The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away tonight. On the NewsHour the dramatic end of the Peru hostage crisis; two views on the chemical weapons treaty as it nears a Senate ratification vote; an update on the flood in North Dakota; and a Newsmaker interview with the Tibetan Dalai Lama, all that and more on the NewsHour this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: A military strike force ended the 126-day hostage crisis in Lima, Peru, today. One hundred and fifty soldiers stormed the residence of the Japanese ambassador, freeing the men held there since December 17th of last year. Television cameras on nearby rooftops showed hostages scrambling to freedom. Gunfire and explosions erupted at what had been a tense but bloodless standoff for four months. Local radio stations reported that seventy-one hostages were freed; one was killed; and five were injured. The radio station also reported that all 15 leftist guerrillas holding the hostages had been killed. After the assault, Peru's president, Fujimori, went to the scene to praise his troops and greet the captives, who included his brother, his foreign minister, and Japan's ambassador to Peru. The rebels had vowed to detonate explosives if the government attempted to end the crisis by force. They had said they would not surrender until some 400 of their jailed colleagues were released. President Fujimori repeatedly rejected that demand in talks mediated by a Roman Catholic archbishop. Those talks finally broke down March 12th. For more on the story we turn to Charlayne Hunter-Gault.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: We have on the phone with us now Jonathan Miller, who has been covering the hostage situation for us from Lima. Jonathan, what can you tell us about the state of siege as we speak?

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, the siege was a very quick lightning strike. It took less than hour--really about forty minutes from start to finish--and now what you have is a building that is empty, that is slowly--there are some fires slowly burning, some smoke coming through the windows, and fire crews working their way inside a liberated, empty house at this point.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that the state of siege is definitely over?

JONATHAN MILLER: The state of siege is definitely over four months and one week after it began. The combined forces of the military and the police from Peru assaulted the house, a very well coordinated attack, and they basically accomplished apparently their objective, which was to get the hostages out and to neutralize the hostage takers, and end this--the state of siege.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: There were 72 hostages inside. And reports are that they're all out. Does that comport with what you know?

JONATHAN MILLER: It's my understanding they're all out. Many of them stayed--were held to the side after they were rescued and then President Fujimori showed up about one hour after the siege began, and the hostages were all--all filed by him and shook his hand. Some embraced him as they went into a--into a bus, where they were taken away.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And that would include, of course--that would include, of course, his brother, the Japanese ambassador, and the Peruvian prime minister, right?

JONATHAN MILLER: That's right. The Peruvian foreign minister and agriculture minister, the Japanese ambassador to Peru, as well as the Bolivian ambassador to Peru, the president's brother.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. You said that they all filed past and shook Fujimori's hand. Does that mean that they're all upright, walking, and in good health?

JONATHAN MILLER: At least a couple of people were seen--were taken away on stretchers, wounded and not killed. These are hostages. The great majority of hostages were absolutely in good health. They are walking under their own power and smiling and patting each other on the back, and it's very much--very much under their own steam, waving to the crowd around.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And the rebels, what do we know about them and their whereabouts and conditions?

JONATHAN MILLER: I wish I could tell you more at this point about the rebels. There's been no sign of them. It's very hard to see what's going on and really make sense of it, but there's been no sign of the Tupac Amaru guerrillas at all. And it's a little bit- -it's hard to know whether they were shepherded out very quickly alive, or really what happened. And I guess I shouldn't speculate at this moment. That will become clear.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Apparently, local radio in Limais saying that all of the rebels were killed and maybe one hostage, but that's local radio. We don't have that confirmed. President Fujimori had said that no such attack like this would take place unless the hostages inside were harmed. What seems to have been the motivation for this obviously surprise attack?

JONATHAN MILLER: It's very difficult to say what the motivation might have been, although President Fujimori all along stressed the idea that he was searching very hard for a negotiated, peaceful solution to this crisis, and that, however, he could not rule out the use of force. Had he ruled out the use of force, of course, that changes his bargaining position quite a bit. So he did refuse, and I think people understood why, to rule out an assault like this. But it took everybody by surprise. There's been a tremendous amount of energy and time and effort going into trying to negotiate this thing, very sticky negotiations, but a long time.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: In fact, they received a letter in Peru today apparently from one of the chief negotiators, Archbishop Cipriani, who said that the secret dialogue to solve the crisis was on the way to producing a peaceful solution.

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, we heard quite a number of sort of hints that things were moving forward but nothing very solid.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

JONATHAN MILLER: The mediators were working--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Go ahead.

JONATHAN MILLER: Go ahead.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: No. I was going to--

JONATHAN MILLER: The mediators--the mediators were working on this--on this really as intermediaries between the rebels and the government, and ultimately, this seemed to be a decision of the government, so Archbishop Cipriani and the two other intermediaries might very well not have known that it was going to happen.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you. We have to go now, but perhaps we can talk with you later. Thanks again.

