The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight four congressional opinions of what should be done about Iraq; an update of the Starr investigation story by Dan Balz of the "Washington Post;" a report and a discussion about historical accuracy in the arts, particularly the movies; and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about solutions to infertility. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton expressed gratitude today to those nations prepared to stand with America against Saddam Hussein. He cited support from all over the world for a military strike to take out Iraq's weapons program. Mr. Clinton spoke to reporters at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Friends and allies share our conviction that Saddam must not be allowed to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons or the missiles to deliver them. Yesterday the governments of Canada and Australia announced that they are prepared to join the United States, Great Britain, and other allies in a military operation should one prove necessary. As I have said before, I hope we can avoid the use of force. But if Saddam will not comply with the will of the international community, we must be prepared to act.

JIM LEHRER: In the Middle East Defense Secretary Cohen said the Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman have agreed to allow the United States to launch attacks from their territory. In Washington Secretary of State Albright appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said the Netherlands, Germany, and Argentina backed the use of force. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The President also sent his annual economic report to Congress today. It said the deficit dropped to $21.9 billion in fiscal '97, nearly $106 billion lower than expected. On Wall Street today the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit an all-time high. It gained 115 points to close at 8295.61. The previous record was 8259, reached lat August. El Nino rainstorms returned to Northern California today. More than two inches of rain were expected. Almost a foot has already fallen in the past week. Late yesterday President Clinton declared it a disaster area. The state office of emergency services' early damage estimate is now $300 million. On the Starr investigation story today Monica Lewinsky's mother appeared before a federal grand jury in Washington. She did so after her lawyer failed to block a subpoena requesting her testimony. Lewinsky's lawyers were working to keep her from having to appear later this week. In the Paula Jones case today a federal judge in Little Rock rejected President Clinton's request to advance the trial date two months. She left in place the original starting date of May 27th. We'll have more on both stories and a report from the "Washington Post" newsroom later in the program. Democrats took issue today with a draft report on the Senate's campaign fund-raising investigation. Republicans concluded the President and Vice President violated the letter and spirit of federal campaign laws. They said Vice President Gore knew a '96 campaign event at a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser. Gore's spokesman called the document a partisan cut and paste job. A spokesman for committee Democrats said they were preparing a response. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut serves on the committee. He challenged its conclusions.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: There was not a shred of evidence before the committee that indicated that the vice president had any information about illegal acts or even could have or might have or should have had. And he was just not in that position. He walked in and walked out and no checks exchanged hands there, and the illegal activities actually occurred about a day after. So I thought the report, if that is a conclusion, as the newspapers seem to say in a leaked version this morning, I think it's grossly unfair to the vice president.

JIM LEHRER: The leaked draft report also criticized Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. It said campaign politics influenced rejection of an Indian casino license. Attorney General Reno must decide by tomorrow whether to ask for a 60-day extension of her inquiry into the matter. Babbitt has denied any wrongdoing. The Senate today confirmed Dr. David Satcher to be surgeon general of the United States. The vote was 65 to 35. He's been director of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention for the last four years. His Senate supporters cut off extended debate by Republicans opposed to his position on late-term abortions. There has been no surgeon general since Joycelyn Elders resigned more than three years ago. Overseas in Afghanistan today international relief agencies struggled to reach the survivors of last week's earthquake. Death toll estimates range from 3,000 to 5,000. We have more from Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

GABY RADO: The first pictures from the disaster area show how completely the village huts made of simple materials have been destroyed. This morning there was a third tremor, killing a number of people following last Wednesday's main earthquake, which caused the majority of casualties and an aftershock over the weekend. It was only today, six days after the tragedy, that aid from abroad was reported to be getting through to the 28 stricken villages. The survivors have had to endure freezing temperatures, and efforts to help them have been hindered by bad weather and the remoteness of the region. Giant cracks in the earth are proof of the terrifying force of the earthquake--6.1 on the Richter Scale. Muslims bury their dead within 24 hours. It's a disaster in which the real death toll may never be known.

JIM LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a congressional debate about Iraq, a Starr investigation update, real history in the arts, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - THE IRAQ DEBATE

JIM LEHRER: Congress and Iraq. We start with excerpts from Secretary of State Albright's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, [D] Massachusetts: If diplomacy breaks down, if we have to strike, or if the decision is made to strike, what is the maximum that we can anticipate we have accomplished by virtue of those strikes? What have we done? And then, of course, the question is: Where are we?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: Senator, first of all, let me say that I think that we need to keep our national interests in mind as we look at this. And our national interests are to limit his ability, reduce substantially, delay his ability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, and the delivery systems that are attached to that, as well as reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors. Those are our national interests at this time.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: The presumption is that if he has made the decision not to have unfettered and unlimited access so as to invite a strike, which has been promised. I presume, having survived the strike, what then forces them to--

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, if we get even any hint of the fact that he is reconstituting, that we will strike again. We have made that clear, so this is not a one-time issue.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, [D] Delaware: I would like to ask you a very pointed question, if I may. And that is, that if we were, as some suggest--and we all would like, to topple Saddam Hussein, if he were to be toppled, what would we replace him with?

