The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MARGARET WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight: A Newsmaker interview with Secretary of State Albright on Kosovo and other issues; a post- impeachment perspective-- Elizabeth Farnsworth looks at its impact on the words we use-- and a Susan Dentzer report on the latest developments in reducing the risk of breast cancer. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary of Defense Cohen dispatched 51 more U.S. warplanes to Europe today. He said they would beef up NATO forces preparing to strike Serbia if Kosovo peace talks fail. Some western diplomats plan to evacuate embassy staffs in the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade in advance of Saturday's deadline for a peace deal. Also today, Russian President Yeltsin said he warned President Clinton in a phone call Russia would not tolerate NATO attacks. White House officials said, however, that Mr. Clinton has not spoken with Yeltsin recently about Kosovo. In European capitals today, two days of demonstrations by Kurdish exiles subsided. But more violence broke out in Turkey, where Kurdish separatists continued to protest the capture of their fugitive leader, Abdullah Ochalan. We have more from Krishnan Guru Murthy of Independent Television News.

KRISHNAN GURU MURTHY: 5,000 Turkish troops supported by heavy weapons and helicopter gunships moved into Kurdish strongholds in the mountains this morning, hoping to find their enemy demoralized by Ocalan's arrest. But so far they're proving undaunted. In Kazakhstan, home to almost a million Kurds, there were serious clashes between demonstrators and the police. In Vienna, around 80 Kurd activists left the UNHQ in that city after occupying the building for most of the day. And after a series of protests in Germany, Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder warned that immigrants there had to behave or they'd be deported. In Athens, the casualties were political ones. The foreign minister, Theodorus Pangolis, was forced to resign along with two colleagues over the way Greece gave shelter to the fugitive leader. Ocalan himself remains behind bars on a Turkish prison island, his journey there in chains revealed in these pictures just released by the Turkish military. His handcuffs and blindfold are clear. Less obvious is his own mood. He remains silent save a brief complaint about his missing glasses. Imrali is hardly Turkey's Alcatraz. Its population, mainly petty criminals, live in small whitewashed houses and grow vegetables and olives. It's unlikely that Ocalan will be allowed the same freedom.

MARGARET WARNER: We'll have more on Kosovo and the Kurds in a Newsmaker interview with Secretary of State Albright later in the program. President Clinton was in New Hampshire today, his first domestic political trip since he was acquitted of impeachment charges. Today is the seventh anniversary of his strong showing in the 1992 New Hampshire primary, a showing that rescued his candidacy from allegations of draft-dodging and womanizing. He didn't mention impeachment today in appearances in Dover and Manchester. Instead, he promoted his Social Security and health care plans and the budget surplus that could pay for them.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe that we need to see this in the context of the larger picture. But I would like to say just a word about the discussions that will be held about a problem that no one would have believed if we talked about it six years ago in New Hampshire or seven years ago and that is the -- what to do with the surplus. That was an inconceivable discussion in 1991 and 1992 in New Hampshire.

MARGARET WARNER: Wholesale-level inflation in January registered its biggest increase in more than two years. The Labor Department reported today that its chief inflation gauge, the Producer Price Index, rose 0.5%. Economists point to a rebound in food and energy prices, which had been soft for several months. Another Democratic senator announced today he's retiring. Two-term Senator Richard Bryan of Nevada is the third Democrat now declining to seek reelection in 2000. Senators Moynihan of New York and Lautenberg of New Jersey have already bowed out. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to Secretary Albright, post-impeachment language, and reducing the risk of breast cancer.

FOCUS - WORDS WORTH

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Albright will join us later in the program from the State Department. We go first tonight to the meaning of words in a post- impeachment world, and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

SPOKESMAN: Listen to the words.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Whatever one thought of the legal and political process just ended, it provided an unusual spectacle of high and low rhetoric. Congressmen quoted the Bible and Shakespeare.

SPOKESMAN: In the Book of Isaiah in the Bible, it was said, "judgment is turned away backward, and justice stands far off."

REP. HENRY HYDE: I can borrow the words of Shakespeare's "Henry V," as he addressed his little army of longbowmen at the battle of Agincourt, and he said, "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Other congressmen used less lofty language. In May, Indiana Republican Dan Burton called the president a scum bag. By December, as the House began debate on impeachment, Representative Ray LaHood decided it was time to remind members to be civil.

REP. RAY LaHOOD: The rules prohibit members from engaging in generally personal abusive language toward the president, and also from engaging in comparisons of sitting members of either house of congress. [Booing]

SPOKESMAN: Meanwhile, back in the mud -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: On television, there was nonstop talk about the scandal. And much of that talk was about sex.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Once-taboo words now became the stuff of televised congressional debate.

SPOKESMAN: Monica Lewinsky said on nine occasions in her sworn testimony before the grand jury the president touched her breast,

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The phrase "oral sex," unimaginable in most newspapers till now, appeared 248 times in the "Washington Post," 167 times in the "New York Times," and 135 times in "USA Today" in the past year.

