The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight Chairman Hyde's announcement of an impeachment inquiry schedule and plan, with reaction from four members of the House Judiciary Committee and our regional commentators; then a Newsmaker interview with the president of Honduras about the tragic floods and mudslides that have hit his country; excerpts from a news conference in space by John Glenn aboard Shuttle "Discovery;" and some words of poetry about the Glenn Mission as read by Robert Pinsky. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A timetable was announced today for the impeachment inquiry of President Clinton. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde said at a Chicago news conference the first hearing would be next Monday. A subcommittee will hear then from several constitutional scholars on the impeachment question. The following week on November 19th, the only major witnesses to appear before the committee, independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Hyde said this.

REP. HENRY HYDE: He is anxious to testify. He is "the" center of this inquiry in terms of directing the Office of Independent Counsel. So I think he's someone everybody wants to hear from, and we're going to give him that opportunity.

JIM LEHRER: Hyde said the inquiry should be wrapped up by the new year and he said President Clinton could help meet that deadline if he admits or denies a set of facts from the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Before Hyde spoke in children, Mr. Clinton told reporters at the White House he hoped the procedure would be carried out justly.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I want these hearings to be constitutional, fair, and expeditious. And at the appropriate time and the appropriate way, we will say whatever we intend to say. But I have nothing to say about it. I think the important thing is that we've got to go back to doing the people's business. The American people sent us a message that would break the eardrums of anyone who was listening. They want their business tended to.

JIM LEHRER: The President also said he felt the mid-term election outcome was promising for his initiatives, particularly the so-called patients' bill of rights. We'll have more on the impeachment developments right after this News Summary. The October unemployment rate was 4.6 percent, unchanged from September. The Labor Department figure came out a day early because it was inadvertently posted on the Department's Internet site today, instead of tomorrow morning. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down early but rallied to finish up 132 points at 8915. That followed positive words from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He told the Securities Industry Association that investor fright caused by the world economic downturn was dissipating. Tropical Storm Mitch lashed Florida today before turning off into the Atlantic. It blew ashore this morning, just south of Naples, with 70-mile-an-hour wind gusts and heavy rains, up to eight inches in some areas. The storm touched off tornadoes and heavy flooding in the Florida Keys. One person was killed in a highway accident blamed on the storm. There's no end to the misery Hurricane Mitch left behind in Central America. In Nicaragua today rescue workers found 200 more bodies floating in the spillover from a volcano's crater lake. Nicaragua's president estimated his nation's death toll had risen to 4,000. Government officials said they are burning bodies in mass graves to prevent the spread of disease. In a NewsHour interview the President of Honduras said eleven thousand people are still unaccounted for in his country and a million and a half are homeless. We'll have that interview later in the program tonight. Yugoslav President Milosevic banned United Nations war crimes investigators from Kosovo today. His government in Belgrade said it does not accept any investigations by the UN tribunal in the Serbian province. The UN chief war crimes prosecutor maintains she does have the right to look into reports of atrocities in Kosovo. The United Nations did not issue an immediate response. And in Iraq's standoff with the UN today, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution demanding Iraq resume cooperation with UN weapons inspections. The council made no specific threats of force, nor did it set a deadline. Iraq has said several times it would not comply with UN demands. US officials are seeking international approval and forward bases for military action against Iraq. In Washington State Department spokesman James Rubin was asked if that endorsement was forthcoming.

JAMES RUBIN: Number one, we believe we have the authority in UN Security Council resolutions to act militarily, if necessary. Number two, that all options, including the military option, are on the table. And Secretary Cohen is consulting with allies and friends in the Gulf, and Secretary Albright has been consulting with her colleagues. And with respect to the specific question about the basing issue, we have said that we believe we have the confidence that we will have the necessary support to act.

JIM LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Henry Hyde's impeachment announcements; four members of the Judiciary Committee; our regional commentators, the President of Honduras, and words from and about John Glenn.% ? FOCUS - IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

JIM LEHRER: The impeachment inquiry. From Chicago here are extended excerpts of today's news conference by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde.

REP. HENRY HYDE: We believe the most relevant witnesses have already testified at length about the matters in issue, and in the interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry, we will not require most of them to come before us to repeat their testimony. The committee will invite Judge Starr to appear in public session on November 19. Judge Starr led the investigation, and we believe his testimony will be helpful to the committee. Today, I'm sending a letter to the President asking him to admit or deny certain facts that appear to be established by the record now before us. No one should take these requests as establishing our final conclusions. Rather, they will simply help us to establish what facts are in dispute and what facts are not. The president is free to dispute, of course, whatever he wants. But by agreeing to those facts that he does not dispute, he will allow us to narrow the issues and bring this matter to a close more quickly. This is our agenda for the next few weeks. The committee's activities beyond that time have not been finalized, but I remain committed to trying to complete this inquiry as expeditiously as possible and by the end of the year, if possible.

REPORTER: What kind of cooperation are you looking for from the White House? What do you want explicitly from the President?

