The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, full coverage of the hostage standoff in Lima, Peru, a Newsmaker interview with outgoing Secretary of Defense William Perry, some pros and cons about the new TV program rating system, and a performance by Italian actor Marcello Mastroianni, who died today. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The standoff at the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru, continued tonight. A team of FBI agents and special U.S. security officers are now part of the effort to resolve the situation. Tupac Amaru guerrillas have held nearly 500 foreign ambassadors and others since Tuesday night. The rebels want 300 of their jailed colleagues released, as well as money and safe passage to the Amazon. Secretary of State Christopher talked about the situation this afternoon in Washington.

WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We'll work closely with the Japanese, as well as we will with the Peruvian government, if we can be of some assistance. Obviously, the Peruvian government is taking the lead. The United States policy against making concessions in this situation is well known. At the same time, because so many people are involved, it's important that lines of communication remain open between those terrorists who've taken the embassy and the Peruvian government. And we would encourage the maintenance of communications. But the United States, as I say, has a strong policy against making any concessions. And we'd advise all of those involved to follow that policy.

JIM LEHRER: An official from the International Red Cross was appointed chief negotiator in Lima today. He was allowed a brief visit with the hostages this morning. He said negotiations to free them would begin today. At the United Nations, the president of the Security Council said council members vigorously condemn the taking of hostages at the embassy in Lima. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The U.S. television industry today adopted a new system for rating television programs. It is designed to help parents monitor what their children watch. Broadcast and cable TV networks will begin displaying the age-based rating similar to those now used on movies early next year. All programs, except news and sports, will be rated. Motion Picture Association President Jack Valenti said the system had to be useful to the public.

JACK VALENTI, President, Motion Picture Association: That's our goal. That's what we set out to do. That's the basic rostrum from which sprung all of our discussions--simple to use, easy to understand, a combination of content information and suggested age categories and brief, and brief, so that newspapers, TV Guide, and other publications would print it, because if you don't have advanced warnings, the worth of what you're doing is greatly diminished.

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton praised the plan. He did so at a photo opportunity with Vice President Gore and TV industry leaders at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This is a great day for the parents of America because what most parents want is more freedom to raise their children according to their own values and to balance the demand ofwork and child rearing. And this is a big step forward in helping them do that. Now, they have to seize the opportunity, they have to give the industry feedback, and if we get strong feedback that something more can be done, I think it'll be a lot easier to take the next step because in the first instance, these programs are going to be grouped in this way. So let's let em--let's see what happens.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the guidelines are too vague and don't give parents the information they want. He spoke at a Washington news conference.

REP. ED MARKEY, [D] Massachusetts: Some parents are concerned about violence for their children at a particular age. Some parents are concerned about sex at a particular age, some about language. They should be able to choose amongst the various categories that they're concerned about for a particular child at a particular age in their home. That's what this debate is all about. It has just begun.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program. Drug use by American teen-agers rose in 1996, according to a survey released today by the federal government. Marijuana use tripled among eighth-graders since the last survey five years ago. Fifty thousand students in public and private secondary schools were questioned. 18 percent said they had used marijuana in the past year, compared with 6 percent in 91. The director of national drug control policy, Barry McCaffrey, said this about the findings.

BARRY McCAFFREY, White House Drug Policy Director: I draw your attention to drug abuse by eighth-graders as a major cause of alarm not only near-term but what it portends to us on young, adult, addictive behavior in their 20's with the associated pathologies of crime, of spouse abuse, of child abuse, of AIDS, and the other dilemmas that come along with drug stoned behavior.

JIM LEHRER: Nearly a quarter of eighth graders and 40 percent of high school seniors said they used some kind of drug in the past year. The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to a full review of the Joseph O'Dell death penalty case. O'Dell had been scheduled to die Wednesday in Virginia for the 1985 murder of a woman. The Supreme Court stayed his execution. Today's order made clear the justices will review only the validity of O'Dell's death sentence, not his claim of innocence based on newly available DNA evidence. Arguments will be held in March, with a decision by July. Bitter cold weather went as far South as Texas today. Snow fell in Georgia and Florida, and up to three inches fell in parts of Alabama. The wintery conditions endangered the Florida citrus crop and caused hundreds of traffic accidents. Single digit regions are expected tonight in Tennessee. The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its second biggest one-day gain ever today. The Dow was up 126.87 points to close at 6473.64. Marcello Mastroianni is dead. The Italian actor died today at his home in Paris of pancreatic cancer. He appeared in 120 films since he began acting in 1947. One of his most famous roles was that of a journalist in the 1960 movie "La Dolce Vita." He was 72 years old. We'll have more on Mastroianni at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then, the standoff in Peru, Sec. Perry, and rating television programs. FOCUS - EMBASSY TAKEOVER

JIM LEHRER: The hostage standoff at the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru, is the lead story of this day. Our coverage begins with a report from Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

GABY RADO, Independent Television News: Whatever the showof force outside the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima, the odds were still very much in favor of the Tupac Amaru guerrillas inside. Hundreds of dignitaries as bargaining counters deployed in widely dispersed areas around the large compound, making any possible assault very hard, indeed. The Peruvian security forces will soon be supplemented by a more discreet presence of so-called special advisers from both Britain and the U.S.A.. It's thought that as well as foreign diplomats, hostages include the head of the Peruvian Supreme Court and even the chief of Peru's anti-terrorist police.