SPOKESPERSON: We're going to get graphic here. Miss Lewinsky testified -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And when the Starr Report was released in September, journalists read some of its most salacious details for the first time, live on the air. Parents wondered what to say to their children.

SPOKESPERSON: Mr. Craig, do you have small children at home?

CRAIG: I do.

SPOKESPERSON: What do you tell them? How do you explain to them that their president has lied and that it's okay?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And children talked about it, too.

CHILD: I believed him at first, but then when he admitted it, like, I knew that he lied, so I thought we should get a new president that we can trust.

COMEDIAN: Are you folks enjoying the impeachment trial? How many of you are enjoying it? [Cheers and applause]

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Comedians had a field day, with more than 2,000 scandal jokes over the past year. Perhaps the most interesting twist: The meaning of words seemed to take on new significance. First, there was a careful answer to this question:

SPOKESMAN: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship, that is accurate.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Then, eight months later, during the president's grand jury testimony, lawyers for the independent counsel asked about a statement in the affidavit filed by Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case.

ATTORNEY: The statement that there was no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape, or form, with President Clinton, was an utterly false statement, is that correct?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the -- if he -- if "is" means "is and never has been," that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In their impeachment debate, members of the House pondered that answer.

SPOKESMAN: "Alice in Wonderland"-like notions pop into my head, watching someone so smart and so skilled, so admired by the American people for his intellect and his talents, digging himself deeper and deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole, and us along with him. Many thoughtful Americans wonder whether the deconstruction of our language will damage the culture. What will happen if words no longer have common-sense meaning, if everything is equally true or not true, because, after all, it depends on what your definition of "is" is?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So, what is the state of language and culture after the impeachment trial? Five people from five different lines of work help us with that. Comedian Mark Russell has been performing his political satire on public television and elsewhere for more than 20 years. Advice columnist Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners, writes a syndicated column that appears in more than 200 newspapers. Poet Robert Pinsky is poet laureate of the United States, and a regular contributor to the NewsHour. Professor Philip Royster teaches in the English and African-American Studies Departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And cultural historian Rochelle Gurstein of Bard College is author of "The Repeal of Reticence." Robert Pinsky, look as a poet at the language of the scandal and impeachment and tell us what you see.

ROBERT PINSKY: Elizabeth, in poetry there is an old distinction between the higher grand style, the ornate style, and the plain style. And I think with a we've seen a lot of us people huffing and puffing in the grand style, quoting Lincoln and the bible, invoking the Holocaust and images of their children -- and trying to get the grand style going about something that basically is material that a lot of people find embarrassing. And the advantage of some of the great plain style language of the impeachment crisis of 25 years ago, I don't think Peter Rodino or Robert Baker were known as great orators but they had the advantage of being able to use rather plain language to help us understand matters that didn't feel embarrassing but felt rather grave and solemn.

MARGARET WARNER: And Mark Russell, how do you see language as a comedian, besides it being great grist for your mill?

MARK RUSSELL: Well, I go for the lofty. I mean this is PBS. And so I can't get enough of Henry Hyde. But what you need with Henry Hyde is a translation. And I thought you might have used the quote where he said "you can dress a shepherd in silk, but you will still have the smell of the goat." Translation: Acquittal happens.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Philip Royster, you teach English. What did you see in the language?

PHILIP ROYSTER: Well, I think the language that is supposed to be a crisis is no crisis at all. There is a politics of language usage going on. English has a vulgar side to it that goes back to Old English and Middle English, Old French, some of the languages that formed modern English. And you can hear more vulgar English than we heard related to this impeachment if you go to a shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Gurstein, were you surprised by the analysis of the word is? Mr. Gurstein. I'm sorry. Mr. Royster. I'm still with you, Mr. Royster.

PHILIP ROYSTER: No. I was not surprised by that. Indeed, as a matter of fact, the word "is" is a very complex word. If you go to a good unabridged dictionary, you are going to find a lot of different meanings. There is a lot of philosophical debate and talk about. And we all use it in very, very complex ways very naturally from the ages of about four or five years old. So, no, I wasn't surprised by it at all. I wasn't surprised by the partisans trying to make politics out of the usage, either.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Rochelle Gurstein, what do you think the most important effect of the scandal and the impeachment will be on language and culture?

ROCHELLE GURSTEIN: Well, I think in terms of culture we've reached a point where people seem to have no sense of a distinction between public and private, specifically the sense that there are some things that are too small, delicate or fragile to appear in public. So, I disagree with Professor Royster that just because we hear language in a shopping mall that's vulgar, that that's appropriate for our public discourse. In fact, it seems to me that it has flattened our sense of what goes on in the sphere of intimacy, as well as degrading our tone of public discourse.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is that what you mean when you say that matters of the heart can't stand this scrutiny?