REP. HENRY HYDE: Well, I would like the notice to admit facts to be answered. That would be very helpful to us. That would tell us what's in dispute and what isn't. Yes, sir.

REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, do you have sense that this can become more than a partisan issue at this point?

REP. HENRY HYDE: Ideally, we want it to be much more than a partisan issue. I think the partisanship detracts from any success or any historical record. This ought to be a matter of everyone's individual conscience. And it is part of our task, and it's a formidable one, to try and lift it out of the partisan swamps and to make this a matter of conscience.

REPORTER: It's been suggested by some that there are other options than impeachment. Do you think the Constitution and House rules give you those options?

REP. HENRY HYDE: No, they don't. Our job is to adhere to the Constitution and the independent counsel statute. I think questions of censure or other sanctions are more appropriately left to what we laughingly call "the other body," the upper chamber.

REPORTER: You don't believe that you're in the position of calling the President into the well of the House -- or even -- are you open to some sort of a negotiation that would have him stand there as members delivered a tongue-lashing?

REP. HENRY HYDE: That's Gerry Ford's suggestion, and it's an interesting one. And I see one of the major newspapers adopts it. I really haven't thought that far ahead. But I don't see any room in the Constitution for this kind of Gerry Ford process. But, you know, predicting is a very hazardous task.

REPORTER: How would such negotiations go forward - or something like that? Who would handle that? Would you be the person, or would it be Speaker Gingrich?

REP. HENRY HYDE: I would not on my own undertake such negotiations. I think the import of those is so significant and consequential it ought to be by the direction of the Republican Party. And that's - I don't see that happening. I see us proceeding with our hearings, getting a bill of impeachment on the table, marked up in the Judiciary Committee, a vote called, and then if we have the majority votes, getting it to the floor, asking the speaker to call back the members for a vote, debate and a vote. That's the most likely scenario. Now if the bill of impeachment were to pass on a vote, then I think serious discussions of the nature you're suggesting might take place with the Senate. They might want us at the table. I don't know. But I think it's right now premature.

REPORTER: Congressman, you sent the letter to the President. You're basically putting the ball in his court in some measure.

REP. HENRY HYDE: Partially.

REPORTER: Partially, in terms of the timetable. How do you prevent the perception in terms of asking the President to signoff a letter on the facts, how do you prevent the perception that this is more of a witch hunt asking someone to admit to certain things and --

REP. HENRY HYDE: It would be a witch hunt if we served him with a subpoena and asked him to come in, get under oath and testify to a cross-examination from all the members. That would be, in my judgment, pushing the envelope. We are doing it the most gentile way by sending a series of what we say are factual statements and asking him to admit or deny. So I think that undercuts the notion that we're on a witch hunt.

REPORTER: What do you think the voters told you, if anything, from this past election about your impeachment proceedings?

REP. HENRY HYDE: About the impeachment, I don't think they sent us much about the impeachment proceeding. I had thought it would be a referendum; it really wasn't. The data I've read, impeachment was about sixth in the hierarchy of concerns people had. I think they appreciate the good times, economically speaking, and it was a status quo election, depending more on local candidates and local issues. We won some, we lost some, a kind of a mixed bag, but no significant impact on impeachment, in my judgment.

JIM LEHRER: Now reaction from four members of the Judiciary Committee: two Republicans, Bill McCollum of Florida, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas; and two Democrats, Marty Meehan of Massachusetts and Thomas Barrett of Wisconsin.Congressman Hutchinson, do you agree with the approach and the plan that Congressman Hyde outlined today?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, [R] Arkansas: Well, I think he's reflecting the desire of the American people to bring it to a conclusion. I had outlined previously a different hearing concept to the chairman, with a broader list of witnesses, so that we could get a flavor for some of their personal testimony, on the obstruction of justice issues. But he's the captain of the team, and I think you could approach this a number of different ways. And so I support him, what he's doing, although I would have - and I think he's leaving some flexibility for calling additional witnesses, if necessary.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Barrett, what do you think of the Hyde approach?

REP. THOMAS BARRETT, [D] Wisconsin: Well, I think it's an interesting approach and obviously reflects the newfound desire to get this issue behind us, which is I think what the American people wanted all along. Where I would take issue with the chairman is that if we don't have the constitutional imperative to consider a sanction other than impeachment, I don't know that the leadership, the Republican leadership in the House, or the Senate would have it. So I don't favor what I would call sort of a passing the buck approach. I think that we are at the pay level where we can make this decision at the committee level. And I hope that we do consider alternatives other than impeachment. I was disappointed to hear him say that he will not - at least I thought I heard him say that he did not want to consider a sanction, other than impeachment.

JIM LEHRER: But the basic approach of having only Kenneth Starr appear and admit and deny a letter to the President you endorse?