JOHN ILLMAN, British Ambassador, Peru: One has to admit that the positions at the moment of the two sides are wide apart, and clearly, some very delicate negotiating discussions will have to take place before that bridge could be gapped.

GABY RADO: It's been revealed that Peru's president, Alberto Fujimori, was almost certainly to have been among the hostages, as he usually attends the party at which the guerrillas struck. Mr. Fujimori, who's of Japanese descent, has sworn never to negotiate with terrorists, the threat from whom he'd assumed he'd crushed with tough policies during his six years in power. And so are the Japanese, for whom this is almost as serious a crisis as it is for Peru. The Japanese foreign minister on setting out from Tokyo for Lima made it plain his country would rather lives were saved through a deal than force be used, as that carried the risk of a blood bath. It's ironic, however, that it was because of President Fujimori's hard-line action in the past that Japan invested $280 million last year in Peru, leading to the Tupac Amaru's resentment of Japanese influence on their country. The MRTA is an apparently well armed and well organized group, one of whose main demands is the release of its leader, Victor Polay. He's been in solitary confinement for the past four years. His wife is living in exile in France.

ROSE POLAY CAMPOS, Wife of Guerrilla Leader: [speaking through interpreter] My husband is still in prison in terrible conditions. I'm very worried about him. That's the reason why I'm active in various organizations that deal with human rights.

GABY RADO: As President Fujimori has, himself, witnessed, hundreds of MRTA prisoners are being held in badly overcrowded conditions, and their plight is one of the guerrilla's main complaints.

JIM LEHRER: Charles Krause has more on the story.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Joining us now are Alvin Adams, the American ambassador in Peru from 1993 until August of this year, who's now president of the U.S. Association for the United Nations in New York, and Marc Chernick, director of the Amazonian Studies Project at Georgetown University. Professor Chernick has written extensively on Andean politics and guerrilla insurgencies in Latin America. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Mr. Ambassador, there have been reports of two shots having been fired from inside the embassy compound late this afternoon, but no indication that anyone's been hurt. If that remains the case, there has been 24 hours of relative peace, does that indicate to you that there may be some sign that there's the possibility of a negotiated settlement?

ALVIN ADAMS, Former Ambassador to Peru: Well, I think these kinds of situations can endure for a good number of days. And I think you have to be patient, and, of course, the crisis managers have to be very level-headed. I do suspect that the two sides are in contact, and that's a very normal and very professional step to take in situations such as this. They could be talking about a wide variety of things, not necessarily the ultimate demands, or the ultimate solution, but they could be talking about logistical matters just as well.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor, how would you assess this situation?

MARC CHERNICK, Georgetown University: Well, I think it is beginning to stabilize. We shouldn't have our expectations held very high that it will be resolved quickly. A similar situation in Colombia, 1980, when guerrillas took over the embassy at the Dominican Republic, took two months to settle. And, frankly, it's in the guerrillas' advantage to keep the world opinion held hostage for as long as they can. So I think they would not look for a quick deal. But they will want to try to stabilize it to a stalemate, open negotiations, have the sides come together, and look for a way where they can claim victory even if they don't get their original demands. They can claim victory over just having the world focus on issues which they believe are very real.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, would you agree that the guerrillas chose the Japanese embassy because it--Japan--has become "the" major investor and perhaps most important ally of President Fujimori?

PROF. MARC CHERNICK: Well, it obviously was a strategic decision, and it is quite curious that now it is the Japanese embassy which is at the center of attention. Ten years ago, it would have been the U.S. embassy. Japan's role in Latin America has changed. Japan's role in Peru has changed. But for the--for the Peruvian guerrillas what they really want is to hold world opinion and national opinion in Peru hostage, and they have succeeded very well. And what they wanted, more than anything, is an international audience. The Japanese are a particularly good one.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Ambassador, do you agree that that's what they're after, international attention?

AMB. ALVIN ADAMS: Yes. Absolutely. I think that is their principal objective. And I think they've attained that. Their other objective, clearly given the nature of the demands, is the release of large numbers, some four to five hundred of their cadre in prison in Peruvian jails. A third objective would be to get out of that situation intact. But not an awful of them are TA cadre in Peru. They suffered quite a bit in the past several years, and I think it's instructive that they made such a point about the release of their personnel in Peruvian prisons. And that is because they need them to continue their work.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, as we saw in our report, the Japanese foreign minister is en route to Lima. Would you interpret that as meaning that Japan will, in fact, be calling the shots once he gets there?