JONATHAN MILLER: Thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In other major news of this day, President Clinton pledged major financial assistance for North Dakota and Minnesota flood victims. The President toured the area around Grand Forks by helicopter to see the devastation firsthand. He said it appeared the entire town would have to be rebuilt and called on Congress to come up with financial aid. The President also met with some of the thousands of people who have had to evacuate their homes and businesses. He spoke to them about rebuilding and paid tribute to their courage.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have seen the pictures of people battling the flames of fire in the rising floods. I have seen rescue workers working around the clock, even as they lost their own homes. I have seen people pitching in to rescue books from the University of North Dakota Library. I have read the last three days' editions of this newspaper. How in the world they kept producing a newspaper for you is beyond me. And you ought to be very proud of them for doing that. [Applause]

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Hundreds more people fled to higher ground as the Red River's crest flowed north towards Canada. We'll have more on the floods and Grand Forks newspaper later in the program. The Vice President visited the Anacostia River today in Washington, D.C., to mark the 27th annual celebration of Earth Day. Vice President Gore joined a clean-up patrol along the river. Earlier, President Clinton said he was increasing by 30 percent the number of companies required to publicly report dangerous chemical emissions into the environment. A total of 31,000 industrial firms must now do so. At the State Department today Secretary Albright announced new economic sanctions on Burma. She said Burma's military leaders have failed to advance democracy and curb human rights abuses. The sanctions prohibit new American investment in Burma but do not affect existing U.S. investments there. Secretary Albright spoke to reporters this morning.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: The ban on new U.S. investment in Burma is the latest in a series of sanctions the United States has imposed in response to the utter lack of political freedom in that country, and because its government has failed to cooperate in the war against drugs. We believe this step will deal a further blow to investor confidence in Burma. It will send a message to the military that it will not attract the investment it clearly craves unless it begins a genuine dialogue with its own people.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: One of Burma's military leaders denied the human rights allegations and said his government would not be swayed by the sanctions. China's President Jiang Zemin met with Russian leaders in Moscow today. He was greeted by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin at an official welcoming ceremony. Jiang is scheduled to meet with President Yeltsin tomorrow. Also today the Chinese government objected to a planned meeting tomorrow between President Clinton and the Dalai Lama in Washington. Tibet's exiled spiritual leader heads a non-violent campaign in favor of autonomy for his homeland which China controls and claims as its own. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with the Dalai Lama later in the program. President Clinton said today he was optimistic the U.S. Senate would ratify the international treaty outlawing chemical weapons. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle put the chances at 50/50. Debate on the treaty is scheduled to begin tomorrow. A 2/3 majority is necessary for ratification. We'll preview the chemical weapons debate later in the program. A federal judge in Little Rock today extended the term of the Whitewater grand jury for six months. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr requested the jury remain impaneled until November 7th. Its term was to expire next month. Starr's office said it had gathered evidence of possible obstruction of justice and new information from James McDougal; he was the business partner of President and Mrs. Clinton in the Whitewater land deal. He began cooperating with investigators after his conviction last year for fraud related to a failed savings & loan. In Denver today prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Oklahoma City bombing trial accepted twelve jurors and six alternates. The identities of the jurors will remain anonymous. Opening arguments in the murder and conspiracy trial of Timothy McVeigh are now expected to begin Thursday. He was charged with the bombing that killed 168 people at the federal building in Oklahoma City two years ago. And on Wall Street today the Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its second largest one-day gain ever, closing up 173 points to 6833.59. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the chemical weapons treaty, a flood update from Grand Forks, and a Newsmaker interview with the Dalai Lama. FOCUS - TREATY DEBATE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We focus first tonight on the upcoming Senate vote on ratifying the chemical weapons convention. Margaret Warner has that.

MARGARET WARNER: The Senate begins debate tomorrow on whether to ratify a chemical weapons treaty aggressively supported by the Clinton administration. We'll hear both sides of the debate from Samuel Berger, the President's National Security Adviser, and Senator James Inhofe. But before we take up chemical weapons an update on the hostage rescue situation in Peru. Welcome, Mr. Berger. What can you add to what we just heard from the ground? Are you able to confirm, for instance, that all the hostages are out?

SAMUEL BERGER, National Security Adviser: I'm not able to add much information from that reported. There was obviously an operation on the embassy, and most of the hostages have been released. But we have not confirmed information beyond that which has been reported.

MARGARET WARNER: In a situation like this--I mean, you're the National Security Adviser--where do you get your information? I mean, do you have information other than what we all see on CNN?

SAMUEL BERGER: We have an embassy there that's reporting to us. We have other sources of information. Often CNN is one of the sources of information in a real time action like this, but my experience over the years has been very often that first reports, the early reports are somewhat accurate but somewhat inaccurate, and you have to wait till the dust settles to get the full story.

MARGARET WARNER: So can you confirm, for instance, whether there have been any deaths and/or whether the building has been secured?