REP. THOMAS BARRETT: Well, my personal feeling - and I'm speaking only for myself here - is that if we're moving toward an impeachment vote. I still think it's necessary to hear from Linda Tripp. I don't see how he can move forward without hearing from her. I do think that it's imperative we hear from Kenneth Starr. So I am encouraged that he's going to be calling Ken Starr before the committee.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman McCollum, what do you think of the Hyde approach?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: Well, I think it's a good approach in the broad sense that we determined early on several weeks ago that we wanted to get this done as soon as possible, and preferably before Christmas. If we could get the stipulations and the agreements and the Democrats can agree generally that this broad context, as I understand. That's the effort today to do. Then I think it will work. Now, there may be some other witnesses that need to be called. And that entirely could take place. As a matter of fact, my understanding is Chairman Hyde is open to whatever the Democrats want in the way of witnesses. If they demand Linda Tripp or some other witness, then I suspect that witness will be called. And it may be that when we get into this, and we get back and follow the lead in the process, there will be a couple of more. But the idea here is to stipulate to find as many of the facts as we can from what already exists out there that's known, the sworn testimony, and much of it is there for us, and not get engaged in something that bogs us down interminably, which I don't think the public wants and I know I don't want.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that concept, Congressman Meehan?

REP. MARTY MEEHAN, [D] Massachusetts: Well, I'm a little concerned that we're talking about impeachment of a President. In fact, Chairman Hyde said that there will be a vote on articles of impeachment. And it appears to me that most Republicans on the committee are prepared to vote in favor of articles of impeachment. Now, if that's the case, to do that without even calling one material witness, that is someone who actually said something, saw something, or did something, I think would be unconscionable. So it depends on which way we are going to go with this. I don't think the American people want a process that's quicker but not bipartisan. So it depends upon what the issue is. I want to see this over with sooner rather than later. I'm also concerned to hear Chairman Hyde say that it's no constitutional basis for the House to consider a lesser sanction as some kind of admonishment, but somehow it's available to the Senate. It's nonsense. There isn't necessarily any more constitutional basis to the Senate to consider a lesser admonishment than there is for the House. There seems to be a preconceived notion that we'll send this to the Senate and let them worry about lesser admonishment, and that's of concern to me.

JIM LEHRER: Let's go to Congressman Hutchinson on that specific question about Congressman Hyde's point that, well, the House couldn't make a deal on this, so they'd have to -- the Senate would have to do it. Do you agree with him on that?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, I think any kind of a deal would have to be questionable in terms of the Constitution. Certainly the House does not have the authority to punish, to sanction outside of the ordinary impeachment process. Now, does the Senate? The Constitution says that if a President is found guilty, then the sanction could be up to and including removal from office. So I think there is flexibility on the punishment side, and punishment is not the right word for it but the consequence side on the Senate. So I think there is some serious constitutional questions in all of this talk about a deal. And that's why the hearing coming up Monday, where we listen to the constitutional scholars, should be very instructive and we should be very careful about going outside of the framework of the Constitution.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Barrett, on Kenneth Starr, do you and other Democrats plan to question him about his approach and methods that he used in the investigation?

REP. THOMAS BARRETT: Well, I certainly have some questions - specifically, the relationship between his office, Paula Jones' attorneys, and Linda Tripp -- it's my understanding that Linda Tripp - after she was wired at the behest of the independent prosecutor's office - spoke to Paula Jones' attorneys, I have questions about the propriety of that, about his representations to Janet Reno. So, yes, I think that it's safe to say that many of us will have questions. But let me just say when you talk about a deal, I'm not comfortable with the phrase "deal" either.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. That was my word; that was not Congressman Hyde's word. That was my word.

REP. THOMAS BARRETT: Okay. But I think we should be doing what's right for the country. And I don't feel comfortable saying this should be a deal. I don't think we should have a plea bargain. I don't think we should be doing any of that sort. I think what we should do is we, the committee, should make a recommendation that I think that the House of Representatives and the Senate can accept.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, you think the committee, not make a deal with the White House or the president but could arrive at a decision suggesting some kind of censure or something short of an impeachment?