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: There are--I know we've all been talking about this, as have all of you, about the possibility of what it would be like after. And a year ago, about now, I made a speech in which I said that we are ready to deal with a post Saddam regime. We have in the past dealt with opposition groups. We are interested in doing so again. But we have to realize that that takes additional resources, something that you all may wish to address yourselves to. We all will have to consult and talk more about this. There is not a simple solution to this problem. I think that what we have decided to do is the best course for now.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: Is it possible to topple him and leave?

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think it is not, Senator, because I think that it is a country chances are--I don't want to go into too much detail on this--but that--that it would create a situation which for a time would require the presence of troops. Now, let me just say this. I don't know how many here today or in our discussions are prepared to send again a half a million troops into Iraq.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, [R] Nebraska: Are you conferring with President Clinton, Secretaries Baker, Cheney, General Powell, on this issue?

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: We are having general discussions. I have talked to some. The others--we have each talked to our counterparts on the subject. I think that there are a variety of views on it.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL: Well, you know your business but I would hope that that's being done. They developed a very successful coalition, as you know, that were very successful, at least in that effort in 1991, which leads me to the next question. Why are we having such difficulty in developing Arab support on this issue?

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I do think that there is a--I have just come back from a lot of the Gulf states. The have domestic audiences, and they state their support for their own purposes, but I do feel that should we use force, they will be helpful to us. And I think that they also understand the dangers. But it is not quite the same situation as when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and there was six months to prepare to put together a coalition, which was primarily a U.S.- U.K. operation.

JIM LEHRER: We get four congressional views now: two Republicans from the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who chairs the Mideast Subcommittee, and two Democrats, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, a member of the International Relations Committee, and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a member of the Armed Services Committee. He was among a group of Senators who accompanied Defense Secretary Cohen on part of his foreign swing this weekend.Senator Lugar, in general terms, do you support the administration's decision to strike Iraq?

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, [R] Indiana: I believe that we must act. The diplomacy has failed, and we have to be credible, but I would have to say I share a lot of Republican sentiment that the administration has not been well prepared for this; that even now these discussions were having are very important to refine the goals, the targets, the follow-through afterwards, the money that is required if we are to have three carriers or various enforcements of planes and troops in that area, and in short, there's a lot of work to be done. It's important the world see us unified, and for the moment, there is some profound Republican feeling that this is a situation which diplomacy was allowed to lapse and, as we heard Secretary Albright, she supposes the American people would not support ground troops; therefore, a lot is precluded even before we even begin, and it's not clear at all what will define success and what the American people will think after the operation is over. So I'm concerned about this. I want to support the administration. I want to work with Trent Lott, our leader, who is strongly committed to that. But we have a lot of work to do in the next few days.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Lieberman, how would you define success in this?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, [D] Connecticut: Well, I think the administration, Jim, has made it clear that success would be the implementation of what the United Nations inspectors were supposed to do, which is to reduce Saddam Hussein's capacity to deliver with ballistic missiles weapons of mass destruction--chemical and biological--he broke the promises he made at the end of the Gulf War to allow the inspection. Our aim is to in some sense accomplish what the inspections were meant to accomplish.

JIM LEHRER: Are you convinced they can be done by military strikes that have been proposed by the administration?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Well, it's certainly not going to be as effective as it would be if he kept his promise and allowed us to do the unconditional inspections we were promised we could do, but it will limit his capacities and in some sense, I hope, it will diminish his power. But all of us have to be honest about this. This is not the end of a policy. It's the beginning of a policy, and I think there is a growing feeling among members in both political parties on Capitol Hill that we have to state the longer-term goals. And I believe they should be to change the regime in Iraq and--

JIM LEHRER: To topple Saddam Hussein, as I said?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Right. I don't say this believing it's easy and I don't say it believing it's going to happen tomorrow. You saw how resilient he was during and after the Gulf War, but I think we've seen enough of his treachery to reach the conclusion that we can't deal with him in a trustworthy way, and he represents a real threat, just as we drew the line in 1991 on his invasion of Kuwait, I think we've got to draw the line and send a larger message to other countries around the world that we're not going to tolerate rogue nations developing chemical and biological weapons capacity with which they can damage or blackmail a lot of the rest of the world.