AMB. ALVIN ADAMS: No. Certainly, there's a Japanese sovereign territory, the embassy, itself, but the ultimate decision maker and the one responsible for the welfare really of those hostages, as well as the welfare of his own citizens, is President Fujimori. I think President Fujimori will welcome counsel, but he also will have to take his own counsel and be instructed mostly and primarily by the interest of the country at large.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There have also been reports the Japanese might be more likely to want to perhaps free some of the prisoners in exchange for a peaceful solution. Do you think--you know President Fujimori. Is he likely to agree to that kind of solution?

ALVIN ADAMS: I think that would be unlikely. Very clearly, whatever, whatever negotiation is going to be defined by the particular context. The numbers of people they're talking about, you can go through a whole seriesof mini-negotiations, if you will, before a final conclusion is reached in the situation. I think the professor is quite right. This could take a good number of days, if not weeks.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor, from what you know of this group, the Tupac Amaru, well, first of all, what does that refer to? What does that mean?

PROF. MARC CHERNICK: Tupac Amaru was an indigenous leader who withstood the Spanish conquest, early in the 16th century, and then a second indigenous leader in the 18th century took on the name of Tupac Amaru, and so, once again, this name of indigenous rebellion against oppression has been raised in the name of this group, Tupac Amaru revolutionary movement.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And this group was founded in the 80's, I believe?

PROF. MARC CHERNICK: It was founded in the 80's, but it was founded in the tradition of many guerrilla groups in Latin America since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, that is, to foment revolution in the style of the Cuban revolution to overcome social injustice and inequality.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, from what you know of them, do you think that, without having gone this far, they would be willing to negotiate say passage out of the country or some other solution without getting their people out of jail?

PROF. MARC CHERNICK: I think so. I think they have achieved a lot already. They--what they really need to do is they need to resurrect themselves politically. They would feel defeated militarily. They're not a military band. But now the battle is for public opinion and in Peru, as well as outside. If they can get the world to focus on certain issues which they think are very important, such as the condition of their prisoners in jail, in Peru, then that is a success, because, in fact, that is the weakest part of the Peruvian government. There are major questions about the way the terrorists have been tried by military tribunals, with faceless judges. Those are issues which go well beyond their demands. If they can focus world attention on that and find that others have similar concerns as they, then they have achieved a lot, and then their major concern is getting safe passage back to the jungle. Now a similar situation again happened in Colombia, the guerrillas asked for the release of their top leadership. They may not get it, but they did get world attention on the conditions of political prisoners. And that's a very important achievement.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Ambassador, from what you know, from what the United States knows, where did these guerrillas get their money and how much support do they have?

AMB. ALVIN ADAMS: Well, they get their money in good measure from the trading in narcotics, in what's called coca basic, a basic coca paste, which is processed in the Upper Yuaga Valley. They also get it from seizing wealthy Peruvians, or they used to, there has not been much of that in the past several years, and bank heists. And that's how they're financed.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What kind of military capability do they have now?

AMB. ALVIN ADAMS: Well, I do believe it's much less than what they used to have. They've been relatively quiet and not much heard of in the past several years. It is interesting, however, that about the same period of time last year a plan to seize the Peruvian Congress, much the same way as the Japanese embassy, was foiled. And the centerpiece of that plan again was the theme of the release of their personnel in jail. As for the kind of public support they have in Peru, I think it is minimal to non-existent. I think if you ask most Peruvians, just about any Icould think of, they would express abhorrence, if not hatred, of the kind of activity that they've engaged in today. Certainly, Peruvians who care about the development of the country, care about the kind of atmosphere that's conducive to investment, to job creating, and about the conditions, which this government, I think, sincerely is trying to do something seriously about.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor, would you agree that the guerrillas have virtually no support?

PROF. MARC CHERNICK: I would agree. They have a very small base of support in their coca growing region. But that's precisely why we're doing these actions at this time. They're a defeated group which has lost their place at the political table. They are using this action to regain their seat in the seat of public opinion and in the arena of politics. And that's--it's not unprecedented. If they can get out of this successfully, they can begin to come back as a player politically. Right now, they don't have supporters. They're marginalized Most people think they're defeated. This way they're saying we're here, and we're on the side of the poor, and we're on the side of those against oppression. And others agree with us.

AMB. ALVIN ADAMS: I'd only say, if I could interject, that I think you're quite right, that the principal audience is a foreign public. I don't think they can get an awful lot of mileage over this at home. If they're interested in--in--truly in the welfare of the little Peruvian, why carry out an operation which will-- could risk compromise with the country's image and its investments prospects, precisely those kinds of activities which lead to investment and lead to revenues, and job creation.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Gentlemen, we've run out of time. I thank you both very much.

AMB. ALVIN ADAMS: You bet. Thank you.

PROF. MARC CHERNICK: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Secretary Perry, rating television, and a Mastroianni scene. NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now a Newsmaker interview with outgoing Defense Secretary William Perry. I talked with him earlier this evening. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: Thanks, Jim. It's good to be here.