REP. THOMAS BARRETT: Right. If the will of the American people is to resolve this issue quickly, which I think it is, for us to forward articles of impeachment to the House, have the House forward articles of impeachment, or vote on the articles of impeachment into the Senate drags this out, that's not what the American people want. I think that we on the committee have enough ability to show the leadership to come up with a sanction that the American people find acceptable. And I hope that we do that.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Congressman McCollum, you disagree with that?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, I do disagree in the sense that I think we have to determine the most important and the fundamental facts in this case, and if they lead to the trail and conclusion, and that's an if still, that the President committed felony crimes, such as perjury or witness tampering, or obstruction of justice, then it seems to me that we have no choice at that point as a committee but to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House and the House in turn to the Senate where the whole thing gets resolved. That's our constitutional duty. That's the constitutional process. Now we may debate whether or not the crimes of perjury or obstruction of justice or whatever are high crimes and misdemeanors, which I'm sure there will be disagreement about, if, indeed, we get to that point, but if we do conclude, the majority of us, that indeed they are high crimes and misdemeanors, and the facts support them, then it seems an open and shut case to me. To do otherwise we would derelict in our duty. And it would be something that, in my judgment, of course, it would undermine the court system of this country to let it go by and undermine the fact that the President of the United States is the highest law enforcement officer of the country. I just think we've got a lot of very serious precedent-thinking to do as we proceed, and censure is just not part of the House's role in this.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Congressman McCollum, on the Starr question, quickly, some people have suggested that Kenneth Starr will be on trial at this hearing as much as the President will. Do you agree with that?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, I guess in certain ways the Democrats would like to make him that. The President certainly would. But to be honest with you, that's not going to be the issue. The issue is going to always remain fundamentally: Did the President of the United States commit felony crimes that rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable? That's going to be the question. And I don't think Ken Starr should be the issue. I think there are questions that a court is rightfully addressing right now about some of the leaks that may have come out. But that should be done in that context, because you have got to remember Janet Reno or the President could always remove him if he's acted improperly. And there's a process for that, not through our committee.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Congressman Meehan? Do you plan to ask Kenneth Starr some tough questions?

REP. MARTY MEEHAN: First of all, I'm concerned that we have a 445-page document with no new information. All of it had been leaked in advance. I'm concerned about the unilateral conversations, ex- parte conversations between the independent counsel's office and Paula Jones' attorneys. We need to know what the basis was to expand jurisdiction and whether or not the independent counsel may have misrepresented the truth to the attorney general. But let me get to the point that's being made by Congressman McCollum. Here he is saying, well, look it, this may be an open and shut case, so we may be voting for impeachment because it's perjury, without calling a material witness, that's unconscionable. In addition to that, I heard the expression, well, you know, we - the President's the chief law enforcement officer of the country. The first question that Chairman Hyde asked in his so-called letter, that really it's like an interrogatory, what it really is, is -

JIM LEHRER: You've seen the letter?

REP. MARTY MEEHAN: Yes. I've seen a section. I haven't been able to go through the whole thing, but the first question is: Is it true or false that you are the chief law enforcement officer of the United States? It's a political document. So before we go running around, saying, well, we can stipulate the facts, Democrats didn't work in a bipartisan way to come up with these questions. These are political questions that have been posed. The first question: Are you the chief law enforcement officer, yes, or no, true or false?

JIM LEHRER: So you don't think the President should answer these questions?

REP. MARTY MEEHAN: I haven't gone through all of them. I think that's up to the President's attorneys. My point is that it seems to Republicans on the committee a rushing to vote for impeachment quicker. That doesn't make the process fairer. It doesn't make it bipartisan, and it doesn't - the railroading of the President in three weeks, rather than six months, doesn't necessarily make it a fairer process.

JIM LEHRER: Is railroading going on here, Congressman Hutchinson? [network difficulty] Congressman Hutchinson, can you hear me? No. I don't think Congressman Hutchinson can hear me.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: I can hear you.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman McCollum, yes.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, there's no railroading going on here. If the Democrats want to present witnesses, want us to have them, if the President wants that, then I think we'll have witnesses; they'll go on longer. But the objective here is to try to find ways to stipulate. And I heard that first one that was just mentioned by Mr. Meehan. Frankly, that's what a trial lawyer would do, submitting a set of interrogatories to somebody else in any case. It is not designed to be political or partisan, but if, indeed, we can't get agreements, then I think we will probably have to have witnesses, and that's not going to be all that bad to do, but it will extend and protract this longer than most of us would like.

JIM LEHRER: Who drew up the questions, Congressman McCollum?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: I believe those were drawn up by Mr. Shippers and Mr. Hyde, and they decided what to send out. I think that Congressman Conyers was consulted, but I have no personal knowledge of that.

JIM LEHRER: He's the Democratic - leading Democrat on the committee. Were you consulted, Congressman Barrett? Do you know anything about the question?

REP. THOMAS BARRETT: I was not. One of my concerns about this process is I don't think it's been approached as a bipartisan process. Most of the information that I received, for example, the release of the videotape, came to the media and all that was supposed to be confidential, of course. But I think Congressman Meehan's point was well taken too. I watched a review of an MSNBC documentary that took place in January, and they replayed it about two weeks ago, and all the information that they had in January was virtually identical to the information that came out in September, so the entire case was laid out to the press on an obviously secretive basis back in January, and that raises questions about the prosecutor's office.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Hutchinson, what you've missed and what I was trying to ask you was Congressman Meehan had made the point that these interrogatories that have been sent to President Clinton by Congressman Hyde are -- is basically a political document, not a cooperative, bipartisan approach. How do you feel - he used the word "railroading," that speed is not necessarily a good thing if you're not - if you're involved in a railroading process.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, I don't think that that's the intent of the interrogatories. I think it's important that if the Democrats have some additional questions that they would like to submit, that they have an opportunity to do that. So I think that we have to make sure that all sides are represented in the hearing. In regard to the witnesses, I think that there are some days that are flexible here, we've got a desire to get this concluded, but if there's material witnesses that the Democrats want, or that we, I believe, is important, there's some flexibility to call those witnesses. So I think that the commitment is, is to bring this matter to a conclusion, and we need everyone's cooperation to do that. I think that there's a spirit on the committee that we can work in a bipartisan fashion; we need to talk to each other; and the Democrats need to be able to submit their own interrogatories, but I think the interrogatories submitted were fair.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much.-% ? FOCUS - REGIONAL VIEWS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, our regional commentators, the president of Honduras, and some words from and about John Glenn. Margaret Warner is with the regional commentators.