ROCHELLE GURSTEIN: Yes, I think there is a question -- this goes back to what Professor Pinsky was saying -- between -- there's a real difference of what things are large enough to be the object of public scrutiny, and the grand style -- used to have to - used to describe a certain kind of large subject matter. And that the matters of the heart are so small, so fragile, that to talk about them in a very casual, frank way, has a tendency not to capture what's at stake and I think it trivializes them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Judith Martin, what does Miss Manners think about this? Do you agree?

JUDITH MARTH: I'd like to make a case for prudery. I think I'm the only one who's willing to do this? But -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Define prudery.

JUDITH MARTIN: Well, feeling that you shouldn't investigate everything and that you should look shocked when things get not perfectly frightful but slightly. I feel sorry for those small children, not because their sensibilities are trampled on -- because I've heard them in the mall, too -- I feel sorry for them because they are trying so hard to shock their elders and everybody is refusing to be shocked, so the world gets more and more vulgar. Young people, artists, they are all trying to geta rise out of us. I'm the only person who is willing to say all right. Fine, you've shocked me. You can stop now.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Ms. Martin, you think this has added -- the scandal has added to that trend?

JUDITH MARTIN: Well, if you are going to investigate such things, you are going to talk about them. And if you are going to talk about them, I don't care what kind of language you use, everybody is going to understand what you're talking about, and you could find shocking language about it in Shakespeare; you could you find it in the Bible; it would be better phrased. But perhaps -- but it would be about these things. I mean my feeling is there's a Safo poem that says if you're squeamish, don't prod the rubble on the beach. We are prodding the rubble on the beach and then people are feeling squeamish but saying, well, it's more honest or it's more healthy to get it out. And so they are letting it come out and out. If we don't like it and people don't like it, let's show we don't like it. Let's be prudish about it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Philip Royster, what about that? Is it more healthy to let it come out? Was is it hypocritical before, the way people dealt with private matters?

PHILIP ROYSTER: Well, I don't know about healthy or hypocritical. I do believe that as a matter of fact the language and public discourse are not controllable by our ethics and morality. It would be nice if we could stabilize it. I think the more relevant influences are, for example, the liberation of women. As the attitudes towards women have changed in the public marketplace, the language that we are willing to use in the public marketplace has also changed.

ROCHELLE GURSTEIN: Don't blame the women.

PHILIP ROYSTER: I don't think I'm blaming the women. I'm looking at the social structure.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Royster, let me just ask one question. Are you saying that the language that we heard, the way this was discussed, can't be explained just by the nature of the scandal and impeachment but that it's something that really has been caused by other larger forces?

PHILIP ROYSTER: Indeed, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what I'm trying to say.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is this a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

PHILIP ROYSTER: Well, I think good or bad depends upon what side you're on. I think it has good and bad results to the rest of us. And I think the best part of this whole debate is that we are able to hold political constituents accountable. And I think also we see that people are able to express their relationships to politicians. And I don't mean to pun there, but I think we are hearing more about issues that have long been real but have been covered up. And in that sense I think it's very, very good.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Judith Martin, you wanted to jump in here.

JUDITH MARTIN: Well, I would like to say something in favor, now that I said it about prudery -- about hypocrisy -- and against its being healthy to get these things out. I haven't noticed that everybody is healthier now that these things are out. Everybody I know has the flu. And in addition to that, there was a poll last week saying they are all dissatisfied with their sex lives, all of America - and, no wonder, because it interferes with their watching other people talk about their sex lives on the hearings. But hypocrisy also can be a wonderful thing. You don't have to talk about everything you're doing. It's -- the Victorians have a reputation for never having done anything, which makes you wonder how we got here. But what they didn't do was to talk about it endlessly. And that's what we're doing. I don't see that it has improved the world.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Go ahead.

MARK RUSSELL: Well, we could start by granting what is obviously America's wish -- the public wish today that the media give up sex for lent -- at least for that while. But what you could do -- I reached a point where I couldn't avoid it. You talk about words. And so I took the six words as defined by Judge Susan Webber Wright, as what constitutes sex, the touching of genitalia, anus, groin, breasts, inner thigh, or buttocks, and I put it to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious." So you trivialize it a little bit, and take some of the shock out of it. We used to think we knew the definitions of these things. We used to think we knew what adultery was. When Moses came down from the mountain top with the Ten Commandments, they should have sent him back up there for more details.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mark Russell, seriously did this open up whole new areas for you that were previously forbidden?

MARK RUSSELL: No, because we talked trashy long before Bill Clinton came along. It didn't start with Bill and Monica. I mean, there are parts of the Ken Starr Report that aren't nearly as raunchy as some sections of James Joyce's "Ulysses." But the Starr Report is "Ulysses" written by a lawyer, or if James Joyce had no talent at all, he would have written the Starr Report.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Pinsky, other great scandals have become part of lore and the culture. I'm thinking of Anthony and Cleopatra; or Abilard and Eloise. How will this one become part of our culture?

ROBERT PINSKY: I'll make a prediction. I don't think Miss Manners is nearly as isolated as she says she is. I won't be surprised if we have a great national flinching or wincing away from the hyperbole of moral outrage on the one hand and the yacking about sex on the on the other hand. I think there are probably many people, journalists and other people in the media, who are trying to find ways to get language to make more sense.