JIM LEHRER: Just, first, for the record, is the U.S. military involved in any way in assisting the Peruvians in resolving their hostage crisis?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Jim, there are seven Americans involved in that. And it's an ongoing operation. I just cannot and will not comment anything about it.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. The U.S. does have some involvement then?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: And I just don't want to comment at all on it.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Sorry.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. You just returned from a NATO meeting in Brussels. Do you come back convinced still that NATO should be expanded?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Let me say, first of all, it was of the perhaps a dozen NATO defense ministers meeting that I've attended this is the best that I've attended. And the sense of confidence and competence of NATO among the defense ministers was palpable.

JIM LEHRER: Confidence about what?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Confidence that NATO was achieving the principal security objective it has, as providing security and stability for Europe, not just Western Europe, but creating a security circle within which all of the European nations can find a place.

JIM LEHRER: Security from what? Who's the enemy now that NATO is designed to be the defense against?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: The enemy is chaos and instability. The most clearest, the most obvious example of that is in Bosnia, where NATO force with the participation of 16 other nations have come together and have now for a year have provided the military force which has provided peace in Bosnia. Now they're projecting that for another year and a half. But Bosnia's not the only situation in which we might envision the use of NATO forces, or the threat of the use of NATO forces. But it is not directed. NATO is not directed against Russia or any other nation, and is not a--therefore is not a threat. Russia--many people in Russia believe it is a threat, and, therefore, they believe the expansion of NATO is a threat to them. But an expanded NATO is only a threat if NATO is a threat to Russia, which I believe it is not.

JIM LEHRER: But the Russians say the reason they feel it's a threat is because NATO has yet to define what its purpose is in this new post Cold War world.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: I think NATO has been very clear on its purpose in this post Cold War world, and I stated it in general terms, which is providing security and stability not just for Western Europe but for all of Europe. All of the actions it has taken in the last number of years have been pointed to that, both creating the Partnership for Peace, which opened it up to more than 25 nations in the Eastern Central Europe.

JIM LEHRER: Eastern Central, right.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: And in--

JIM LEHRER: The former Soviet bloc countries.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Former Soviet bloc countries, former Warsaw Pact nations. In addition to that, it's created the IFOR and now SFOR in Bosnia, which has performed--

JIM LEHRER: Those are peacekeeping--various peacekeeping forces.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Peacekeeping functions. This is the implementation force which carried out the terms of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia. All nations in Europe recognize the importance of that, not just to Bosnia, but to the security of all of Europe. And that's why all of the nations, including Russia, were willing to join us in that endeavor. The Russian defense minister about a year ago at a press conference, while he's no great fan of NATO, said he recognized that NATO can do positive things with the security of Europe and pointed out Bosnia as an example of that. In Bosnia, we have a Russian brigade serving as a part of the American multinational division which is a part of that peacekeeping force. And the American and Russian brigades worked side by side to go out in joint patrols. They worked very effectively together.

JIM LEHRER: But the Russians still believe expanding NATO to first step would be Hungary, the Czech republic, and Poland, is a lousy idea, do they not?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: First of all, let me say I can't say for sure what nations would be in the first step.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: That's going to be decided at the summer meeting this July. But they--they think the expansion of any countries is a bad idea. Some countries they would be more concerned about than others. But they--simply because they see NATO as a threat, then they see the expansion of NATO, and particularly countries that bring NATO up to their borders, they're particularly sensitive to. One of the things NATO has done to try to calm that concern is state very clearly that we have no plans, no intention, and no need to deploy theater nuclear forces, NATO nuclear forces in any of these new member countries. In fact, we have been--we have been contracting the NATO nuclear force. We've already in the last five years eliminated 90 percent of the nuclear weapons which were as part of the NATO nuclear force. So, we're heading in exactly the opposite direction of what they're concerned about.

JIM LEHRER: But at the same time, you're heading right toward their borders, as you did say, and that what makes them nervous, right? I mean, they're sitting there, and they're now suddenly going to have NATO, not just their old friends, but NATO forces on their borders.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: It makes them nervous if they are thinking in terms of NATO as a threat. If they're thinking in terms of balance of force, as correlation of forces in the old Cold War ways, but Poland, for example, wants to become a member of NATO not because it is imagining that it's going to participate in an attack against Russia--nobody thinks of that. That's not a thought in anybody's mind, but Poland and the other countries that are applying for membership are democracies, and they have a right, as we see it, to apply for membership in NATO, and if they are qualified, if they are qualified, NATO has no reason for turning down their application.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, as you leave office, are you comfortable in a general way about the state of the U.S. defenses?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: I feel very good about the state of the U.S. defenses. Our readiness, for example, is at the highest level, in my judgment, at the highest level that it has ever been. And for me, that's not just a theoretical statement. While, indeed, I get dreams and statistics every month laying the readiness out--

JIM LEHRER: What does that mean, ready to do what?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: It means ready to go into a military operation, whether that military operation is a war we have to fight, whether it's a peacekeeping operation--

JIM LEHRER: Or humanitarian operation.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Or humanitarian operation. The readiness is a state of training that we--we require all of our forces to take. They have to be able to perform to a standard, and the standard-- when we went into Bosnia, for example, we went in--it was a peacekeeping operation--we went in with troops in their tanks, in their armored personnel carriers, fully loaded, fully ready to fight a war, if we had to fight a war. One of the reasons we did not have to fight a war in Bosnia is because we were so prepared. I said at the time that we were going to be the biggest and meanest and toughest dog in town. That sounded like rhetoric. But I was quite serious. We put in a large force. We put in a militarily strong force, and we gave them rules of engagement so that if they had to fight, they were prepared to fight. That helped deter the necessity for fighting.