MARGARET WARNER: And we hear tonight from our regulars: Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; Robert Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; and Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman. Joining them tonight is Susan Albright of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

MARGARET WARNER: Lee Cullum, I know you and all the rest of you just heard both Chairman Hyde and the four members of the Judiciary Committee discuss Chairman Hyde's approach. Do you think this sounds like the right approach?

LEE CULLUM: Margaret, I think it's a very fair and reasonable and sensible approach. It may be a little odd to have the prosecutor as the only witness at the hearing, but somebody's got to participate as a witness at the hearing, and I think Ken Starr is a perfectly good person to present his own case. It seems to me the only other alternative is Monica Lewinsky, herself. And I hate to put this young woman through that. She's behaved very foolishly, but I think it would be very destructive to her, with not very much gain for the nation, demeaning to the nation really to have her discussing her dangerous liaison with the President. So, Ken Starr strikes me as just as good as anybody to present the case. Of course, it would help a great deal if the President would answer those questions truthfully. It may be that a lot could be solved very quickly then in a way that would be to everybody's satisfaction.

MARGARET WARNER: Pat McGuigan, what do you think of the approach, particularly calling only Ken Starr and no material witnesses?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: I'm a little bit concerned about it. The reason that I'm concerned is that there are issues broader than this - what everybody is calling it in the shorthand is that this is just about sex. And I really shouldn't say it's everybody, because I'm one of the dissenters on that topic. This President, if he were a decent man, would resign. But he is an indecent man, so he's going to try to cling to power. He would spare the country what's going to come in the next few months if he were a decent man; but he's an indecent man. So we'll all get to go through this process. And I find it very frustrating to hear some of the things that the Democrats on the committee are putting out, because, on the one hand, after months of saying that this process has gone on too long, now they're coming up with ways to stretch the process out. I am concerned that limiting the testimony just to Ken Starr will prevent the Democrats and the Republicans from looking at evidence that's already in the public record about the campaign finance issue; about the diversion of the FBI files illegally to the White House years ago; about the Travel Office issue and many others. So I don't know where we're headed, but I think we're headed towards a lot of partisan and vindictive behavior on the part of the President and his allies.

MARGARET WARNER: Cynthia Tucker, what do you think of this idea of limiting the testimony really just to Ken Starr?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: I think what Chairman Hyde is trying to do here, Margaret, is have the appearance of fairness without actual fairness, itself. Don't be fooled. Despite Chairman Hyde's having said that the elections Tuesday were not a referendum on the impeachment process, they were, indeed, by virtue of the fact that voters said that they wanted their representatives to pay attention to other things. So I think he has submitted a process which will be shorter but which will still favor the Republicans. After all, what Kenneth Starr has done is submit a report in which he basically said that the President needed to be impeached. If that's the only witness that's heard from, that's not - not really a fair process. And I can't imagine that the Democrats will let it go by without at least calling Linda Tripp, who, after all, has been integral to the Monica Lewinsky affair.

MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle, we certainly could hear from Congressman Barrett and Congressman Meehan that they don't like this approach of just calling Ken Starr. What do you think of it? What are the risks for each side in this, in doing that?

ROBERT KITTLE: Well, initially, I think it's the right approach, because I think Chairman Hyde is correct to try to do all that he can to expedite this process. After all, the facts are not so much in dispute here as the interpretation of whether the facts, whether the President's misconduct constitutes an impeachable offense. Now, for the Republicans, the risk is that they will appear, as Jim mentioned a moment ago, or I guess it was Congressman Meehan, who first used the term, that they're railroading the process, railroading the President toward a certain preconceived conclusion that impeachment is warranted. For the Democrats, however, I think there are some risks too, and that essentially is that they will try to make Starr the issue, and we will reduce this whole and very fundamentally important question of whether the President has committed impeachable offenses to a battle between Kenneth Starr and the President. That's a lot of the way this process has unfolded so far. That's not good. There are some serious questions that need to be answered here. But, you know, ultimately, I think, this is issue, whether the President will be impeached, of course, is a political decision. And this week's election results, I think, argue for a very prompt resolution of this. Whether the President has committed impeachable offenses is not something that we editorial writers will decide or political pundits will decide. For that matter, it's not really so much in the hands of the Congress as it is in the hands of the American people. And as Hyde, himself, has said, if the American people do not want the President impeached, the House will not impeach the President. And that's what the framers had in mind when they gave the responsibility for weighing an impeachment decision to the House, which is the institution of the federal government really is closest to the will of the people.