ROCHELLE GURSTEIN: Bless you, sir. Will you join us?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Rochelle Gurstein, how did this all begin? You've written a history of sort of how -- I think you call it the party of exposure has overcome the party of reticence. Just briefly, when did this begin?

ROCHELLE GURSTEIN: In the last quarter of the 19th century there was really the invention of what we think of today as invasive journalism. And it was an effort to, in some ways democratize the press to deal with lots of different subjects but the people who were very disturbed by having private affairs in the public realm felt what is happening today, kind of trivializing what is really important about the public. In fact, things were seen to be so bad that people like Louie Brandeis and his law partner at the time attempted right to privacy, to protect people from invasive journalism. I think what distinguishes our time from the Victorians and from the 19th century in general is that the people who used to be in favor of reticence, people like one would imagine like Kenneth Starr, or perhaps even Dole, now speak about sex in ways that would have shocked the Victorians. So that you can have Dole and Mrs. Dole speaking about Viagra where they're the ones would you have expected to be a little more reticent - and the same thing with Judge Starr. He's always being portrayed as a Puritan or Victorian. And yet he uses language and asks questions that the real Victorians would have been appalled by. So this is -- I'm sorry.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ms. Gurstein, let me just get this clear. What you're concerned about here is partly that a large public question with enormous public implications is somehow equated with these very private things and that's the problem with the blurring of the public and private boundary?

ROCHELLE GURSTEIN: Yes. When we have public issues, things that -- matters of justice or equality or liberty, we have ways of speaking about it by using language that is based in principles. When we have matters of the heart, private matters, we don't really have a public language to speak about it. That's why I think comedians have so much fun with it because they can make a joke out of it. I think the other side of it is it can become obscene. That, of course, is what I think Miss Manners was talking about with saying that there should be a feeling of embarrassment or shame. So, there is a way that private matters in the proper sphere - in the intimate realm are the most meaningful and deep and matter very greatly to most people but they just can't stand the public exposure. And that's why we are in the moment where we are today where we seem to have no sense of the distinction between private and public.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Judith Martin, yes.

JUDITH MARTIN: Can I say something?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes.

JUDITH MARTIN: As a life long reporter - which is that even though the more salacious aspects were not discussed, people's - politicians' personal lives have been brought out in the open by them for years. And I think it's only fair to say if you, as a politician, say and I'm not arguing for more snooping, but if as a politician you say I must be a good guy -- look at my lovely wife and children -- it is only fair to say, well, why don't we look at your lovely mistress, too? It's been that phony thing of the phony personal. And I would be in favor of keeping the entire personal spectrum in the background because I think it does naturally lead to too much keyhole peeking and people really don't care for what they see.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Philip Royster, aside from what we've been talking about, what other long-term effects do you see from this scandal, from the impeachment, on the culture?

PHILIP ROYSTER: I don't see a great many long-term effects, except a continuing discussion as to whether or not we can use these private matters. I think the public does agree these are private matters. I think the polls show that. But the politician were, I think bent upon making publicity out of these and politics out of these private matters. And I think the real question is will that continue? Will political figures be vulnerable and will their personal lives be vulnerable despite the polls that suggest the American public indeed want to keep the matters quite private?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mark Russell, what do you see as the other long-term effects?

MARK RUSSELL: It will get no better. It will only get worse. It is going to escalate. At the turn of the century when you could only say limb, a woman's limb or a woman is with child - and when they started saying leg and pregnant, people were shocked. Less than 25 years ago, if I were, as we're being taped now, if I said, "Oh, my God," you would blip that out. You would blip it out because that would be offensive. And so as shocked as people were then, it's just going to escalate and escalate as the networks compete with cable and now the "P" word is already on commercial television and the "S" word and the "F" will be on commercial television shortly into the next century.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Robert Pinsky, briefly long-term effects?

ROBERT PINKSY: Elizabeth, I think it is significant that no one, with one exception, has found language to rise above this matter. The one public figure whose public stature may have increased in the course of this is Hillary Rodham Clinton and that's mostly because of things she didn't say and language she didn't use and a certain kind of restraint and dignity and that may have long-term effects.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much.

MARGARET WARNER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Secretary Albright, and reducing the risk of breast cancer.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, to the Kosovo story, and Secretary Albright. As we reported earlier, Russian President Boris Yeltsin warned against any NATO strikes on Yugoslavia. We begin with this report from Richard Vaughn of Associated Press Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHN: The Russian president, who has postponed several recent meetings with foreign leaders due to illness, was speaking at the opening of a Russia-European Union summit in Moscow. According to Yeltsin, he has told the U.S. president, Bill Clinton, by telephone, that Russia will not let anyone touch Kosovo. Yeltsin's reaction came on the day the United States announced it had moved around 50 aircraft to Europe in preparation for possible air strikes against Yugoslavia. The six-nation contact group has set a Saturday deadline for a resolution on talks between Yugoslavia and the Kosovo rebels. On the eve of the trip to the United States, the French president, Jacques Chirac, again issued a warning to the warring sides, urging a compromise for peace.