SAMUEL BERGER: I can't confirm for you, beyond what you reported, but it appears that most of the hostages have been rescued, and the hostage takers do not appear to be alive.

MARGARET WARNER: And has President Clinton or anyone else in the administration talked to President Fujimori yet?

SAMUEL BERGER: No. This, of course, just happened over the last hour and a half.

MARGARET WARNER: This is a proven military operation, clearly from what we saw in the pictures, but was there any U.S. assistance to this operation?

SAMUEL BERGER: No, there wasn't. In the early days after the incident in December, as you recall, there were Americans initially in the embassy. At that point we did deploy to Peru some assets, and we pre-deployed other potential rescue assets elsewhere nearby in the event that we would have to use them. After the Americans were released, our--obviously--our role diminished.

MARGARET WARNER: And did the U.S. know in advance about today's operation?

SAMUEL BERGER: We were not informed in advance by the Peruvian government.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Thank you. Now, to the chemical weapons treaty issue, and we start with some background from Kwame Holman.

SPOKESMAN: The President and the Vice President of the United States.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Clinton has committed his administration to winning approval of the treaty known as the Chemical Weapons Convention. But treaties require at least a 2/3 vote of the Senate, so three weeks ago the President brought prominent Republicans to the White House, hoping their support of the chemical weapons ban would convince undeclared Republican Senators. The Republicans on the President's side include retired General Colin Powell and former Secretary of State James Baker.

JAMES BAKER III, Former Secretary of State: If we fail to ratify the CWC, we will be sending a clear signal of retreat from international leadership both to our allies and to our enemies alike. This is a message we should never, never send.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Chemical Weapons Convention was conceived and negotiated during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It was signed by President Bush's secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, in January 1993. The pact requires participating countries to destroy any stockpiles they possess ofnerve gases and other chemical weapons. The nations agree never to develop, produce, or acquire such weapons in the future. The convention establishes a verification system that allows on-site inspections if violations of the treaty are suspected. One hundred sixty-seven countries have signed the convention, but a handful have not, including Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. To date, only 74 nations have ratified the weapons treaty, agreeing to put its provisions into full force. The remaining 88 nations, including the United States, have until next Tuesday to ratify the weapons ban, or it takes effect without them. The President says the Senate has had more than enough time to consider ratification.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Since I sent the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Senate three and a half years ago, there have been more than a dozen hearings, more than 1500 pages of testimony and reports. The time has come to pass this treaty, as 70 other nations already have done.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President had hoped for a vote on the treaty last year, but the issue got caught up in presidential politics and was pulled off the Senate agenda at the request of former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. And it has taken four months into this Senate term to extract the treaty from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and bring it to the floor. All 45 Senate Democrats support the President and the treaty, meaning the additional 21 votes for ratification must come from Republicans. And they are split on the treaty. The fight against ratification is being led by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms of North Carolina. At a recent hearing Helms brought forward three Republican former secretaries of defense to bolster his opposition to the treaty. Eleven Senate Republicans have declared public support for the Chemical Weapons Convention. That makes Majority Leader Trent Lott the lynchpin to the treaty's fate. He is the leader of the block of undeclared Republicans.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: I would support it the way it came out of the committee. And the way it's coming to the floor of the Senate there will be an effort to strike out key components of the treaty that was reported out. I'll have to look at the final product.

KWAME HOLMAN: Some wavering Senators have insisted on altering the terms of the ratification document. They've proposed amendments, but the White House calls some of them treaty killers, requiring substantial renegotiation of the treaty, and that could take years. As the deadline neared President Clinton and his top officials stepped up their campaign for ratification. Last Friday the President called reporters to the White House briefing room to plead for the treaty.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The bottom line is this: Will the United States join a treaty we helped to shape, or will we go from leading the fight against poison gas to joining the company of pariah nations this treaty seeks to isolate?

KWAME HOLMAN: Secretary of State Albright and Defense Secretary Cohen have spent the last several days defending the treaty on national TV, as well as on local TV in the home states of some Senators. The vote on the treaty is scheduled for Thursday.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, back to National Security Adviser Samuel Berger. Why should the Senate ratify this treaty?

SAMUEL BERGER, National Security Adviser: Because it's in the national security interest of the United States. And that's true for basically four reasons. No. 1, we have already decided to destroy our chemical weapons. That's was a decision taken in the 1980's by Congress and the previous administration. This is about destroying other nations' stockpiles and making a future battlefield potentially less risky. No. 2, it will make it harder for rogue nations like the Libyas, like the Iraqs, to acquire chemical weapons, whether they're in this treaty or not, because it will prohibit transfer of dangerous chemicals to those countries and provide for inspection of facilities where we think something wrong might be going on. Third, it will help us fight terrorists who might use chemical weapons by drawing down the stockpiles of these chemicals that could find their way into the black market and buy the prohibitions on transfers of dangerous chemicals. It will be more difficult for terrorists to use these weapons. Finally, there's a question--the issue the President raised earlier in the program, and that is the question of American leadership. We have led the fight against weapons of mass destruction, nuclear chemical biological, and if we walk away from this treaty now, the rest of the world will be puzzled at best, Margaret, and I think deeply troubled at worst.