JIM LEHRER: Congresswoman McKinney, where do you come down on sending the message and drawing the line?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY, [D] Georgia: Well, I've got three points I'd like to make. First of all, I have a newspaper article that was written by an Israeli military analyst, Meir Stiglitz, in Yediote Aharanote, who writes: "There is no such thing as a long range Iraqi missile with an effective biological warhead. No one has found an Iraqi biological warhead. The chances of Iraq having succeeded to develop operative warheads without tests are zero." The second point I'd like to make is that in 1992 UNSCOM determined Iraq had no engines and no launchers. The third and final point I would like to make is that this crisis has come about as a result of two issues really: access of the inspection team and the composition of the inspection team. I think that the international community would all stand behind unfettered access of the inspection team, but also on this question of the composition of the--of the inspection team, is that worth going to war over? I don't think so. Kofi Annan has suggested that the United Nations could be flexible in this area, and I think the United States needs to be flexible as well.

JIM LEHRER: So what do you think should be done?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, I think we need to listen and work with the United Nations leader, Kofi Annan, and come up with a flexible response that satisfies the situation that caused this in the first place, which was the composition of the inspection team.

JIM LEHRER: So, it's not worth going to war over?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, last time we killed 100,000 people in bombing Iraq. How many people are we going to kill this time just because we don't want to set a precedent for having a country dictate to the United Nations and to the international community who can do an inspection. When Kofi Annan says that the United Nations is willing to be flexible on this issue, I think we need to listen to him, and we need to work with him.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Brownback, what do you say about that?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK, [R] Kansas: Well, to me the only long-term strategy that really makes any sense is to destabilize Saddam Hussein and to support a different Iraqi regime to come into place. If involves toppling him on some sort of strategy of a long-term nature, of a sustained air attack, other military engagement, that's the only one that makes sense because otherwise under any of these scenarios Saddam Hussein stays in power, Saddam Hussein is able to reconstitute biological and chemical weapons, which he has proven in the past he is willing to use and has used in his own country and on neighbors, and he continues to be a threat.

JIM LEHRER: But what--

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: And what is our response then to other countries trying to usurp our own electoral system and our own government? I think we need to be very careful when we say that we're going to target another leader because then that opens the door for other countries to target our leaders and our government.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: We're talking about a United Nations action that they've already said that he should not be developing or have weapons of mass destruction. We're talking about a global group of people that are saying this man is a dangerous dictator; he's not an elected person by the Iraqi people, and he has shown the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.

JIM LEHRER: But let's pursue that. Sen. Lugar, why is it that only the United States is leading this? I mean, would you not agree with the consensus that if we were not the ones leading, this wouldn't be happening, that nobody else was going to go in there and organize a military strike?

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Yes, I do feel that's the case, and it's regrettable. It's the case that Bosnia blew up and continued to blow up until we took leadership. It's the case, in fact, the North Koreans have overrun the South Koreans by this time if we were not there. That is what we do in this world. We are the leaders. A lot of people are uncomfortable with that and would find all sorts of reasons why tyranny, weapons of mass destruction, cut off of energy supplies, all this could happen, but ultimately the President of the United States, the Congress, the people have to step up to it, and it's in our best interest. We are a prosperous country and a prosperous world because we have--we have won, and we've got democracy, we've got liberal economics, but it depends upon security, and Saddam is a potential cutoff of that.

JIM LEHRER: Congresswoman McKinney, where do you come down on this question that if the United States doesn't do it, it doesn't get done in the world these days?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, I have several feelings. First of all, I would like to just say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, those countries in the area don't support the use of force in this--on this particular issue. The second question I would like to ask is: What happens when we make this unilateral move? What happens to the peace process? Do we jeopardize something that is also in our national interest and in the world's interest to see the successful completion of the Middle East peace process? What happens to the peace process when we make this unilateral move?

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask Sen. Lieberman that question.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: The peace process has a life of its own. I think the reality we have to face here is that we're in this crisis, with all respect to Congresswoman McKinney, not just because of the composition of the inspection teams. Mr. Butler, the Australian who heads UNSCOM, tells us that repeatedly over the years Saddam Hussein, the Iraqis, have frustrated the inspections. We know for a fact that he has enormous quantities of chemicals and poisons with which he can inflict untold ruination on his neighbors and perhaps beyond. And this is a question of ultimately toppling or being toppled. I mean, I think it's that important, so, yes, I'm committed to the Middle East peace process. I want to see it go forward. You know, the best way for it to go forward is for the United States to show the kind of leadership we have and have allies now joining us: Britain, Germany, and most recently and significantly in the region Bahrain andOman and Kuwait, allowing us to fly attack missions out of their territory. This man is a threat.

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: We don't have Egypt. We don't have Saudi Arabia. We don't have Jordan. Those are--

JIM LEHRER: Let me--

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: --very important countries in the region, whose support we had in 1991.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you this.

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: We don't have that support this time.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you this, Congresswoman McKinney.