JACQUES CHIRAC: We hope that before Saturday at midday, the two parts, Serbs, but also Kosovars, will have understood that they have to accept a compromise for peace.

RICHARD VAUGHN: If the peace plan is signed in Rambouillet, France, by noon, Saturday, NATO plans to dispatch some 30,000 troops, including Americans, to Kosovo. After meeting Macedonia's president, the NATO secretary-general, Javiar Solana, warned of the consequences of not reaching an agreement.

SOLANA: I'd like to say that NATO, NATO countries are prepared to deploy the force in Kosovo if an agreement is reached. And we hope very much that will be the case.

RICHARD VAUGHN: Solana says NATO stands prepared to evacuate more than 1,000 international monitors from Kosovo in case of such an attack.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary of State Albright joins us now from the State Department. Welcome, Madam Secretary.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Good to be with you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Nice to have you. You spoke with the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic today. Tell us about the conversation. What did you say to him?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I made very clear to him that time was running out, that there is a deadline, Saturday noon, for an agreement to be reached. And if there is no agreement, and it is because of Serb intransigence, that he can expect NATO air strikes. I made that very clear to him. He said to me that he was sending President Melatunavich to Paris to meet with Ambassador Chris Hill. They have been meeting but unfortunately there has not been a great deal of progress out of that meeting. I am generally concerned about the fact that while there has been some progress on the military side - excuse me -- on the political side of these talks, that is to do with the various structures that would go into an autonomous and highly -- possibility of a lot of self-government for Kosovo, that part is going forward fairly well, but that the military side of the talks is not really progressing. And, so as I said, time is running out. That is the message that we are making very clear.

MARGARET WARNER: Why is President Milosevic so opposed to a NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think, at least what he says, is that he does not want to have foreign troops on his territory. I am making very clear to him, as are others, that the presence of such forces would be to implement an agreement, and that they are forces that would be there in order to make sure that the various parts of the agreement are carried out. It is not an invasion force. It would be a force that would be there to implement a peace agreement, and, therefore, he should understand that. And that the force would actually be, I think, very important to the carrying out of the elements of the peace agreement, which also would include the disarming of the KLA, the Albanian forces. It would also, obviously make sure the variety of the other political agreement were carried out.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, there is a late report, just before we started this conversation, that you are going to France tomorrow to rejoin the talks. Is that right?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: That is correct.

MARGARET WARNER: And what do you hope to accomplish? I notice you're not arriving until Saturday morning, the deadline is supposedly noon Saturday. Does this suggest -- do you have something pre-cooked or is this really a last ditch effort?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think, you know, as you reported, President Chirac is going to be in Washington tomorrow. And I think it's very important for that meeting. I think that's a very important meeting of the two presidents together -- and that would I leave right after that, along with the French tomorrow foreign minister who would be returning. And I think it is going to be good to make clear the message yet again that there is a noon deadline and that it's important to be there. I want to deliver that message again personally to the Yugoslav side, the Serbian side and the Albanians.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think you can accomplish what you want though without Milosevic himself being at the talks? There have been various analyses written comparing this process to the Dayton Peace Accords. And, of course, at Dayton you had the presidents of all the countries actually involved, including President Milosevic. Can you really get what you're looking for when he is in Belgrade and giving these instructions?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, that is something that, frankly, concerns me which is why I'm on the phone with President Milosevic. We understand that he is the power. And even though he has dispatched President Milatunavich, he apparently did not give him all the instructions that are necessary so we are going to be constantly pressing and pushing on President Milosevic so that he understands the fact that this is his opportunity to really chart a new direction for Yugoslavia or to be the person responsible for increased chaos in his country and for air strikes.

MARGARET WARNER: The deputy -- I think deputy premier of Yugoslavia -- was quoted in the wires today as saying that, you know, if the U.S. and Britain would lift the remaining sanctions on Yugoslavia, it would be a lot easier to get a deal on Kosovo. One, did Milosevic suggest that to you and two, is that in the cards?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: He did not suggest that to me. You know, as far as sanctions are concerned, it is important for people to understand that there are really two types of sanctions. There were some sanctions that were put on by the contact group in January when we met in London that were specifically related to the solution of Kosovo. If Kosovo is solved, then there is every reason to believe that that set of sanctions would obviously, that are directly related to this, that they might in fact, be removed. Then there is what we call the outer wall of sanctions that have to do with a number of other requirements, among which is really compliance with Dayton, turning over war criminals. Kosovo is also a part of that democratization -- a number of other things that are necessary and those are not under consideration.