MARGARET WARNER: How will it actually work? How will it actually be enforced?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, the treaty, it will go into effect at the end of this month. There will be an executive council that will be established. There will be inspection teams that will be created. Of course, if we're not in the treaty, we will have no influence on how that takes shape. But at that point countries that are signatories will be under an obligation to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles. If we believe that they're not doing that, we can go to this international entity and say we want an inspection of that facility. If they're found in violation, there's a range of sanctions that could take place from our own unilateral sanctions to U.N. sanctions. So there is a range of remedies for countries that violate this treaty.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now that regime sounds very much like the control that's exercised or tried to be exercised over nuclear- -development of nuclear weapons. And the critics all point to the example of Iraq. Iraq had signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It had been signified as nuclear weapon three by this organization that was the international organization, and we learned during the Gulf War it turned out they had been developing nuclear weapons for years. I mean, what's in this treaty to make it more effective at ferreting out surreptitious programs from the last one?

SAMUEL BERGER: First of all, it is a very, very pervasive inspection regime. Second of all, I think the Persian Gulf War, itself, has changed our attitudes about chemical weapons. It brought this issue really to the forefront because we faced an enemy that had chemical weapons and we had a real legitimate prospect of dealing with them on the battlefield. That's what gave this treaty impetus. That's what strengthened the treaty in terms of the prohibition of transfer of dangerous chemicals, the prohibition of maintaining chemical weapons, and inspection regime; that is very, very rigorous.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you talked about the non-signing of rogue states--it would be harder for them to get materials from--I assume you mean the countries that do sign.

SAMUEL BERGER: That's correct.

MARGARET WARNER: But what--aren't there enough of the non-signing countries that they can just have their own network of supplying one another? These chemicals aren't terribly hard to get, are they?

SAMUEL BERGER: Let's put this in the right perspective, Margaret. The question here is not whether this solves the chemical weapon problem for all times. It doesn't. We're spending $1/2 billion in our budget on chemical weapons defense because the problem will persist with this treaty or without this treaty. But the question is: Are we better off with this treaty than without it? Are we better off inside this treaty or outside with Libya and Iraq? If we're inside this treaty, it will be more difficult for Iraq and Libya to develop their chemical weapons systems because they will have--we will have controls on transfer of dangerous chemicals and inspection regime to go along with it.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's turn to this week and these five amendments that are going to be voted on separately in the Senate. Is the administration opposed to all five?

SAMUEL BERGER: Yes. We have--let me put this in context. We have been engaged for about two and a half months with a process under the auspices of Senator Lott where we've tried to address a number of the concerns that have been raised about the treaty. For example, some were concerned about the constitutionality of the treaty, having inspectors go into--international inspectors go into a plant in Toledo. We said, fine, let's require that there be search warrants. If the owner of that plant doesn't want the inspectors to come in, it's required to go to an American judge. So in issue after issue we tried to address the concerns in a way that is not inconsistent with the treaty. Now, these amendments that are left really are inconsistent with the treaty. One, for example, would say we should not become part of this treaty until Russia does. Well, Russia--the Russian duma is considering this treaty. They're watching to see what we do. If we ratify, it will strengthen the hands of those people in the duma who think that we ought to ratify. If we walk away from this treaty, as the originators of it, it will strengthen the hands of the hard-liners who don't want Russia to sign the treaty. So there are a number of these amendments which would be inconsistent with the treaty, itself.

MARGARET WARNER: A couple of them require actual renegotiation- -

SAMUEL BERGER: That's correct.

MARGARET WARNER: --of this treaty. Is that possible, or impossible?

SAMUEL BERGER: I think Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser under President Bush and President Ford, I think said it best, just it's a non-starter. After all these years to think we're going to go back and renegotiate this treaty is really a fantasy.

MARGARET WARNER: So are you saying that a vote for one of these amendments is a vote to kill the treaty?

SAMUEL BERGER: Most of these amendments are amendments that would be inconsistent with a treaty and would make it impossible for us to deposit the instruments of ratification.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Do you have any predictions? I understand you came here from a meeting with Sen. Lott.

SAMUEL BERGER: No. I think this is a very close vote. I think that--an unusually large number of undecided Senators for an issue that is this close to being debated--obviously, we're very hopeful it will pass. I think it is very much in the national security interest of the United States. And that's why President Ford, President Bush, all the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the past 20 years, Gen. Powell and others are for this treaty.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you very much.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the views of a leading Senate opponent. He's Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and he joins us from Tulsa. Welcome, Senator. Why do you think this treaty should not be ratified?