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Do you not--simply not buy the idea that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and they are, in fact, a threat to the region and to stability throughout the world?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, I would listen to what UNSCOM has said, and I would also listen to what this military adviser to Israel has said, and that is that as of now, biological warhead delivery is not an issue as far as Iraq is concerned. Do we want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction? No. But I would also had that the United States since World War II has become the world's No. 1 arms dealer and 40 million people have been killed as a result of the use of conventional weapons. We need to curb that as well.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Brownback.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: I was going to say what happens to the peace process if we don't act--given how far down the road we are with saying that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the region and is somebody that will use these weapons of mass destruction--what happens to the currency of our word around the world and particularly in the Middle East if we're unwilling to deal in a situation where he has confronted us and basically said I am not going to allow the UN sanction, I'm not going to allow the UN inspectors in? I think we lose enormous credibility.

JIM LEHRER: What about the question that was asked of Sec. Albright? We had it in our clip a moment ago. Is it possible to topple Saddam Hussein and then just leave?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: I think there are several options here, and this is something that would have to be a long-term strategy. You have the Iraqi national congress that we have previously supported and worked with that we could engage and work with further, and I think we're going to have to work within Iraq to develop indigenous people to take over and to take over the regime.

JIM LEHRER: Is that a realistic option, Sen. Lugar? Do you--

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Yes, but once again, we start from scratch. This is the problem. As Sec. Albright says six months of preparation for Desert Storm, but here we all are hunting and pecking around, looking for missions that can be a success and we've got to do it. It's--but this is catch-up ball at this point.

JIM LEHRER: As a--

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I want--

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I would suggest that our word lost currency back in 1991 when we encouraged an uprising and didn't follow through with what--with our promises.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Well, you're absolutely right; we should have done it then, and we should have been supporting the Iraqi opposition since then. What happens too often after wars is that we forget the sources of the conflict; we move on to the next subject; and we end up paying for that as we are now.

JIM LEHRER: As a practical matter, Congresswoman McKinney, your views aside, do you think the House of Representatives is going to support the President on this?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, it's very difficult for me to put my views aside. I'm going to be very vocal on the floor of the House.

JIM LEHRER: No, I mean, justvote counting. I mean, I'm not--I'm not saying you're going to vote for it. I mean, do you think that the momentum in the Congress is to support the President?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, it seems very easy to demonize the days and to find somebody to jump up on so that we can use our military forces. I think what we really ought to do is to let diplomacy work and listen a little bit more effectively.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Lugar, what do you think is going to happen? I mean, there's a resolution now that's been presented in the Senate. Do you think it's going to pass?

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Well, I think that's still under consideration. My hope is that it will. Our leader, Trent Lott, has indicated that he believes we need to stand with the President, but before we stand, Republicans are saying to our leader we want to know what the game is and we want to make sure the administration is prepared and that this is an ongoing process that leads to some change in Iraq that is very important.

JIM LEHRER: There must be a change in the leadership of Iraq, or forget it?

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: I think ultimately there has to be a change; it doesn't mean forget the current steps. We're not ready for the ultimate change; we have some work to do, as Sam has said, with Iraqis who don't like Saddam, as well as with some allies, who need to sort of get with us. I heard earlier about how these people are not supporting us, but, you know, they're going to have to listen up. We have been saving them, and at some point our President sort of has to lay it on the line and say the next time you get a call from the Middle East and this line is going to be open if you help now--the same with NATO allies and with Boris Yeltsin and Russia--we really need to have a heart-to-heart talk. This just won't work as it now stands.

JIM LEHRER: You're nodding in agreement, Sen. Lieberman.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Absolutely right.

JIM LEHRER: The line's got to be laid to our allies as much as it is to Saddam Hussein?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Yes. I mean, I don't understand why the Saudis won't support us. I think if we show leadership and indicate that we're in this for the long haul, this is not just a few days and that we're going to forget Iraq again, they will be with us, and they should be with us because they are much more immediate targets of Saddam Hussein's actions than we are.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think, Congresswoman McKinney, that our allies, based on history and et cetera, and the state of the world, have an obligation to support us in our attitude toward Iraq?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, you know, support works two ways, and I think maybe we need to listen to our allies, who are not on board with this, and listen to them.

JIM LEHRER: What about that? The conversation is two ways, Sen. Brownback.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Obviously, we should have a discussion, but I think we should show leadership, and I might add, these are the most difficult decisions that any of us as policy makers make, because you're talking about people's lives on the line. You know, it was difficult in committing troops to Bosnia. This is going to be a very difficult decision; this is not anything any of us take lightly. I just don't want to be in the studio with you in five years talking again about what are we going to do about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as we have for the past seven years.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, Congresswoman McKinney, gentlemen, thank you very much. UPDATE - TRACKING THE STORY

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the Starr investigation and history in movies.Margaret Warner has the investigation update.

MARGARET WARNER: Once again, we return to the "Washington Post" newsroom. And joining us is Dan Balz, a correspondent on the Post's national staff.Dan, Monica Lewinsky's mother, Marsha Lewis, was subpoenaed today. What happened?