JIM LEHRER: So when you talk to the generals and to others in the professional military or the civilian military, you say to them, that, friends, is the future, that is the role, the future role of the United States military, get used to it, be ready to fight a war, but, more importantly, be ready to peace-keep, be ready to clear the way for humanitarian aid, et cetera?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: When I speak to a military either verbally or when I lay out the guidance which the Secretary of Defense gives the military each year, we speak of the careful and effective use of military force. I see this as the primary task of the secretary of defense, is to specify with great clarity the conditions in which we might have to use our military force and then have the readiness to be able to do that. And I see it as three principal applications. If our vital national security interests are threatened, we have to prepare to go to war to defend them. That has to be to of the list.And so we train our forces to be ready to go to war if they have to on the theory that they're ready, we probably won't have to. Secondly, we train them to defend national interests. There, we don't have to go to war, but we might have to be involved in a peacekeeping operation like we were in Bosnia. We were not willing to get involved in a war in Bosnia, because we did not see it affecting our vitalness. We were willing to win a peacekeeping operation, and then sometimes on a humanitarian operation, under the right conditions, where the U.S. military can provide a unique capability, and it's an egregious problem, then we will send the forces.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. As a practical matter, Mr. Secretary, are there really any serious threats to the security the United States left?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: The threats which we do are military planning against and we trained against, we planned against, we exercised against, are what we call two major regional conflicts. A major regional conflict, for example, is something like Desert Storm. That's major. That involved more than + million troops.

JIM LEHRER: But not against the security of the United States per se, the physical land, or the cities of the United States?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: That did not threaten the survival, directly threaten the survival of the United States. We don't see--I don't see anything on the horizon in the foreseeable future which threatens the survival of the United States. It did affect our vital national security interest. It threatened the survival of an ally, or it's threatened--posed a threat of economic strangulation. If Saddam Hussein had gotten control of all of the oil in the Mideast, that could have had a profound effect not just on the United States but on all of the western industrial nations, so we saw that as a vital national security interest. We were prepared to go to war to protect those interests, and we did go to war.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the--you have said--in fact, even earlier today, you said that the U.S. military is prepared to fight--you're following a two-war strategy. What does that mean?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: That means that if we were to get in another war like Desert Storm in Southwest Asia say, that we want to have sufficient force level so that we are not completely depleted by dealing with that war because if we were, some country in some other part of the world, North Korea, for example, might see the opportunity to take an action, and we would not be able to defend against it. Therefore, we say we ought to have enough forces that if we get involved in one major regional conflict, we are prepared to deter a second one. We don't expect to fight two major regional conflicts, but we're fearful that we might have to if our forces are too narrow.

JIM LEHRER: Is all of the military planning of the United States right now based on the premise that the United States will always be the superior military power of the world?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: It's based on the premise that the United States is a global power, and as long as we're a global power, we have to be able to project power anywhere in the world that our interests are threatened--Southwest Asia, Korean Peninsula, anywhere in the world. And that requires then the force structure that we have today to do that.

JIM LEHRER: What's the hardest thing you had to do as Secretary of Defense?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: The hardest thing any secretary of defense has to do is sign the deployment orders to send troops into dangerous situations, situations in which their life is at danger. Sometimes we're sending them to areas where a few people's lives are in danger, sometimes when they went into Bosnia, I signed the deployment into Bosnia, we sent about 30,000 troops into that theater, more than 20,000 initially into Bosnia. People were saying that we were going to have thousands of casualties a week. Now, we never believed that, but, nevertheless, if the--

JIM LEHRER: Did you have any doubts?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: --one of the armies had raised up against us, we would have had a fight, and there would have been many casualties. So that's--that's the thing. Every time I sign a deployment order, any time any secretary of defense signs a deployment order, this has to be foremost in his mind. He's sending troops out to risk their lives. He has to be sure--that's why I say the most important mission of a secretary of defense is to get right the careful, effective use of military power, the clarity of mission, the conditions under which you would use it, and he has to always be prepared, have the forces prepared, high readiness, so that if they go into a military conflict, they have to be prepared for it; they are ready.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, do you leave this office with a sense of frustration or just being tired from being in such a high visibility position?

