exchange rate.

LEE HOCHBERG: American tourists spent some $2 1/2 billion in British Columbia this year, a 10 percent boost over last year. Tourism BC's Bill Eisenhauer.

BILL EISENHAUER, Tourism British Columbia: When they get up here and they see how far their dollar does go, our research has shown that they're staying longer and they're spending more than they had on previous trips.

LEE HOCHBERG: But some Canadian businesses are taking a solid hit from the loonie's fall. The Vancouver Canucks professional hockey team lost 35 million Canadian dollars last year. That's 20 million American. Canuck CEO Steve Bellringer says with the team collecting revenues in loonies but having to pay its players in more valuable US dollars, the exchange rate caused about half of that loss.STEVE BELLRINGER, CEO, Vancouver Canucks: So our players are paid in US dollars, but our ticket prices are in Canadian dollars, our hotdogs are in Canadian dollars, our beer and programs are in Canadian dollars, and a Canadian dollar is worth that much less than a US dollar at this point in time.

LEE HOCHBERG: Other Canadians, who depend on American goods, are bracing for a long winter.

DAVID BOND: If you're a wine importer bring in California wine, California wine is getting expensive in this country. You're not going to do very well. Anybody who was really bringing in large amounts of American product is going to find that they're getting squeezed.

LEE HOCHBERG: And even some on the US side of the border are having tough times as the Canadian dollar languishes.

MAYOR JOHN HOBERLIN, Blaine, Washington: It's a terror. It's an absolute terror, and you can talk to any one of the merchants in this city, and they'll tell you the same thing. It's bleak.

LEE HOCHBERG: Blaine is a town of 3500, hugging the Canadian border in Washington state. It's the third largest border crossing in the US, and it built its economy on Canadians driving South to shop. But Blaine Mayor John Hoberlin says when the exchange rate began to plunge, Canadians stopped coming.

MAYOR JOHN HOBERLIN: If you look over to the right over here, we have a Mexican restaurant which has been out of business for about nine or ten months. The building behind us, it went out about two years ago, and we have had about four closures of the gas stations.

LEE HOCHBERG: Gas tax revenues that maintain roads are down $100,000. Some businesses at the nearby outlet mall have suffered a 40 percent drop in Canadian shoppers. Western Washington University economist David Merrifield says for every penny the loonie falls, retail sales in the county have plummeted 7 to 9 million dollars.

DAVID MERRIFIELD, Economist: We're probably talking $200/$250 million in retail sales lost to this area here, so that could be, you know, 10 to 12, 15 percent of what sales are in the region here.

LEE HOCHBERG: Merrifield says South bound traffic is also down at major border crossings in Maine, New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. And it's unlikely things will change soon. Economists say the loonie could hover beneath 75 American cents for at least another five years.% ? DIALOGUE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor-at-large of "US News & World Report," engages William Rehnquist, chief justice of the Supreme Court and author of "All the Laws But One, Civil Liberties in Wartime."

DAVID GERGEN: Mr. Chief Justice, American historians generally agree that the three greatest presidents we've had are Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, and yet, two of these men, Lincoln and Roosevelt, play very prominently in your book about how presidents have suppressed civil liberties during time of war. As you went through this, did your estimation of these two men go up or go down?

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, Author, "All The Laws But One:" I don't know that it changed, because certainly Lincoln, more so than Franklin Roosevelt, did suppress civil liberties during the Civil War, but both Lincoln and Roosevelt were devoted to - Lincoln to winning the Civil War, saving the union, and Roosevelt to winning World War II. And I think an executive in that position is probably not going to be a great champion of civil liberty.

DAVID GERGEN: And probably not a great president unless he has to - unless he sets forward the larger goals, and he may have to cause some hardship in the process.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: That's right. You don't want someone who is constantly kind of overly cautious in a situation like that. You want someone who has balance.

DAVID GERGEN: Were you drawn to this book by the conflict between Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney in the Supreme Court?

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Yes, I was. I've been interested in Lincoln for some time and also interested in the history of the court and its members. Of course, Roger Taney was one of the prominent ones.

DAVID GERGEN: And that case was the first that really -the one between them - regarding Baltimore - a man named John Merriman - was a front runner - really you open the book with that.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: That's right. It was really the first effort by Lincoln to suppress, if you want to call it that, or circumscribe people's civil liberties, because he had called for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion after Ft. Sumter was fired on. The troops had to go Baltimore. They had to change stations in Baltimore, and about the second day they were there, there was a mob, and the mob threw stones at them, the troops fired back, and it was a very, very contentious situation. And that night a number of the - the mayor and the chief of police of Baltimore got together a bunch of people and went out and blew up the railroad bridges leading into Baltimore from the North, so no more troops could come that way, and at that point Lincoln finally told Winfield Scott that he could suspend the writ of habeas corpus from Philadelphia to Washington along the rail line. He did that, and the man, Merriman, who was one of the ring leaders thought to be in to blowing up the bridges, was arrested and confined in Ft. McHenry. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus before Roger Taney sitting as a circuit judge, and that's how the Merriman case came about.

DAVID GERGEN: Help us to define what the writ of habeas corpus is.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: A writ of habeas corpus is a common-law writ very essential to civil liberty that enables someone who is detained in executive custody to ask a court to order his custodian to come in and show why this person is being detained. And the court will decide then should he be set free, or should he be continued to be detained.