DAN BALZ, Washington Post: Well, Margaret, she testified for several hours today. And as we understand it, she'll be going back again tomorrow. She's obviously a very important witness. Few people are closer to Monica Lewinsky than her mother. And there are some things to remember here: that while Monica Lewinsky was working at the White House and later at the Pentagon, she lived at the Watergate apartment that her mother has. On January 16th, when Monica Lewinsky was detained by FBI agents at a suburban Washington hotel, the person she called for help basically was her mother. And we also know that from the tapes that Linda Tripp secretly made there are a number of references that Monica Lewinsky makes to her mother and in one case takes a call in the middle of a conversation with Linda Tripp and has a conversation with her mother. And so there's interplay back and forth.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Mrs. Lewis, I understand, did not want to come testify and tried to fight it.

DAN BALZ: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: On what grounds? What happened there?

DAN BALZ: The truth is we don't know on what grounds. In most states a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse. But there's no such privilege for a parent against--testifying against a child. So the precise grounds in which she tried to avoid this testimony we don't know. Her attorney afterwards made it very clear that she'd prefer not to be there, that she feels a lot of pain for what her daughter's going through. But they spent some time in the courthouse with the chief judge who's overseeing this grand jury, who turned down the request. Very interesting is that Ken Starr, the independent counsel, was there at the time. He has basically not come around the grand jury. So this was obviously a very difficult moment for them.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, now, Monica Lewinsky has also been subpoenaed. Tell us where that stands.

DAN BALZ: She has been subpoenaed and is due to appear in court before the grand jury on Thursday. Now, her attorney, Mr. Ginsburg, has said that he will try to quash that attempt. We believe that he's going to file a motion today to try to quash that. We don't know whether that's happened yet. If it doesn't, it'll likely happen tomorrow. His concern, as he's described it in the past few days, is that he says he had an agreement with Ken Starr's office to provide Monica Lewinsky with full immunity. Starr's office denies this and says they never had an agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And explain for us again what--why is it more advantageous for her to testify with a deal than say without a deal.

DAN BALZ: Well, let's say they don't reach a deal by Thursday--and at this point nothing precludes that--but let's say they don't have a deal by Thursday or at the point that she's--she appears for testimony at the grand jury. At that point, as Ginsburg has made clear, Monica Lewinsky is likely to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to protect herself against self-incrimination. At that point Ken Starr has the right, or his attorneys have the right to compel her testimony by giving her limited or what the lawyers call use immunity and then requiring her to answer the questions that they ask. The limited immunity simply means that nothing she says during that grand jury testimony could be used against her in a later prosecution. But it does not preclude her later prosecution based on evidence developed outside of her testimony.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, has Mr. Ginsburg given any indication about what course she is going to take if his move to quash the whole subpoena doesn't work?

DAN BALZ: Well, he said today: "She will not go to jail like Susan McDougal. She has no intention of falling on her sword." He also said she will exercise fully her constitutional rights. So it seems clear that if there is no agreement for full immunity from prosecution, that when she goes in, she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and then under limited immunity will testify.

MARGARET WARNER: And the reference to Susan McDougal was--

DAN BALZ: Susan McDougal is someone who is in the Whitewater case who under similar circumstances has refused to testify, was cited for contempt, and is still in jail.

MARGARET WARNER: And then you can be jailed almost indefinitely, as long as the grand jury sits?

DAN BALZ: That's correct, as Susan McDougal's case shows.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, why did--do you take this--this subpoena--as a signal that the negotiations between Starr and Ginsburg have broken down, and what happened to cause them to break down? Why couldn't they make a deal?

DAN BALZ: Well, you know, it's one of the great unanswered questions. Describing these negotiations is unusual, I think, at this point, is something of an understatement. So we don't know quite why they haven't been able to do it. The proffer that William Ginsburg submitted on Monica Lewinsky's behalf in which he outlined what she would agree to testify to was not satisfactory from the standpoint of Ken Starr and his team. They felt that there were parts in it that were inconsistent and contradictory; they wanted another opportunity or an opportunity, I should say, to question her and interview her before they signed an agreement. They've not been able to do that. I think at this point you have to say that the relationship between Mr. Ginsburg and Starr's office is not particularly good. If you go back to the early days of their negotiations, a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Ginsburg was describing Ken Starr and his team as very professional, that they had a very cordial relationship, the utmost of cordiality back and forth. In the last several days he has, more or less, accused Ken Starr's office of trying to strong arm his client into saying things that she's not prepared to say. So I think it's fair to say that this relationship has broken down. Whether this is the last step in this process we won't know for a couple of more days.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, could this subpoena be another bluff, or the ultimate squeeze play on Starr's--on Starr's part?

DAN BALZ: Well, I think it's certainly an effort on Starr's part to try to bring these negotiations to a conclusion and to get her before a grand jury one way or the other.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, finally, there was also--there were also some developments on the front--on the Paula Jones lawsuit front in Little Rock. Tell us about that.