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Not at all. Not at all, Jim. I leave it, first of all, believing that it was a great experience. I would not have missed this experience for anything in my life. I'm very happy to have had the opportunity for it. And secondly, with a great sense of fulfillment, a great sense of pride. I had, when I came into the job, several tasks which I had clearly in mind I wanted to do. One of them, as I said, was to get right the use of force, and in Haiti, in Bosnia, in North Korea, Southwest Asia, I think we got those right. We met the missions that were required. We did it with I think an economical use of our force. During those three years, by the way, the last three years, we have had the lowest fatalities of any three-year period in our history, the lowest on- duty fatalities of U.S. military personnel. So that's one measure of the careful use of force, but at the same time, we have been willing to deploy forces and use them quite effectively. I wanted also to bring about a major reduction in the nuclear legacy of the Cold War. I've talked during these programs before about the things we've done there. Four thousand nuclear warheads removed, eight thousand launchers destroyed. Three countries are now non-nuclear that formerly had large nuclear forces. That was important. And I wanted to get the management of the Defense Department right. We were going through a major draw down. The last time we did that the Vietnam War, we were left with shambles at the other end. I wanted to get that right, and I believe that we did. The forces today, while smaller than they were ten years ago, or even smaller than they were five years ago, are very highly ready, very capable, very high-spirited corps. We have revamped the acquisition system. We buy our equipment now using commercial practices. This will be savings literally of billions of dollars a year the way we're buying equipment. So I'm very proud of those achievements, and I leave with a great sense of fulfillment.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you and good luck to you.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: Thank you, Jim. FOCUS - RATING PRIME TIME

JIM LEHRER: Now, the TV ratings story and to Charlayne Hunter- Gault.

SCENE FROM ROSEANNE:

JACKIE: Last night, you and Dan? How was it?

ROSEANNE: Good.

JACKIE: Oh, come on, Roseanne. It's been a long time for you guys. Was it wild and intense? Was it like the first time?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: By the end of next month programs like "Roseanne" will have a rating displayed at the beginning of the show in the upper lefthand corner of the television screen. The new guidelines announced today will be sixth-tier, aged-based rating system. All programs, with the exception of news and sports, will be rated using the following categories: A TVY rating contains material suitable for children of all ages. TVY7 contains material suitable for children age 7 and older. TVG is for all audiences with little or no violence and little or no sexual situations. For TVPG, parental guidance is suggested. The program may contain limited violence and some suggestive sexual situations. TV14 material may be inappropriate for children under 14. The program could have strong language and sexual content. A program rated TVM is designed to be viewed by adults and, therefore, may be unsuitable for children under 17. The program could contain graphic violence and explicit sexual content. Producers, broadcast networks, and cable channels will rate their own programs, but in all cases a local television station can override a show's original rating and give it another. Eventually, the new system will work with a V chip to be installed in new TV sets in 1998. Using a remote control device people will be able to block shows or categories of shows based on their ratings. Industry executives said they expect the most violent and sexually explicit programming will continue to air after 10 PM. The new rating systems will be listed in newspapers and TV guides.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Now for some different perspectives on the TV rating system, we have Dick Wolf, a television producer. His current programs are "Law and Order" and "New York Undercover." Kathryne Montgomery is the president of the Center for Media Education, a children's media advocacy group. Dr. Margie Hogan is a pediatrician. She chairs the Committee on Communications for the American Academy of Pediatrics. And Kay Koplovitz is CEO of USA Networks, a nationally distributed cable network. She was a member of the industry committee that developed the new rating system. Thank you all for joining us. And starting with you, Ms. Koplovitz, why this system?

KAY KOPLOVITZ, USA Networks: [New York City] Well, there are a number of items that we found were going to be necessary in order to have a system that people could understand and use. First of all, it must be a simple-to-understand system. It helps if it's familiar, and it has to work in the marketplace. And we looked at a number of different ways of doing rating systems, and we think that this one will meet the criteria best because it is familiar to people. It is similar to the MPAA rating system for movies which is widely accepted throughout the country. It is--we think--simple to understand. It does have both content and age information for parents, and we think it'll work.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And, briefly, what are you trying to achieve? What will work mean? What will it being able to work mean?

KAY KOPLOVITZ: It means that parents--the system is for parents, to give them guidance in choosing programming for their children to view. We think it'll work in the marketplace. A very complicated system will only raise a lot more questions. At least, that's what we have found in research so far. And we think that in order for it to be practical, don't forget, we have to rate over 2,000 hours of programming a day in this industry. It's quite different than the movie industry that rates two movies a day. This is 2,000 hours of programming a day that has to be rated for the audience and has to be put into the system not only on the air, but this is going to be in print information, it's going to be in the listings and TV Guide, and other publications that list television listings. It is really quite a comprehensive program, and, therefore, we think it has to be one that is easily understood. In this case, this one, much of it is familiar already to the audience.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Okay.

KAY KOPLOVITZ: And so we think it'll meet those criteria.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Right. Ms. Montgomery, what do you think of it?

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY, Center for Media Education: We're really very disappointed with this system because it really is not appropriate for television. The categories are based on age, and they're really quite vague. They don't tell parents the content of an individual program. You can't tell as a parent why a program received a particular rating. And the categories are so broad that very easily an entire evening of prime time programming could get a rating of PG. Parents will then, if they were concerned about possible troublesome content, may have to block out the entire evening.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: So it doesn't satisfy any of the things that you just heard Ms. Koplovitz outline?