MARGARET WARNER: Susan Albright, is that the way you see what Chairman Hyde said today, that he was essentially reading the results of the election, even though he said he wasn't, and that - and rightly so - as Bob Kittle is saying?

SUSAN ALBRIGHT: Actually, I agree with a lot of what Bob and Cynthia have been saying. I think it makes sense to use a lot of the material from grand jury testimony. We do know a lot of the facts. This isn't like Watergate, where we were looking for the basic facts. My eyebrows did go up a little bit about the stipulation. I don't know exactly what they're asking Clinton to do. If they're asking him to stipulate to perjury, for example, I don't think he would do that. I don't think he should do that. And I also have some concerns that they still aren't talking about whether - if proved - these charges would amount to an impeachable offense.

MARGARET WARNER: Pat McGuigan, address the other main point that Chairman Hyde talked about and that the four Judiciary Committee members just talked about, which is whether or not this committee has the authority to recommend sanctions short of impeachment, articles of impeachment. Chairman Hyde said he doesn't think so. It seemed to be a split between the Republicans and the Democrats Jim just talked to. How do you see that?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: I see it very much the same way the Chairman does. And, actually, one of the Democrats indicated that he had some agreement with that, and that is that there is a process defined in the Constitution. It's the impeachment process. All the details are not spread out, but the process is there, and the Constitution is one thing I hope we can all agree on, that we ought to try and stay in the framework of that document. And if the decision of a majority of this committee or a majority of the House of Representatives is not that the President should be impeached, then that should be the decision. If their decision is that he should be impeached and that's roughly the equivalent of an indictment, then that should go to the Senate. I do think there's a little bit of persuasiveness, more so than the Senate might be able to play some role in parsing out a lesser punishment simply because, in essence, they are the jury, but they also have a quasi judicial function that's a little bit different than like a grand jury's. So that's a long answer, but I think that Hyde is closer to the truth.

MARGARET WARNER: Lee Cullum, address just this point, if you would, whether you think the Judiciary Committee should have a more expansive view of what options it can look at.

LEE CULLUM: Well, Margaret, after watching Chairman Hyde's press conference today, I reached for my copy of the Constitution and looked up these matters, and they are very scanty. It says - and I paraphrase - that the House has the power to bring a case of impeachment; the Senate has the power to try a case of impeachment - has the power to is not the same thing as saying must. So I think the Senate and the House both have a great deal of leeway here. I really do. Now I want to say that my paper - the Dallas Morning News - has also called in past weeks for the President to resign. After Tuesday's elections, I don't see any reason to expect that. So I think the House and the Senate are going to have to think carefully about what they really want the outcome to be. And I would like to add that I think that Hyde, Chairman Hyde, has outlined a process that is very favorable to the President and to the Democrats. They have Ken Starr there; they can make an issue of him if they want to. It seems to me that he has given the President every possible break. So I see no cause for complaint here.

MARGARET WARNER: Cynthia, do you think - and I ask you all to be a little brief because we're just about out of time, but I want to get around to all of you again - do you think this process looks like it's a break for the President?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: The process that Henry Hyde outlined, again, I think is an attempt to look fair without actually being fair. But, as I understand it, Democrats on the committee still have the opportunity to call other witnesses if they want to. And so with that and with the election results, yes, ultimately, I think the process will be more favorable to the President.

MARGARET WARNER: Susan Albright, you could see there was a real argument between the Republicans and Democrats Jim just talked to on this question of whether they consider other options. Did you see the seeds of bipartisanship in that discussion?

SUSAN ALBRIGHT: Oh, I think there's some bipartisanship, but I was curious whether Conyers had input on this, and I did request a statement from their office. And apparently, the stipulation request was unilateral by Hyde and the ranking Democrat was concerned about that. He also expressed concern that -- I would share this one - about having Starr able to comment on things that weren't in his referral. To me, that opens up a huge area that shouldn't be opened up in this particular proceeding.

MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle, you have the last word. Does it look like there's hope for a bipartisan consensus here at all?

ROBERT KITTLE: I think there probably is, Margaret, and the reason I say that is that I think a verdict of sorts has already been reached in the last couple of days by the American people in the way they voted. So I think the voting results - the election results this week - argue for some sort of a compromise here and a quick resolution of the matter. I think that probably supports the President, makes it easier to work out ultimately a plan that stops short of impeachment.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all five very much.% ? UPDATE - KILLER STORM