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, [R] Oklahoma: Well, first of all, I listened very carefully as Sandy Berger talked about the reasons it should be ratified, and I don't agree with any of them. I mean, it's not verifiable; it's not--those countries that pose the greatest threat and have been most hostile to us, such as Iraq, North Korea, Syria, and Libya, they're not even a part--they're not even signatories. And then I'm also concerned because we have--99 percent of all the known chemicals are in the hands of three countries: China, Russia, and the United States. China and Russia have not--I mean, they're signatories to the treaty, like we are, but they have not ratified the treaty. And besides that, if you stop and look, Margaret, in the past at the other treaties they've gone into with the former Soviet Union, or with the Soviet Union, that are still out there, things like the ABM Treaty--things like--there are five treaties right now, and they have not--they have been in non-compliance with all five treaties. So there's every reason in the world to oppose it. And those five conditions that we have that Jesse Helms has I think are very reasonable.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get to those in a minute, but let's just talk for one second about your reasons.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: All right.

MARGARET WARNER: As you heard, and I asked Mr. Berger what about the point that the non-signing states can just acquire materials elsewhere. His answer, as I'm sure you heard, was, well, this isn't perfect, but it would make it harder for them to get the chemicals from say a company in our country, or a company elsewhere in a signing state.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: I'd like to ask Mr. Berger the question: If that's the case, why have we found out recently that Russia has sold both technology and systems to countries like Iran and other rogue nations? And if they do this and if we are lulled into a sense of false security in this country, it's going to make it I think even more of an incentive for other countries to get involved in--in chemical weapons.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me ask you about another argument he made, and the proponents make, which is the U.S. has already promised to destroy most of its own stockpiles by 2,004, so it's all to the good to at least get some other countries to destroy theirs.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: Well, first of all, he's talking about the 1990 treaty which, of course, was ratified by Russia.

MARGARET WARNER: With the Soviets, yes.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: That's right.

MARGARET WARNER: Then Soviets.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: And they had ratified that, but they're still not complying with it. And in such cases as the ABM Treaty they're saying we're not going to comply with them until you pay us to get rid of these particular weapons. So I don't think that there's any way in the world that anyone can say that it's going to reduce the chemical threat. In fact, if you take four of the most respected former secretaries of defense, Schlesinger, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and "Cap" Weinberger, all of them said that this could enhance the risk of facing chemical weapons. And as far as being able to inspect and stop them, look what happened after the Persian Gulf War. The U.N. was given much greater capability to inspect Iraq than is under this treaty, and now we find out, as we speak right now, Iraq is developing chemical weapons. And look at Russia, who came out just the other day last week, and they have developed a new type of chemical weapon that is made from precursor chemicals that are not even covered under this treaty. So they're already figuring out ways to get around it.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me turn the question around. Since the United States is destroying all its own chemical weapons anyway, what does the U.S. lose by signing this? In other words, even if it doesn't cover everybody, what is the U.S.--what harm is done?

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: Well, first of all, I'm not sure that that is true, and that will be the case because, as I say, other countries that signed on to the 1990 ban are not doing--not doing away with theirs, but what we're doing with this treaty goes far beyond that. In Article X, for example, and let me just read it to you because people can't believe that we'd consider something like this in this country. It says, "Each state party undertakes to facilitate and shall have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material, and scientific, and technological information concerning means of protecting against chemical weapons." That's what we'd agree to. That's the reason we say one of the conditions would be that we want to be sure that we strike Article X. And when I read that to Schwarzkopf, General Schwarzkopf, when he was before my committee, even he agreed. He said, no, no, we can't do that.

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning that we don't want to share our chemical defenses with another country.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: That's exactly right. We don't want to open up our doors to the other countries. One of the signatories to this is Iran. They'll probably ratify it. If they ratify, then we're going to have to open up our doors of our chemical companies, everything from cosmetic companies to fertilizer companies and other companies, saying, here's our technology.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. We have already moved into the amendments, that being one of them, but are you supporting all five of these amendments?

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: I do. As far as Russia having to ratify, first, I a disagree with Mr. Berger there too. They should have to ratify first because back when we had the START II--and I think I was the only one who voted against that for ratification until the very last of that roll call vote, and then three or four more did. During that, they used to sell that: Well, we'll go ahead and we'll ratify, good old United States, we'll ratify the START II Treaty, and then Russia will do it. You know what? Russia hasn't done it yet. And that was two years ago.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you have a prediction? Do you have the 34 votes you need to kill this?

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: I have the confidence in those who are wanting a good, strong national defense in the Republican aisle, that most of them will reverse their positions, or at least those who are undecided will come over and join us. I'm going to predict that the undecideds will go over to the right side.

MARGARET WARNER: Would you feel you had achieved victory if you- -if these amendments passed, these amendments that the administration calls killer amendments?

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: Well, you know, I would say that, you know, as the President says, they're killer amendments anyway, and I think if we can leave these provisions that--or have these provisions in it would force Russia to go ahead and ratify first; that would preclude terrorist nations from getting information from our country and the other three, that it wouldn't be ratified.