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: This system is really no more simple than the kind of system we're talking about, which is a content-based system.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We'll get to that in a little bit, but let me just pursue this with Mr. Wolf. How do you respond to the new system we've just heard outlined?

DICK WOLF, Producer, "Law and Order": Well, first of all, the problem with any kind of content-based system is that it's completely subjective and unworkable.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we're not talking about the content-based system now. We're talking about the new system that was introduced today.

DICK WOLF: I understand, and I have been a very vocal advocate of no rating system. This is a system--the television business and the industry has been around for 50 years. Advertisers view every show that they go into. There are a standards and practices department at every network that rate the programs essentially in terms of what is going to be allowed, and this is a problem that I am a parent of three young children; I believe that parents should recognize the fact that they have to be parents and use parental guidance in the home, and watch what their children are watching. Television is not an electronic baby sitter.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: But--

DICK WOLF: And the idea that a system can be devised that will give parents information on a specific program in a way that they can adequately judge it I think is specious. I think that parents have a responsibility. That's why it's called PG, parental guidance. Watch the program, yourself. Do not leave it up to any third parties.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. And so you don't think this system is necessary. You don't think it'll work?

DICK WOLF: Well, no. I think that this system is the only possible system that "can" work. The MPAA system has been in place for 28 years. Parents know what those basic guidelines are, and there is a definition for each age group category telling you basically how much sex or violence is going to be in that category. If you are concerned as a parent, watch the program. Don't leave it up to somebody else.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

DICK WOLF: And that is the basis of this system.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Hogan, as a pediatrician, you've been hearing this discussion, where do you come down?

DR. MARGIE HOGAN, American Academy of Pediatrics: The pediatricians represented by the American Academy of pediatrics have been interested in the effects of the media on children for years and years. And we are very, very concerned about the new proposed system and feel strongly that it is "not" meeting the needs of parents and families in this country. We strongly advocated a content-based system.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. I want to get to that.

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: Believing that parents--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Right. Excuse me. I want to get to that system in a minute, but I just want--

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: I'm sorry.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Is there-- you are particularly concerned, I believe, about the violence aspect of this, that it doesn't deal with that sufficiently?

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: Traditionally, we've done a lot of research and produced a lot of materials about the effect of violence on children and adolescents, but the effect of media goes far beyond that. We're only beginning to understand how sexual portrayals in the media can have an effect on young people. So violence certainly, sexuality, disrespect, character traits, all of these things we know have an impact on our young people.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And this system doesn't address that?

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: That is absolutely correct. Parents need a more descriptive, a content-based advisory, as it were, to make good choices for their children.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Ms. Koplovitz, you've heard criticisms of your system. How do you respond, that it's just not appropriate, it's too vague, and that it doesn't deal enough with content to give parents what they need to make good choices?

KAY KOPLOVITZ: Well, first of all, it isn't vague. It's not vague. The language on where the age categories are pegged in this system is not vague. It has gradations of definition which are easy to understand relating to violence, sex, or any other language that might be offensive and in what degree for each of these categories. So it isn't vague at all. It does have content information in it.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: For example--

KAY KOPLOVITZ: Secondly--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Give me an example of the content.

KAY KOPLOVITZ: Well, in PG, for example, or General Audiences, it'll say this material is appropriate for all audiences. In PG, it'll say that the program may contain some references to sexual or light violence. It'll have a description. It is a slight gradation of any of those categories that would give it that grade.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Let me--

KAY KOPLOVITZ: If you go to PG14, there will be a heavier emphasis on the type of violence or sexual behavior or reference or language. And if you go to TVM, it will have very explicit, strong language that defines what is in that category. So what I would urge people to do, before being too critical of this system, is to give this system a chance in the marketplace to work.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

KAY KOPLOVITZ: There are studies that we have done that show that 90 percent--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me--

KAY KOPLOVITZ: --of the adults surveyed, parents surveyed, approved of this system. So there is not vast disapproval of this system in the marketplace today.

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: Well, I want to disagree with that. There have been two major polls that have shown parents prefer a content system. I'll be happy to talk about that. And when the polls that Ms. Koplovitz is talking about really, as parents, do you want a rating system, and they're desperate for information. Let me tell you a couple of problems with this system. One is--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about the one she just mentioned? Because she described quite a bit of--

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: Yes.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: It sounded like content.

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: All right. Here's the thing. Here's the situation. These categories are broadly defined so that they "may" contain certain elements, but they don't tell you whether an individual program contains that element. So if you compare it to food labeling, it would be as if you were buying a product and said this product category might contain MSG, might contain fat, it might contain some other harmful product, but you have no way of knowing whether this particular product does contain some harmful element. And we're particularly concerned about television violence. There have been decades of research that show that TV violence has a harmful effect on children. This is a public health issue. Parents have a right to know whether violence is in the programming. Another problem with it is--and another problem in comparing it to the movie system is that in the movie system, you have a single entity, a single body of parents that evaluate all the movies. Here, you are asking individual producers to make decisions that are really more appropriate for child development specialists--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you're--

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: --about what age group should or should not see a program.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you're a producer, Mr. Hogan. How do you respond to that? I'm sorry, Mr. Wolf, how do you respond to that?