DAN BALZ: That's right. Judge Wright in Little Rock today rejected a request by President Clinton's lawyer, Robert Bennett, to move the trial up from May 27th to March 23rd. As you recall, he had said that the whole matter had become a distraction to the President in his official duties, and he wanted this thing brought to an earlier conclusion. She rejected that request today. At the same time, we now know that the Paula Jones lawyers are appealing her earlier decision ruling out anymention of the Lewinsky case in the Paula Jones matter. That will continue to be adjudicated.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you know what her reasoning was for not moving up the case?

DAN BALZ: No. The early report we got did not have any specific reason why.

MARGARET WARNER: And then finally on yet another front this week, David Kendall, the President's lawyer, has also filed a complaint with I guess the presiding Judge at the district court over the leaks. Where does that stand?

DAN BALZ: Well, yesterday he submitted a filing with the court asking that Ken Starr's office be investigated for leaks. As you recall, on Friday, he made a very public denunciation of Ken Starr's office. Mr. Kendall, who is not used to doing business very much in public, went back into form yesterday and submitted this under seal. And so we do not know the reasoning, but we certainly know based on everything he and the President's men have said over the weekend that what he is seeking is for an investigation to determine if Ken Starr's office has been leaking material to the news media and, if so, to impose sanctions on those people who have done the leaking.

MARGARET WARNER: And who would do such an investigation?

DAN BALZ: It's not entirely clear. It could be handled in a number of different ways, and we don't know at this point how it will be handled.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Dan. Thanks again very much.

DAN BALZ: Thank you, Margaret.

JIM LEHRER: A reminder that the "Washington Post" full coverage is available after 10:30 Eastern Time on their web site and on ours. FOCUS - REALITY CHECK

JIM LEHRER: On this Oscar nominations day in Hollywood we look at the collision between history and art. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles begins.

JEFFREY KAYE: Today the film "Titanic" was nominated for 14 Academy Awards, tying the record for most nominations ever. The film from Director James Cameron is one of many recently released movies and plays that blend history and fiction. "Titanic" tells the story of the doomed ship, which hit an iceberg and sank in 1912, killing some 1500 people. The movie weaves back and forth from fact to fancy, cutting from actual footage of the Titanic on the bottom of the ocean--to the drama of a made-up romance taking place on board just hours before the ship sinks. The saga of another ship, the Spanish slave vessel, the "Amistad," received four nominations. Steven Spielberg's $35 million movie dramatizes the uprising which occurred on the "Amistad" in 1839. The film tells the story of Sin-Kay and 43 other Africans who were imprisoned in Connecticut after the mutiny and put on trial for murder. The case was ultimately argued before the Supreme Court by former President John Quincy Adams.

ACTOR: I'm explaining to you that the task ahead of us is an exceptionally difficult one--

ACTOR: We won't be going in there alone.

ACTOR: No, indeed not. We have right at our side. We have righteousness at our side.

JEFFREY KAYE: Spielberg used some artistic license in telling the tale. This scene, for example, could not have taken place since Adams never met personally with Sin-Kay. Recently, Fox released an animated version of "Anastasia"--a story about pre-Leninist Russia--and a young princess whose family was killed during the revolution. [song] In reality, Anastasia was murdered along with her family. Later an imposter claimed to be the young princess. But Fox took some historical liberties to make the tale more appealing for kids. In the movie version, Anastasia survives, falls in love with a young palace servant, and lives happily ever after.

ACTOR: It's a new crossword puzzle book. Thank you, Anne!

ACTRESS: It's not new. It's yours. I rubbed it all out. But if you wait a while, you'll forget and can do it all over again.

ACTOR: It's wonderful!

JEFFREY KAYE: "The Diary of Anne Frank"--the story of the Jewish girl hidden in an Amsterdam attic during World War II--has also been controversial. Some critics charged that the original stage version was portrayed in an unrealistic, upbeat manner. A new version, which is now playing on Broadway, has added some of the harsher realities of the Holocaust. But some critics say the play still puts too much emphasis on Anne Frank's universally romantic ideals. Also on Broadway is Paul Simon & Derek Wolcott's "Capeman." The musical depicts the real-life story of a Puerto Rican gang member convicted of killing two white youths in 1959. Ultimately, the young man served his time and was released from jail. Family members of the victims worry the musical may glamorize the gang member, while some Latino groups object to the stereotyping of Latino boys as hoodlums. Controversy over how the entertainment industry portrays history has a long history itself. In 1915, the movie "Birth of a Nation" was attacked as a racist portrayal of the Civil War and Reconstruction era. [film scene] Filmmaker Oliver Stone has frequently been assailed for the way he alters historical characters and events, most notably in his film "JFK" about the Kennedy assassination. [song] Disney's Pocahontas was also criticized. According to history, Pocahontas was actually a young girl when she met the English settler John Smith. In the Disney version she's a curvaceous grown woman with a romantic interest in him.

ACTOR: This case is about knowing the difference between here and there.