MARGARET WARNER: So a Senator, in other words,could vote for these amendments and also vote for a treaty? Say he voted for the treaty, but, in effect, the treaty's killed.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: I would think so, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Well, thank you, Senator, very much.

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE: Thank you, Margaret.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour a flood update and Tibet's Dalai Lama. UPDATE - HELL & HIGH WATER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next tonight the Red River flood story and to the devastated town of Grand Forks, North Dakota. One of the casualties of the flood and of the weekend fire that demolished 11 downtown buildings was the local newspaper, but the staff of the Grand Forks Herald was determined to prove that it, like the town, would survive. Fred De Sam Lazaro of KTCA-St. Paul-Minneapolis reports.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The headline in yesterday's Grand Forks Herald was both descriptive of the city and a triumph for its newspaper. Its building was gutted, along with nearly 120 years of history recorded in its archives. By surviving to record perhaps the most devastating event in Grand Forks history, the Herald preserved for its residents the one remaining link to their abandoned community, according to editor Mike Jacobs.

MIKE JACOBS, Editor: Our people are scattered everywhere, and there's no--there's nothing tangible about Grand Forks anymore, except the Herald. So in a weird sort of way Grand Forks is now the Herald. It's the tangible part of Grand Forks. And we just really feel like it's important--it's a great mission to keep that part of the community alive and vital while we go through this incredible, searing pain. Many people are depending on us, I think, to sort of represent the community while it's in the diaspora.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Herald is depending on the facilities of the Pioneer Press, a corporate sibling 200 miles to the South in St. Paul. The nerve center--the newsroom--has moved about 10 miles West to the Manvel North Dakota Public School in what normally serves as the seventh grade classroom. What's close is the deadline to get stories to St. Paul. The usual deadline--11 PM--is now advanced five hours. That puts even more pressure on reporters and editors dealing with the last-minute rush, plus the late-breaking story yesterday of one more community in potential danger.

MIKE JACOBS: [talking to staff] Can we get somebody to make a quick phone to Deep River Falls? Apparently the lake is leaking, and they're sandbagging the town. There's a dam above Deep River Falls. So we need to get somebody to call--the Hennington county sheriff. Suzie's going to do it.

SUE ELLYN SCALETTA, Reporter: [on phone] Hi. This is Sue Ellyn Scaletta with the Grand Forks Herald. We've had a report that you got a--the lake is leaking, and something is coming under the dam, and you're sandbagging, is that right?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Copy editor Dale Stensgaard came to Scaletta's assistance. He tried first to buy her more time from St. Paul, where the paper was being laid out for the presses.

DALE STENSGAARD, Copy Editor: We're supposed to have our stories to you in seven minutes, but how much time do they have to paginate and do a quick update, if they have to? All right. Well, I'm going to call AP. You know, if that reservoir overflows, you just have to have it.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: As Scaletta rushed to complete her story, Stensgaard alerted the wire service to keep abreast of any developments.

[STAFF DISCUSSING ARTICLE]

SPOKESMAN: We have a crib sheet for--

SUE ELLYN SCALETTA: Do you want to put a headline on there?

SPOKESMAN: Yeah. We'll do that.

SUE ELLYN SCALETTA: Do you have the name of the dam?

SPOKESMAN: No, we don't. It probably doesn't have a name.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Finally the story was ready to go to St. Paul, about 20 minutes after Editor Jacobs passed along his tip.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: How much time do you have?

MIKE JACOBS: Minus 15 seconds. It should be there at 6 o'clock, but most of the stories are there. We're just sending the last ones up now.

SPOKESMAN: Chris is entering the last story now.

SPOKESMAN: Incredible. Incredible

SPOKESMAN: We've got to start writing and editing earlier.

MIKE JACOBS: We're going to have a meeting. Last night my biggest priority was to get everybody eight hours of sleep. I saw you in the middle of the night, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

NEWS PERSON: No. I felt awful.

MIKE JACOBS: We did it again under really--[applause from staff]--under really what I thought today were the most trying circumstances.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The adrenalin rush wore off quickly as Editor Jacobs discussed various logistical concerns--finding a printing plant that's closer by, how to coexist with schoolchildren when they return, payroll time cards. The list got under Jacobs' skin by the time it reached a persistent staff request for more cell phones.

MIKE JACOBS: Quit bugging me about the telephones! You know, you're driving me to distraction with these logistical questions when all I really want to be doing is putting out a newspaper. You know, we're trying our best to solve the logistical problems. I can't--

STAFF MEMBER: We're asking questions, Mike.

MIKE JACOBS: This is the only question any of you have asked me today. Can I have a cell phone? Yes, God damn it; when I get 'em, I'll give you one. I get the first one.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Fatigue was clearly taking its toll. Moving and publishing a newspaper from scratch, covering a 500-year flood, and never far from consciousness, nagging worries and regrets.