DICK WOLF: Well, I respond by saying that one man's violence 4 under the Canadian system is another parent's suitable action sequence. And the Canadian system, which had a sliding scale for sex and violence was absolutely rejected by parents in Canada. It was an unmitigated disaster. Now, some of these polls that we've heard about, like the PTA Poll, where they claim that 98 percent of the respondents responded that they wanted more content, what they failed to tell you is that they sent out thousands and thousands of questionnaires, and I believe they had 400 returned and 98 percent of those were from mothers, not fathers. And frankly, I feel that fathers should be heard in this area too.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

DICK WOLF: But we can come up with statistics until the cows come home.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Dr. Hogan, let me just ask you briefly, tell us about your content-based system and why it would be better than what we've been hearing about.

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: The content-based system is much more respectful to parents and children. Not every 7-year-old child is like the next 7-year-old child, nor 14-year-old child like the next one.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: But what is it exactly? I'm sorry. What is the system exactly?

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: The American Academy of Pediatrics does not have a system.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: No. I mean, the content-based system that you're advocating, what does it do?

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: The content-based system that we would advocate would be one that has description of the contents of violence, sex, or foul language. Let me give an example. There's a system that has been put forth by RSAC, the Recreational Software Advisory Council, which rates computer software and the Internet. This, interestingly, is also rated by the producers of these materials, but there is an appeal process, there's a very strict set of guidelines for the rating. And the beauty of this system is its simplicity. There's a little thermometer gage that for each category--violence, sex, or language--rates the level at one through four, and then allows a parent to make an intelligent and caring decision for his or her own child. It's a very simple system. None of us what to get bogged down in detail like the Canadian system it appears has but I think there is a way to make a simple--

DICK WOLF: It's the same system.

DR. MARGIE HOGAN: Pardon me?

DICK WOLF: Excuse me. It's the same system. You're describing exactly the Canadian system which was an unmitigated disaster. The parents rejected it. It was too complicated, and, again, it's completely subjective.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Wait a minute. Ms. Montgomery wants to weigh in here.

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: That is "not" true. There has been misinformation about the Canadian system. The Canadian system is still in development, in no way has the content system been rejected-- DICK WOLF: That's not true.

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: In the tests that have been done there--

DICK WOLF: That's not true.

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: --it is shown that parents "do" support it.

DICK WOLF: Ms. Montgomery, that is simply not true, and you know it's not true.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We can't settle this one, but this system has been given a year in which at the end of a year, it's going to be re-examined. What would be the harm in trying it for a year, Ms. Montgomery?

KAY KOPLOVITZ: That's exactly what I'm advocating that we do, and that's what the industry advocates. We have the opportunity to put this system in the marketplace. It "will" be in effect in January. It will be shown on the screens in front of each program, at the top of each program for 15 seconds. It will be displayed in newspaper advertising, in all other types of guides.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

KAY KOPLOVITZ: People will have a chance to use this system maybe two years before there is really a V chip available in television sets, so we have time to work with that.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Let me just get a brief response from Ms. Montgomery. Is anything terrible going to happen in that year that you couldn't give it a shot?

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: Here's what we're concerned about. If there's going to be a test period, that test period should also give parents the opportunity to try out a content-based system, and that is not on the table at all. What the industry really wants to do here is to keep the system in place and to hope that we can just lock it into place and not consider any other system.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

KATHRYNE MONTGOMERY: And we continue to--we're going to continue pushing for a system that's better for parents.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll just watch it as it progresses. Thank you all for joining us. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, the hostage crisis at the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru continued, four men were released this evening, following reports of unexplained gunshots inside the compound. No casualties have yet been reported. The television industry, as we just heard, adopted a new age-based system for rating programs. It will take effect early next year, and the Dow Jones Average closed up more than 126 points, its second biggest gain--daily gain--ever. FINALLY - THE MAESTRO

JIM LEHRER: Before we go tonight, a brief remembrance of Italian actor Marcello Mastroianni, who died today at the age of 72. Here is with actress Anita Eckberg in one of his most famous scenes at Rome's Trevi Fountain from the 1960 film "La Dolce Vita."

ANITA ECKBERG: My goodness. [wading in water fountain] Marcello, come here. Hurry up!

MARCELLO MASTROIANNI: [interpreted on screen] Yes, Sylvia. I'm coming, too! You're right. I'm on the wrong track. We all are! Sylvia, who--what are you?

ANITA ECKBERG: Listen.

MARCELLO MASTROIANNI: Sylvia. [music playing in background as fountain is turned off]

JIM LEHRER: In Rome today, the Trevi Fountain was turned off again in MASTROIANNI's honor. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.