DAVID GERGEN: And so Chief Justice Taney in this case heard that proceeding and issues a writ.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: He issued the writ because he said because there's a clause in the Constitution in Article I says the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless the public in time of war, rebellion, the public safety shall require it. And he said a placement of that clause in Article I, which gives power to Congress, meant that the president alone couldn't suspend it. He had to have an active Congress to do it.

DAVID GERGEN: And the President then -

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: The President then ignored it. Taney issued his opinion, I think, in May, and Lincoln paid no attention to it. And, of course, Taney realized he couldn't enforce it. Then so Lincoln didn't do anything until his address to a special session of Congress that he had called for in July, and it was at that point that he said, concluded his reference to it by saying that shall all the laws but one go unenforced.

DAVID GERGEN: And so that was the first of a number of cases where civil liberties were suppressed.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: Not only in the Civil War but then in World War I and then World War II.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: You seem to speak with some sympathy about the role of the executive here. Would you have agreed with Lincoln's view - "should all the laws but one?"

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: I would have agreed with his view as to suspending the writ of habeas corpus, I think, because that seemed to be a real threat to the union. When the upper South seceded, Washington became a capital right on the frontier, right across the Potomac was Virginia, and the union simply could not afford to lose the nation's capital. So there I think you have a real situation that calls for some executive determination. On the other hand, when his postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, decided just to deny mailing privileges to all the newspapers in New York that were opposed to the war, there really was no justification. You've got to continue to have free speech and freedom of the press during the war.

DAVID GERGEN: Let's turn to your view of the courts in this situation. You seem to be suggesting in the book that a court is not - you don't punch a computer button and come out with a law - that the court also has a role in the governance of the country - it has to take into account the context in which it's governing or in which it's making its ruling.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Yes. I think you can see that, David, from comparing decisions that come down during the wartime with decisions come down after the wartime. Look at World War II. The "Kweran" case, which was decided in the summer of '42, one of the darkest times for the United States, right after Pearl Harbor, is quite hostile to civil liberties. The Japanese internment cases decided during the war are also very restrictive of civil liberty. The "Duncan" case regarding martial law in Hawaii during the war is very much individual liberty-oriented. But it comes down in 1946, a year after the war is over.

DAVID GERGEN: Is that the case, then, if one is sitting on the court, that you do look at the context of your times and you do take that into account, that it inevitably plays a role in your mind as you think about what the law, what a decision should be?

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: I don't know if it's a terribly conscious thing, and of course, I don't know that there's anything the equivalent of wartime. And I've never sat on the court in wartime. But it's in the back of your mind; it can help but be, that is this just the time to get into this subject, and that sort of thing, particularly with a court like ours, which has almost complete discretion as to what cases to hear.

DAVID GERGEN: So it really is a matter of discretion about when something is right, not just legally but perhaps whether it's right within the system?

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: That's right. It isn't just legal - legalrightness, but it's a question of, is this something we want to take up in the court now, or would it be better to take it up a year or two from now?

DAVID GERGEN: I just have to ask you, in closing, you seem to have such a love of history in this book.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: I do. I have a love of history.

DAVID GERGEN: That comes from?

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: I don't know. Perhaps a somewhat slighted education where I didn't have a chance to take many history courses, and I've been kind of making up for it afterwards by outside reading.

DAVID GERGEN: And you do this at night or during the summers when you're -

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Yes. I do a lot of the writing during the summer and some of it, you know, during the term, during times - breaks - and that sort of thing.

DAVID GERGEN: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much for joining us.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Well, thank you, David.% ? FINALLY - VETERANS DAY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, a poem for Veteran's Day. Here is NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, Poet Laureate of the United States.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: We often think about veterans in dramatic terms, the test of combat, the stress, the wounds, suffering, and violent death. But for many servicemen, the military experience is different from that. This poem by David Ferry, "The Soldier," captures the feelings of boredom and intense loneliness that young servicemen away from home have often endured, lonely and anonymous. "The Soldier:" "Saturday afternoon, the barracks is almost empty, the soldiers are almost all on overnight pass, there is only me, writing this letter to you and one other soldier, down at the end of the room and a spider that hangs by the thread of his guts, his tenacious and delicate guts. Swift spider, all self-regard, or else or all privacy. The dust drifts in the sunlight around him as currents lie in lazy, drifting schools in the vast sea, in his little sea, the spider lowers himself out of his depth. He is his own diving bell, though he cannot see well. He observes no fish and sees no wonderful things. His unseen guts are his only hold on the world outside himself. I love you and miss you, and I find you hard to imagine. Down at the end of the room, the other soldier's getting ready, I guess, to go out on pass. He is shining his boots. He sits on the edge of his bunk, private, submissive, and heedful of himself, and bending over himself, he is his own nest. The slightest sound he makes is of his being. He is his mother and nest, wife, brother, and father. His boots are bright already. Yet, still he rubs and rubs, till brighter still they are his mirror, and in this mirror, he observes, I guess, his own submissiveness. He is far from home."% ? RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, more than 200 United Nations weapons inspectors and other UN staff pulled out of Iraq. President Clinton sharpened his warnings that force will be used if Iraq does not allow UN weapons inspections to resume. He sent additional bombers, stealth jet fighters, and troops to beef up US forces already in the Persian Gulf, and the Israeli cabinet narrowly approved the latest land for security agreement with the Palestinians. We'll be with yon online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.