MIKE JACOBS: And when I think about what I wish I'd taken with me--I mean, it's a very long list, but the thing that's worst about it probably is the personal things that editors at the Herald have done over the years. You know, my predecessors did a day book in Grand Forks history that I was trying to keep up. It can't be replaced. Ryan Bawkn, who is our sports editor, was writing a book, and he had given me the proofs--not the proofs but the printout--and they were in my briefcase. I was going to take them home with me. They were in his pile of books. They're both in the building--I mean, that's all gone. So the past and the potential, I mean, we each mourn--we mourn for different things.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: You haven't started to think about what happens at home either, I suspect, most of you?

MIKE JACOBS: Well, Suzanne and I have agreed that it's only stuff. I mean, it's stuff that I really like, it's stuff that I paid a lot of money for. It's stuff that I've collected all my life. I mean, I had one of the--one of the finest collections of North Dakota books in existence. I worked assiduously for 40 years, 35 years to collect it. I've been collecting rare bird books. I have books that are irreplaceable, and I miss them.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For most staffers here the intense routine, the cramped quarters all provided distraction from the immense personal cost everyone here must pay.

SUE ELLYN SCALETTA: You watch the coverage on TV, and you watch the footage, and you watch--go by my house--go down Boyd Drive so you can see what your house is doing--but at the same time you don't really want to know. It's not something--you can't handle all of it at once, so emotionally you just sort of put yourself on "hold" and get out and get the story, even though you're part of the story in a sense.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Amid the excitement of the President's visit staffers resolved not to lose sight of the community in their coverage.

SPOKESPERSON: Where are the people here? We need to be covering some people?

SPOKESMAN: Okay. What do we want to do with our shelters?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: State officials say shelters will continue to be the chief source of housing for thousands, including much of the staff, for at least the next three weeks. For now, Editor Jacobs says there's collective shock and disbelief.

MIKE JACOBS: It's an unimaginable event. I mean, this has not ever happened, and, you know, we had all the science, we had all the predictions, we had all the elevation maps, you know. We were out there. We literally wore ourselves out. I mean, I still hurt from sandbagging. You know, we wore ourselves out, and we knew we were going to win because we've always won before. And it just didn't occur to us that the river has that kind of power. NEWSMAKER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight Tibet and its leader, the Dalai Lama. Both have become contentious issues between the United States and China.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Tibetan plateau, an area larger than Europe. Tibetans call it the roof of the world. Its snows provide the waters for Asia's great rivers. Its remoteness and spectacular beauty have long seized westerners' imagination. But for most of this century Tibet has been little talked of and little known beyond its 17,000 foot passes and 23,000 feet peaks. Only in recent years has this man, the Dalai Lama, begun to change all that. He was Tibet's spiritual and temporal ruler, a kind of god-king, living in this palace in Lhasa, Tibet's capital, when China invaded in 1949. He fled to India in 1959, where he now heads a Tibetan government in exile. And he travels the world to teach people about Tibetan Buddhism and to gather support for an autonomous Tibet, free of Chinese domination. He made big news in Asia last month with a trip to Taiwan, where he met with top officials and preached to 40,000 people packed into a stadium. It was his first trip to nominally Chinese territory since he fled Tibet almost 40 years ago. A vigorous advocate of non-violence, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and has year after year attracted larger and larger audiences when he speaks. His campaign has become a favorite cause in Hollywood, and at least four films based on his life will open this year. Chinese officials in Beijing say the Dalai Lama is hiding behind his religion; that he is actually a splitist, a traitor out to split the motherland apart. In China's view, Tibet was a backwards feudal monarchy before the Chinese invasion, and change has brought a better life for his people. But more than 6,000 Buddhist monasteries have been destroyed under Chinese rules. This tape supplied by the International Campaign for Tibet which works closely with the Dalai Lama shows some of the ruins. And humans rights organizations and the U.S. State Department in its annual human rights reports have documented other widespread violations of human rights. These pictures, shot by Tibetan Television in 1988, and also provided by the International Campaign for Tibet, shows Chinese police beating Buddhist monks and taking them to prison after demonstrations against Chinese rule. The Dalai Lama is in Washingtonthis week to press his cause. In an interview this morning I asked him what kind of help he was requesting from the President and from members of Congress.

DALAI LAMA: My main aim at this time, of course, in the past also I do--is to please help us to bring China in the--into the negotiation table. Now, that is my main effort. I believe my approach actually is seeking genuine self-rule. Of course, history--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Genuine--

DALAI LAMA: Genuine self-rule. Self-rule.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Self-rule.

DALAI LAMA: Yes. Historically, see, we are separate nation. That's clear--racially--historically. Many Chinese scholars also read that but, you see, because of the circumstances and also I believe it is even our own interest long run in the economic development, if we jointly enter a big nation, we might get great benefit. Therefore, I'm seeking genuine autonomy, genuine self-rule.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Self-rule autonomy but not independence.

DALAI LAMA: Not independence.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You want to have some relationship with China.

DALAI LAMA: That's right.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean by self-rule and autonomy, if it's not independence?