JEFFREY KAYE: Invariably, defenders of historical drama argue that no one portrayal of an event can ever be completely accurate, and that the films educate, as well as entertain. For example, the story of the "Amistad" affair of the 19th century was not widely known in this century until Steven Spielberg brought it to the big screen.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth continues now with a discussion taped recently.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: With us now is author and playwright Thulani Davis, who wrote the Libretto for an opera version of "Amistad." Also joining us is Don Lynch, historian and author of "Titanic: An Illustrated History," and one of two consultants on the film "Titanic;" Mark Carnes, history professor at Barnard College and editor of "Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies;" and Robert Pinsky, poet laureate of the United States and a regular contributor to the NewsHour. Thulani Davis, you began researching "Amistad" many years ago. Why? Why do you turn to history for your themes?

THULANI DAVIS, Librettist/Playwright: Well, usually I guess it's by accident. But I find that these amazing stories from real life have a lot of human drama that translate well to other forms, like opera or theater, where I get to build the internal life of these people who had amazing experiences.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Robert Pinsky, why do you that think writers and artists of all kinds are so drawn to history?

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: There's nothing but history. Every memory has a little dream in it, and it would be impossible to dream anything up that didn't contain some memory, and probably every work and every conversation will show some elements of memory and some memory some elements of dreaming.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mark Carnes, do you think history is well used by film makers, for example?

MARK CARNES, Barnard College: Film encompasses such a broad totality of the human experience, from the visual elements, from a total evocation of lifestyle, from facial gestures to settings, to costumes, to dialogue, to characters; it's impossible to put your--the sign up at some point and say this is no longer historically accurate because the totality of the historical immersion is so expansive in histories--in films--it's impossible to sort out exactly what is historically accurate, so to speak, and what is not, and that's one of the challenges. Historians, everyone is fascinated by the past, and Hollywood was pretty quick to figure that out from D. W. Griffith onward. People are compelled to examine the past. That's what Hollywood has discerned quite neatly. There's money to be made by offering the past to people.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Lynch, tell us how they examine the past. What did you do as a consultant to the film "Titanic," specifically?

DON LYNCH, Consultant, "Titanic:" Well, in the very beginning I met with Jim Cameron and we went over the preliminary script at that time, and he wanted to know if what he was having his characters do--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: He's the director we should say.

DON LYNCH: Director, yes. Excuse me. But he wanted to know what the characters are doing, if it could actually have been done, if it was possible, if it was believable, and also wanted to make sure that the surrounding area around the people--the central characters in the movie are fictional, but he wanted to make sure the story of the ship, itself, was done accurately, and so we went the script for that. I also met with the casting director, and we went over all the real people who would be cast as characters and identified where they were from, what their accents would be like, what they looked like and just to help cast them better, more true to the real people who were involved, and visited the set numerous times during the filming, just was available for questions, if any came up, and just really helped out in any way that I could or was called upon to. But I have to admit that Jim Cameron really knows his stuff. When he reads something, it sticks in his head, and so he had a lot of it in there already.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: As an historian, what pleased you most about the final product?

DON LYNCH: Well, I think the way the ship was dealt with--the fact that this is the first movie that actually shows the ship breaking apart the way it really did--and up close and personal movies and other--well, other movies dealing with the "Titanic" have always just shown the ship going down from a distance, and this is the first movie where you were actually on board really from the viewpoint of the victims seeing the ship go down.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What in the film disturbed you the most as an historian?

DON LYNCH: Well, occasionally little things. You'd have to really, really reach for something that wasn't accurate, for example, the dining saloon, they chose to but table lamps on the tables, which there weren't any, and, of course, that's how nitpicky you would have to be. One area--one of the officers in the film, the ship's officers, is shown committing suicide at some point during the sinking--and I cannot say that absolutely didn't happen but in the course of my research I've come to the conclusion that it probably didn't. Jim felt there was enough evidence that he could go ahead and put that in. He felt it was important to the story line at that point in the picture. But ifthere was anything that I would take exception to, I think it would probably be that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thulani Davis, how nitpicky do you think you have to be? What is your obligation to the history?

THULANI DAVIS: Well, I think there's an obligation not to make up too much, and what is too much is hard to say--but one of the things that I think gets an artist interested in a historical incident is that one is asking questions about the present, about contemporary life, and so you tend to pick and choose events from the real events that are evocative of things you're thinking about in terms of life today. So there's always a little of a skew to how it's done.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I've heard that before, Ms. Davis, that actually when we look at these historical films, we learn more about our own era than we do about them because it shows what people today are concerned about. Do you think that's true?

THULANI DAVIS: Yes. And I think we're also trying to compensate for things that we think were told badly before, either because certain characters that were there were left out or because a point of view was left out. Usually I'm trying to add a point of view that I think has been missing even if the story has been told. So this is easy for me to do in opera or in a novel but in-- any medium it can be done, and you don't have to veer from the facts to do it. You just look at them in a certain kind of way and look for those elements.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Robert Pinsky, are the needs of--the narrative needs of opera or literature or film so great, the need to have a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end--that history is almost inevitably compromised?