MARGARET WARNER: And just so I understand about your conversation, you're saying that you didn't get an indication from President Milosevic that he was sending the kind of instructions you're looking for; that is, instructions to agree to this NATO force. You don't think he has given those instructions yet?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, he told me that he has sent President Melatunavich to negotiate. I would say from what I've just heard from Ambassador Hill, that he did not come with the right instruction.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Now, you mentioned the French and that President Chirac is meeting with President Clinton and yourself tomorrow. The French defense minister is quoted today, I think the report's actually going to appear in a French newspaper tomorrow morning, as saying that as far as he was concerned, even if the talks fail, he doesn't think military action is automatic; that there would have to be further consultation among the allies. The allies would have to ask themselves, I think he said "what is our political aim?" How do you interpret those remarks?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, let me just say this, is that there is no doubt about the fact that Secretary-General Solana has the authority from the NATO military committee to go forward with air strikes. And that was reiterated again yesterday. And the secretary-general himself has made that quite clear. At the same time we have all said obviously we're an alliance; that there will be some informal consultations. But Secretary-General Solana has that authority. The NATO alliance has given that to him. And I think that that -- there should be no mistake. President Milosevic should hear loud and clear that the deadline is Saturday noon and that air strikes will follow if he does not -- if he is the one that is responsible for the cratering of the talks.

MARGARET WARNER: But if the French say were to object, would the strikes go anyway?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that -- you heard what President Chirac said - that he felt he made a point about the deadline. And I'm sure that when he and President Clinton meet, that it will be very clear that we believe that these talks have to have a positive end and that they have to meet the deadline of Saturday noon, and that a military operation will proceed if that deadline is not met.

MARGARET WARNER: There have also been objections raised by another member of the contact group, of course -- Russia. First, can you clear up the confusion about President Yeltsin saying today that he spoke to President Clinton and told him not to touch Kosovo and U.S. Officials are saying they didn't have any such conversation - can you -

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, they did not have a conversation yesterday. As you know President Yeltsin and President Clinton speak at a variety -- have spoken frequently in the past. And President Yeltsin has warned and has -- as we well know, he is opposed to a NATO force, but they did not speak yesterday.

MARGARET WARNER: And on the substance of his complaints, I mean again, could the Russians throw a monkey wrench in this?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, we have -- I've been talking to Foreign Minister Ivanov regularly. I spoke to him twice today. The Russians also do believe that it is time to have a political settlement on Kosovo. And they have been very much a part of the contact group deliberations. And I think that we will keep working with them. And it is my sense that ultimately we will have agreement. Again, what happened at Dayton, as you mentioned Dayton before, the Russians did object to the military annex of Dayton -- did not sign on to it. And sometime later they in fact joined the forces in Bosnia. So we're taking this one step at a time. Foreign Minister Ivanov has made quite clear his support for the agreement in terms of the political aspects of what -- the negotiations that are being carried on -- and the fact that it's time to deal with this, and the Saturday deadline. They have been very much a part of those discussions.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. How firm is the Saturday deadline?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: The Saturday deadline is firm.

MARGARET WARNER: Absolutely?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Yes. We have said that. We all made -- the contact group made that statement a number of times. And it's very important that President Milosevic know that we are less than two days away from that deadline. And that it is time to really be very clear about the importance of these negotiations, both the political part and the military part.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's turn for a minute, if we could, to the Kurd situation. Were you surprised at the violent reaction that erupted over the arrest of Mr. Ocalan, across Europe as well as in Turkey?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that clearly this is an issue that took fire very quickly with the demonstrations. I think that it's fair to say that people did not expect this kind of coordinated reaction to it. I think it is very important now for Ocalan to have a trial in Turkey. We have been working for sometime to make sure that he was brought to justice. I think that this is an important time for Turkey to have a fair and open trial and a real chance for Turkey to show that it understands the importance of due process.

MARGARET WARNER: There have been persistent reports that the U.S. did more than help diplomatically in Ocalan's arrests. But, even though I know U.S. officials have said U.S. personnel didn't participate in his apprehension - but that in some manner the U.S. helped identify the fact or notify the Turks that he was in Kenya. Is that true?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: We did not take any part in the apprehension or transfer of Ocalan. We have, as I said, for many months now, been having a lot of diplomatic contacts trying to make sure that he is moved -- that there is a trial -- and that this situation be dealt with in a legal way. That has been the extent of our role.

MARGARET WARNER: There was a report in the "Washington Post" that it was F.B.I. agents and other U.S. personnel who are still in Kenya working on the embassy bombing there, who did intercept or overhear a cell phone conversation that Mr. Ocalan made, and that that is what tipped everyone off that he was in Kenya.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I can't corroborate that.

MARGARET WARNER: You said that it's very important for Turkey to give Mr. Ocalan a fair trial. What is a fair trial?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think a fair trial is an open trial withtransparency and one that basically makes sure that due process is followed. I think that it's very clear that we know how trials are carried out in a system that allows for due process. That is what we think ought to happen in Turkey, and that it has to be open and transparent. I think, you know, Margaret, there has been a lot of question about how Turkey views the issue of justice. And this gives them a real opportunity. I hope that they take it up.