DALAI LAMA: In my biggest proposal, I made very clear the foreign affairs and defense will be handled by Chinese government, then education and trade, and the rest of the domestic routines. Tibet should have the full control or the responsibility. Up till now the Chinese government--you see, I think I believe too much suspicion, so I--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: They've had too much suspicion of you and of your government.

DALAI LAMA: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: They made some very negative comments about you just this weekend.

DALAI LAMA: That's right. And also I think due to ignorance. So a meaningful dialogue, up till now, you see, didn't materialize. So the--like our frontier--I think they can help to clear all these Chinese suspicions and bring to meaningful dialogue, negotiations, that the United States can do.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let's say that I am somebody living in say Kansas and you're speaking to the representatives or the senators from Kansas. Why should I care about Tibet? What is important about this to somebody in the middle--or you know, wherever, in the United States?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, it is true, Tibet not create--but then the long run, firstly, Tibetan geographical situation is between India and China, most two populated nations. In the past history these two nations never fought each other because Tibet was then a state. So in future, no matter what is the situation, Tibet should be its own--then second, Buddhist culture. Buddhist culture, I feel, has great potential to create more compassionate society, peaceful, compassionate community.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt you there one second on the question of Tibetan Buddhist culture. You have said that there is cultural genocide in Tibet. What do you mean by that?

DALAI LAMA: Here, whether it is intentionally our unintentionally some kind of cultural genocide is taking place.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Chinese.

DALAI LAMA: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Chinese are committing cultural genocide in your view.

DALAI LAMA: Because simply big Chinese, you see, population influx, so like Lhasa City, our capital.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The capital.

DALAI LAMA: Now 2/3 of the population are Chinese so most shopkeeper and also the restaurant, these are Chinese, and also tailors and--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Tailors, carpenters--

DALAI LAMA: That is right.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Various people being brought in to do the work.

DALAI LAMA: These are mainly, are Chinese. So, therefore, besides official as a business--that's of course official language is Chinese.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What makes you think that this could change? Every Chinese dynasty has considered it an obligation to unite what the Chinese consider the motherland, and this government has said--they want Hong Kong; they want Macau; they want Taiwan. They've already got Tibet. What makes you tink they'd give Tibet up?

DALAI LAMA: Actually, you know, my approach, or my thinking, or my effort, actually indirectly they helping Chinese, I feel.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You think your way is indirectly helping the Chinese. Why?

DALAI LAMA: Chinese government, they very much concerned about stability and unity and what call national--national integrity.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: National unity, national integrity.

DALAI LAMA: Yes. I can't pronounce it properly.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's a hard one.

DALAI LAMA: So, so the president of Chinese government--policy- -arrangement regarding Tibet--these actually I think helping to create more long-term, more instability, more trouble, because they are carrying such a policy that hurts local people, so more resentment.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you think another arrangement, this arrangement of self-rule, autonomy, would lead to stability.

DALAI LAMA: So, therefore, more constructive policy is carried, then you see this deep inside resentment eventually will reduce, so that help tremendously stability and unity.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Meanwhile, the human rights situation, according to human rights groups, gets worse. Are you worried that non-violence, which you have always argued in favor of and said that you would--you'd leave the movement if it became violent--are you worried that non-violence will be more and more difficult--

DALAI LAMA: No.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: --for people inside Tibet to keep to?

DALAI LAMA: No, no. I think if we commit violence and I think accumulate, even become worse--violation--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There have been some bombs; there have been a couple of bombs last year.

DALAI LAMA: Yes. As I know, nine times using the explosive, of course, very unfortunate--so far, their target is house or some what say--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Property.

DALAI LAMA: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Not people.

DALAI LAMA: Monument.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Monument.

DALAI LAMA: Yes, some monuments, not life. But this is a practice. Further goes, then it easily shift on human life, so this, of course, is very understandable today desperate is the feeling of people, of course understandable. Long run of course I always believed in non-violent method. It may take time but eventually through non-violence we get--we will get more durable or more satisfactory result. This is my feeling. And one thing, I think already more and more supporters come from Chinese community, Chinese side. Now, I think in '94, one group of Chinese in Shanghai, they made publicly one petition to the Chinese government. Among them I think some intellectuals and some workers, some tinkers, they brought I think 55 or something--so they-- one of the points in that position was they urged Chinese government to open with dialogue--with dialogue regarding Tibetan genuine self-rule.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you think that you will go back to Tibet before you die?

DALAI LAMA: Oh, certainly.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you--

DALAI LAMA: But that's our hope. The other is we feel--we think within few years time I think things might change.

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

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, Peruvian troops ended the four-month hostage crisis in Lima, Peru. They stormed the residence of the Japanese ambassador, freeing the men held there since December 17th. Local reports say seventy-one hostages were freed, one was killed, and all fifteen leftist guerrillas died in the assault. And in this country President Clinton pledged major financial aid for North Dakota and Minnesota flood victims. We'll be with you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.