ROBERT PINSKY: I think it is inevitably compromised in any telling. "Gone With the Wind" as a memory of the Reconstruction and the Civil War--is a disgrace perhaps, certainly offensive to a lot of people--but as a dream about the Depression it's a rather brilliant work.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean?

ROBERT PINSKY: Well, a lot of people think that "Gone With the Wind" is about struggle for survival, about dreams of glorious luxury--I will not be hungry again--and that as an account of the Civil War and the Reconstruction it's rather biased. But as an expression--as a dream-like expression of the needs and emotions of the time that it was made, it's rather powerful. I recently read Stanley Kaufman's piece about the "Titanic," and he says--he makes a lot of sense to me--he says that this story has been told so many times and perhaps will be told again because it is such a powerful story about the 20thcentury that it is--begins with a lot of optimism and confidence to do with technology and progress and that the sinking and breakup is a little bit like our experiences of world war and other catastrophes that have followed in a century that began as thinking it was going to be one of brilliant liberation and peace.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Carnes, do you think that there are real dangers inherent in the tremendous popularity of historical films and of history as a topic, especially for film makers, and, if so, what are those dangers?

MARK CARNES: The difficulty is this. The truths of the movie tend to be clean and pure and powerful and simple. And history never is; history is complex, muddy, difficult. Movies make good guys too good, bad guys too bad. They adopt narrative lines that are too simple, all in an effort to reach a broad audience. The more expensive the movie, the greater the need to reach a huge audience, an audience that can quickly apprehend its themes. You know, this emphasis on simplicity and power and immediately hitting your audience means that the movies are much too simple compared to the past. I don't think there's any harm in that. In one sense, when you're grappling with difficult, complex problems, movies say there are solutions. I think of Lyndon Johnson during the Tet Offensive when the Vietnam War seemed to be going badly--he gives a speech to the American people and he says, "Remember the Alamo," perhaps forgetting that it was a military debacle in which all the defenders were killed. But he wasn't thinking of the real Alamo experience. He was thinking of the recent movie, which comes out quite heroically. So too in a different sense people who are trying to grapple with the complex world have a sense that really there is a coherent narrative behind it. We have seen that in the movies so that there are good guys and bad guys who can ultimately sort things out. Well, this is a historicism which is subtly--subversive to an understanding of how things really work.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Lynch, do you share that worry as an historian?

DON LYNCH: Well, I hope that the public realizes that you can't have blockbuster documentaries; that you're never going to find a film that is absolutely true, and that if you're going to make it appealing to the general audience, you've got to do some compromising, and I think that people just have to accept that, and I hope that they use movies as a vehicle to then go and learn more--if they see a movie, they're fascinated by the subject, they'll use that as an opportunity to maybe, you know, read a book or maybe look at an actual documentary, rather than just trust what they see on the big screen.THULANI DAVIS: And I think one of the things that's an issue also is that there is a great emphasis in movie making to make the illusion incredibly persuasive and that literal quality that movies have are just incredibly persuasive. It seems real. And so at the same time I think audiences have become very discerning about that. I think people do really examine the structure of a movie, or the characters, and you'll find people complaining about a movie like "Mississippi Burning" because the information that the FBI didn't act so heroically is available in the society and people can see that at least parts were fashioned, so I think actually the discourse itself is good.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Pinsky, is there something peculiarly American about this debate over history and how true to it art or films should be? You've actually written in one of your poems that--you refer to Americans' "scant historic sense" in one of your poems.

ROBERT PINSKY: It's part of the nature of the American film industry that the spectacle of a film like--to take a new example-- "Schindler's List"--is very powerful a spectacle--the scene of rousting out that ghetto in Krakow that's unforgettable--but in compensation for that, the--what you might call the ideas or the language part of the film--partly in the nature of the medium and partly in the nature of the industry--as has been said--has to be minimal--very simple, very broad, and inoffensive. These films are made to be marketed all over the world, and Americans perhaps too much preen ourselves that we're free of history, and I think there's all kinds of hidden history of the kind Ms. Davis has said, where the president is writing an autobiography. A film I love is John Wayne's "The Searchers." I always think it's about America losing its old conceptions of ethnic purity and social purity and the role of Natalie Wood having an Indian husband--a Native American husband in that film has to do with all the social changes that are perceived in 1956--so maybe American works are sneaky historical or subconsciously historical.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much for being with us. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Our Iraq discussion ran a little longer than expected, so we'll bring you Anne Taylor Fleming's essay on another occasion. Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, President Clinton expressed gratitude for those nations prepared to stand with America against Iraq; the Senate confirmed Dr. David Satcher as the new surgeon general of the United States; and the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 115 points to close at a record high of 8295.61. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.