MARGARET WARNER: Now the Turkish foreign ministry did issue a statement today appearing to reject or rebuff all of the suggestions from its allies and saying no one should interfere - I think they said -- with the independence of the judiciary here. How do you read that?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that so long as the judiciary there is independent and they have an open trial, I think that it's very -- that's the key to it. And I hope that they don't see statements such as mine or others as interference. It's a matter of really understanding that this is a real opportunity for Turkey. And I hope that they take it up.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, Madam Secretary, before we go, you're the first cabinet secretary we've spoken to since the president was acquitted by the senate on the impeachment charges last Friday. I'm just wondering whether it's made a difference in your life, in your professional life to have this over.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, let me just say this. I said many times before when I was asked whether it was interfering with our foreign policy, and I made very clear that it was not interfering with our foreign policy. And so in that regard it has made obviously no difference. But I must say, as I said when I was in Mexico and was asked this question, it is going to be very nice to go back to dealing with my colleagues and not having them ask me about the sanity of America. So I think it's going to be terrific to -- they think, and they've already said this to me, that it's very good that America has regained its sanity.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Madam Secretary and good luck to your trip.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Thanks a lot, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally tonight, new research on preventing breast cancer. Our report comes from Susan Dentzer of our health unit, a partnership with the henry J. Kaiser family foundation.

SUSAN DENTZER: Like many sisters, Barbara Guttman and Lisa Greaves have a lot in common. But much to their shock and grief, they discovered several years ago that they also shared a deadly trait, an inherited predisposition to breast cancer.

BARBARA CUTTMAN: My grandmother died of breast cancer a long time ago, in 1941, and her sister had had cancer. And in the meantime two of my aunts got ovarian cancer. These are my father's - they're actually his half-sisters. And then Lisa got breast cancer and that just changed everything.

SUSAN DENTZER: Lisa is now 35 years old. She was diagnosed unexpectedly with breast cancer in 1994.

LISA GREAVES: I had just turned 31, and that was treated locally with lumpectomy, and really in the time that I was evaluating whether that was all the treatment I would need, I was diagnosed with a much more major malignant tumor in the other breast, and following that diagnosis, I had bilateral mastectomies in January of 1995.

SUSAN DENTZER: Lisa's illness prompted Barbara to take a drastic move that more women may have to contemplate. First she and Lisa got blood tests that showed that they both had a genetic mutation linked to breast cancer. Then, in 1997, when Barbara was 35, she had both of her healthy breasts removed to stave off the disease.

BARBARA CUTTMAN: I feel lucky that I found out the easy way as opposed to the hard way. I've both reduced my risk a lot and I didn't have to suffer that much to do it.

SUSAN DENTZER: For years many women like Barbara have had preventative mastectomies without knowing how much they would reduce their cancer risk. But now there's hard evidence that the procedure is in fact a potent weapon against breast cancer. Dr. Lynn Hartmann of the famed Mayo Clinic is lead author of a study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

DR. LYNN HARTMANN: This study really provides the first solid evidence that the procedure does reduce the risk of breast cancer by about 90%.

SUSAN DENTZER: That is stunning news for the estimated 1 in 9 American women who stand to develop breast cancer over their lifetimes -- and especially for the 5 to 10 percent of those women who have an inherited risk for the disease. Dr. Claudine Isaacs is a leading breast cancer specialist at Georgetown University.

DR. CLAUDINE ISAACS: If somebody comes from a family where they've witnessed their mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, die of breast cancer, they don't view their breasts in the same way as the general population does. What they view them as is sort of a ticking time bomb, as the eventual cause of their demise.

SUSAN DENTZER: And that propels many to follow the same route as Barbara Guttman -- undergoing a difficult and disfiguring operation in pursuit of peace of mind.

BARBARA GUTTMAN: I was not keen to face cancer. A lot of the evidence was completely anecdotal. You know, some doctor who has been involved in the field for 50 years says well, people who have had prophylactic mastectomies, I don't know of any occurrences, they were very, very anecdotal but eventually I decided that that would significantly reduce my risk.

DR. CLAUDINE ISAACS: It is a very difficult decision. I mean, obviously, we now have good reconstructive surgery and the cosmetic result is very good following reconstructive surgery. But that is a reconstruction. That is not normal breast tissue. So these women will never -- it will clearly change their body, and for some will change their body image as well.

SUSAN DENTZER: Because even a preventative mastectomy doesn't necessarily remove all potentially cancerous breast cells. As a result, the effectiveness of the procedure at deterring breast cancer had long been questioned. So the Mayo study examined the case histories of 639 women who underwent the procedure at the clinic from 1960 to 1993. Based on their family history of breast or ovarian cancer, the women were classified as having been at either moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer themselves.

DR. LYNN HARTMANN: Two procedures were performed - mainly a subcutaneous mastectomy, which removes 90 to 95% of the breast tissue but preserves the nipple and the aureolar complex. That was done because we really didn't have other ways to do nipple reconstruction. Today with advanced reconstructive techniques, the procedure of choice for these high risk women is a total mastectomy.