JIM LEHRER: The tragedy in the Central American nation of Honduras and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: Hondurans continue to dig out from the mud and destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch. In the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa one in three homes has been destroyed. Mitch has killed an estimated 9000 people throughout Central America, most of them in Honduras; 2000 are believed to have died in Nicaragua. In Honduras bodies are filling city morgues or being buried in mass graves. Slightly larger than the state of Tennessee, Honduras is a country of about 6 million people. Many survivors are threatened by disease and a dangerously low food supply. Mitch may rank as the deadliest storm to hit Central America and possibly its worst natural disaster in 50 years. Mitch first threatened the region offshore over a week ago with 180 mile per hour winds. But by the time it had reached shore last Friday its winds had diminished. And the danger became the subsequent deluge of rain, which brought widespread flooding and massive mudslides. Communities virtually disappeared under a blanket of mud. Roads and bridges washed away. Major cities in Honduras were cut off from one another, like islands Ground transportation now can be impossible. Helicopters are the main way of getting survivors out of remote areas or to drop off food and supplies. Mitch hit Honduras and neighboring Nicaragua the hardest. They're two of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere. Mitch also caused death and destruction in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico before heading out to sea and then to Florida yesterday and today. Private and governmental relief is on its way from around the world. The European Union and several European nations, including Spain and Germany have pledged more than 20 million dollars in humanitarian aid for Honduras and Nicaragua. Mexico has launched the largest airlift of food in its history. And the Clinton administration said today the total US aid package, including military assistance in rescue efforts, would come close to $80 million. That includes food, fuel and medicine.

PHIL PONCE: Now to an interview with the President of Honduras, Carlos Flores. I spoke to him this afternoon from the presidential house in Tegucigalpa. Mr. President , thank you for joining us.

PRESIDENT CARLOS FLORES, Honduras: Thank you, sir.

PHIL PONCE: And, what is the latest information you have, Mr. President?

CARLOS FLORES: Right now I can tell you that the number of dead people surpasses the 5,000 people that we have regrettably dead. We have almost 11,000 people wounded and close to 11,000 people that we cannot account for. The number of people that are either refugees or that have been -- that lost their houses, that have been affected in some way are more than a million. It goes to a million four hundred people And the infrastructure is badly damaged. Most of the roads are inaccessible. We have about 90 major bridges that have either damages or are torn apart. The hurricane has hit all of the country. It's a very difficult situation because our water pipelines are down in the major cities. There are still areas that are isolated. We have problems with fuel supply because northern port and also our southern borders are inaccessible in terms of transportation. Main electrical plants are down also, so we have problem of electricity in several cities. And we're trying to access these isolated parts as fast as possible finding provisional means to get to the people, some that still need to be rescued because they're in danger of their lives.

PHIL PONCE: So there are still pockets in your country where you have simply not been able to reach people even now?

CARLOS FLORES: We're trying to reach them by means of helicopters and by planes. But still there's some people that are not accounted for because it has been impossible for us to get to those places. But, of course, as we have been receiving some support in the last two days in terms of the logistics that we need, we are doing much better in terms of reaching those parts that have been isolated for the last week or so.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. President here in this country we hear reports of people who are buried under debris and who are crying out for help. Is there a lot of that going on?

CARLOS FLORES: Yes, sir, there is, because this is a very mountainous country. The topography is ins such a way that we have enormous amounts of rivers, mountains, and then valleys. So the hills that fall in the villages are constructed either in the sides of the rivers or very proximate to a river. So if you have a hill and you have rivers and you have a country that has been virtually flooded by the immense rainfalls that we have received, there's a lot of people that have been buried underground, and those, some of them account for the people that we cannot account for at this time.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. President, what kinds of stories are you hearing from people in the countryside?

CARLOS FLORES: What we can get, they have difficulty with the water. There's health problems, especially with the children. Of course, we have almost 20 percent of the population - it's in refugees - in shelters that we have made provisionally in schools in those cities. It's a very difficult time for them. Some have not received the food, but we're trying as hard as possible to make available the food that we have in this moment in our disposition in as far as we can reach, because there are still a lot of places that are practically inaccessible.

PHIL PONCE: Would you say that's your biggest priority right now, getting food to people who are isolated?

CARLOS FLORES: Yes, and it's getting food and getting drinking water to our major systems in the cities to carry the water and they were broken because of the immense flooding that we had and the massive destruction that was done to our infrastructure, getting drinking water and food and, of course, medicine is our first priority.

PHIL PONCE: And you're doing that mainly with helicopters, as we understand it. Do you have enough helicopters?

CARLOS FLORES: I wouldn't say enough but we have -- we have received just yesterday some helicopters from Mexico from some of the neighboring countries. And - in this time I would say we don't have what we need. But we have received at least the minimum necessary to do what's needed in this desperate time.

PHIL PONCE: Do you expect to get as many as you will need to do the job fully?

CARLOS FLORES: We're trying to reconstruct as fast as possible the main roads or, if not, find other alternative ways that we can pass the roads, because this is a very extensive country in terms of its territory, in terms of the distances that we travel. The roads that get to several villages are in a very bad situation because not everything has the infrastructure of a paved road. We have a lot of dirt roads that have been destroyed. So, of course, the only way to get in is by the means of helicopters, and that's the way that we're trying to transport to give relief and still save some lives as far as we can go.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. President, there have been promises of aid from around the world. How much of that aid has arrived already?

CARLOS FLORES: Well, from the neighboring countries, like I tell you, we have received aid from Mexico; we have received aid from Japan; some still is coming. I have been informed that we're receiving aid from Spain, that we're receiving aid from England. I was in contact with some of the Latin American presidents, and they tell me that some aid is coming from Venezuela, from Peru, from Colombia, so around -- we're receiving some aid and we're receiving, I think, the basic things that we need at this time in terms of medicine and food, and providing a little bit of relief for the enormous amount of people that are affected by this - by this phenomena.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. President, it's our understanding that most of the crops in your country were wiped out. Will you need food aid for sometime to come?

CARLOS FLORES: Oh, yes, sir. 70 percent -- this is mostly an agricultural country. We -- the main crops are, of course, beans, rice, wheat, fruits, tomatoes, bananas, that's our main export, and shrimp - our basic food and means of providing for the food of the people are gone, I would say, in that 70 percent range. We have a little bit of existence because some of the places where we had some of the crops are still available, but in the short run we will start having problems in terms of food. Of course, right now, the urgency is in terms of prepared food, because in the refugees we do not have the facility in order to put the food that we have - even though if it's available in terms of the crop -- so we need prepared food that we can take already made to these people.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. President, how would you characterize the mood of your people?

CARLOS FLORES: I would say in two ways. We're very -- it's almost like unbelievable what has happened. Hurricane Mitch hit for three consecutive days the North Coast while it was a hurricane. It degraded into a storm, a tropical storm, and we received rain for six consecutive days, maybe the amount of rain that we normally receive in two years. We have almost 20 percent of our population in shelters because they have lost their homes. Of course, there's, I would say, an attitude of shock. But also, there is a positive thing to this. It's the unity that we feel in the country in the aspiration and also the belief that we will carry through.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. President, I thank you for joining us.

CARLOS FLORES: Thank you, sir.% ? FINALLY - ULYSSES IN SPACE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the "Discovery" mission, which is scheduled to return on Saturday. We begin with a brief excerpt from today's news conference in space.

REPORTER: Senator Glenn, I'm wondering, as NASA decides who will staff the international space station in the coming years, what are your thoughts of a person your age spending three to four months at a time in space?

SEN. JOHN GLENN: Well, I think that could eventually occur, and I think though probably before they did something like that, they'd want to send more people my age up on a flight like this, where you get more experience. I'll be a data point of one when I get back. And obviously for it to be more meaningful, to set a database, you need more people. I don't see any reason why in the future, though, you couldn't look forward to people - elderly people - being sent on a longer mission on the international space station, as well as on shorter missions I'm on right now. I think you need more people, though, before you want to make that next step.

REPORTER: Your wife, Annie, told us this morning that in your E-mails you sound "like a little kid." And I wonder if you might elaborate on that for us, as well as share some of the thoughts that your family has expressed to you while you're in space.

SEN. JOHN GLENN: Well, I hope I never grow up to where something new like this is not really - doesn't leave me like a little kid on new experiences, because, you know, I think too many old folks - well, you know, old folks can have dreams too, as well as young folks, and then work toward them, and to have a dream like this come true for me is just a terrific experience, but the main reason is not my personal experience; the main reason, of course, is to do the science, and try and learn more about what happens to my aged body compared to my colleagues, here, and so that's what we're up here after. So as far as the messages we send back and forth here on the E-mail, why, that'll have to remain confidential, I think. Obviously, we're sharing some of the views here, and if I sound a little happy on those, why it's a true expression of how I really feel.

JIM LEHRER: Words on John Glenn now from NewsHour contributor and Poet Laureate of the United States, Robert Pinksy.

ROBERT PINKSY, Poet Laureate: There's something thrilling about the idea of adventure when the adventurer is no longer young. The courage and determination of John Glenn recalled the figure of Dante's Ulysses, a showoff, as well as a hero, who says, "Oh, brothers, you have reached the West through a hundred thousand perils, surviving all: so little is the vigil we see remain still for our senses that you should not choose to deny it, the experience beyond the sun, leading us onward, of the world, which has no people in it. Consider well your seed: You were not born to live as a mere brute does, but for the pursuit of knowledge and the good." Tennyson, following Dante, has his Ulysses say: "I am becoming a name, for always roaming with a hungry heart much have I seen and none; cities of men and manners, climates, councils, governments..." And "Come my friends, 'tis not too late to seek the newer world, push off and sitting well in order smite the sounding furrows; for my purpose holds to sail beyond the sunset and the baths of all the western stars ... and though we are not now that strength, which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are, one equal temper of heroic hearts made weak by time and faith but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde said Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr will be the principal witness at presidential impeachment hearings in two weeks. And on the NewsHour tonight, the President of Honduras said his storm-battered nation was in a state of shock but was determined to recover from Hurricane Mitch. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.