SUSAN DENTZER: Retracing what had happened to these women years later, the researchers unearthed some startling results. Of 214 high risk women who had preventive mastectomies, only three later developed breast cancer -- a rate of just 1.4 percent. To get a sense of how much the surgery itself was responsible, the researchers compared these results with the experience of the women's sisters. In stark contrast, almost 39 percent of these untreated sisters had gone on to develop breast cancer.

DR. CLAUDINE ISAACS: This is really the best type of information that we can have this. This is as good as it gets, but I think the important thing is to realize you have to look very carefully at the characteristics of the women who had the surgery to know how to apply it to the general population.

SUSAN DENTZER: In fact, advances in genetic research and testing might now make these findings even more useful for certain high-risk women. They can be tested to determine whether they carry one of two known mutations in the genes BRCA-1 and BRCA-2. Doctors believe that these mutations account for almost half of inherited cases of breast cancer -- while as-yet undiscovered mutations may explain many of the rest.

SUSAN DENTZER: How did you feel, Lisa, when Barbara found that she did have the mutation in the gene?

LISA GREAVES: I was horrified. I hoped that she would be in the pool of all other women who have a significant risk of cancer but that don't have this elevated risk, and in particular because this information was so new, and there were no -- there really were not many guidelines about the implications. So it was horrifying, and scary.

SUSAN DENTZER: Barbara, a computer security analyst by training, plunged into a round of consultations with physicians and conducted her own research on the Internet. That led her to conclude that preventative mastectomy was the best option.

BARBARA GUTTMAN: So, eventually I found a wonderful oncologist and scheduled the surgery and the surgery went really well.

LISA GREAVES: And I'm glad that she was at a time in her life when she could make those decisions without certain other, you know, emotional repercussions or difficulties, which I think is a very important factor in decision making, as where are you in your life, and, you know, particularly in terms of dating, and having children, and --

SUSAN DENTZER: But as confident as Barbara is that she made the right choice, preventative mastectomy may not be for every high-risk woman. Thanks to recent advances in breast cancer detection and care, other options are now proving to be remarkably effective. One is close surveillance with highly sophisticated mammography to detect cancer at its earliest and most treatable stages. Another is the new drug Tamoxifen.

DR. CATHERINE ISAACS: In women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer, we have a drug, Tamoxifen, which can reduce the risk of developing breast cancer by about 45%.

SUSAN DENTZER: Tamoxifen works by counteracting the effects of the female hormone estrogen in promoting the growth of breast cancer cells. A newer, related drug, Raloxifene, works much the same way but is thought to be free of Tamoxifen's side effects, such as blood clots and uterine cancer. Since both drugs have been proven effective in preventing breast cancer, taking them constitutes another effective option for women at high risk. But Dr. Isaacs says that a woman's choice of any of these options -- surveillance, drug treatment, or mastectomy - should depend on her individual circumstances.

DR. CATHERINE ISAACS: So I think what I've learned is how incredibly personal this decision is; that given the same facts, that I don't think any one woman or any two women will react in the same way. SUSAN DENTZER: The differing responses of Lisa and Barbara to their mastectomies underscores a point. For Lisa, who also underwent aggressive chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant, losing both breasts was --

LISA GREAVES: It's like a rape. I mean it really is. I lost my breasts. I never thought of myself as, you know, somebody who was particularly attached to my own breasts or who regarded my breasts as a particular symbol of my own womanhood, femininity, any of that. You know, having had cancer in both breasts, I just wanted to get rid of that cancer. But I find now that -- and I had a wonderful reconstructive surgeon -- I have the appearance of normalcy but I don't find at all that I look at my breasts now -- the reconstruction as instead of wearing some other type of prosthetic, they to me are other -

BARBARA GUTTMAN: And my experience was completely different. I feel my reconstructed breasts are me, and I suspect that a lot of that is I had so much control over the decision. It happened on my terms, at my time.

SUSAN DENTZER: Even more groundbreaking advances in the detection and treatment of breast cancer almost certainly lie ahead, so the sisters emphasize that if you should find yourself faced with a difficult decision -

BARBARA GUTTMAN: Prepare yourself that the data that comes in tomorrow may counteract the decision you made that you acted on. So, you can't make yourself crazy, as Lisa says, by letting future data make you think you

were stupid to have made that choice. It was still a good choice at the time, even if it doesn't work out the best in the long run.

SUSAN DENTZER: And in the long run, women like Barbara and Lisa will benefit from our growing knowledge about breast cancer -- in part that will come from additional work on the Mayo study, ongoing research into breast cancer's genetic roots, and a massive clinical trial comparing Raloxifene to Tamoxifen scheduled to begin soon.

RECAP

MARGARET WARNER: Again, the major story of this Thursday was the Kosovo peace effort. On the NewsHour tonight Secretary of State Albright said a deal must be reached by noon Saturday to avert NATO air strikes. She is leaving for Paris tomorrow to help the final push toward an agreement. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Margaret Warner. Thank you and good night.