The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. WOODRUFF: And I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. After our summary of the day's news, we focus on today's drug summit and what it accomplished, followed by a Tom Bearden report on the heated debate about global warming, a NewsMaker interview with Democratic Presidential Candidate Jerry Brown, and an Amei Wallach essay on AIDS and the arts. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The House of Representatives today approved a Democratic plan to temporarily cut taxes for the middle class and pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. The vote was 221 to 209, far short of the two-thirds needed to override a Presidential veto. Earlier in the day, the House voted down President Bush's tax proposal in a party line vote. The Democrats' plan includes a $200 per wage earner tax break in each of the next two years for middle income Americans. Meanwhile, those earning over $105,000 would see their taxes rise. And millionaires would pay an additional surtax. Here's a sample of today's floor debate.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Majority Leader: Stand up today and fight for the people we represent, the little people, the people that go to work every day and have made this country great. You bet they need a tax cut. They haven't had a tax cut and if we pass this Democratic bill, we will stand for the people of this country.

REP. ROBERT MICHEL, Minority Leader: Now, no matter what the majority says, no matter how much rhetoric is bandied about, no matter how you look at it, this bill raises taxes. It's a substitute on the Democratic side which prompts me to opine that the Democrat majority has got what it takes to take what you've got.

MR. MacNeil: There was another rise in the number of people making first-time unemployment claims. The Labor Department reported 459,000 new claim applications in the week ending February 15th. That was 7,000 more than the week before. The President of the United Way announced today that he is leaving the national charity. William Aramony has been under fire since it was reported that he received nearly $1/2 million in salary as well as other benefits and has hired friends in high paying positions. Fourteen local chapters threatened to withhold dues to the national organization until the charges were investigated. A United Way official said an initial probe showed no sign of wrongdoing Aramony, but the investigation will continue. This afternoon, Aramony apologized for what he called his lack of sensitivity and said he was resigning for the good of the organization. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush said today the U.S. and its Southern neighbors were winning the war against drugs, but the job was not yet done. He and the leaders of six Latin American nations concluded a drug summit this afternoon in San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Bush said cocaine use in the United States had decreased but more must be done to improve interdiction. He also said Latin American nations needed economic assistance to discourage farmers from growing coca, but the President of Peru said his country needed more.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm determined to do everything I can in terms of setting priorities to help Peru, to help Bolivia with this alternate cropping and also with their own economies. And I think we've got a fairly, maybe some there wouldn't think generous, but a fairly generous allocation of funds in terms of our overall expenditures to these countries.

ALBERTO KENYO FUJIMORI, President, Peru: [Speaking through Interpreter] We require greater resources, which I am sure that the U.S. government and also the governments of the international community will consider in its appropriate dimension. I insist and I repeat that we have had serious difficulties in this past year because we have had those cutbacks and those delays in the dispersements. We hope that such obstacles will not be repeated.

MS. WOODRUFF: We have more on the drug summit right after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: In a change of policy, the Bush administration today agreed to give aid to developing nations to fight global warming. The announcement came at the United Nations during negotiations for an international treaty on climate change. The U.S. pledged $75 million over the next two years, but stopped short of setting targets for its own emission of gases that contribute to global warming. Its continued refusal to do so has brought sharp criticism from many countries. We'll have more on that story later in the program.

MS. WOODRUFF: In China, four more dissidents have been sentenced for participating in the 1989 pro-democracy uprising. The sentences come two days after the U.S. Senate voted to link progress on human rights to a renewal of normal trade relations with China. A total of 11 dissidents have been sentenced this week, but details of the punishments have not been made public. The President of the Yugoslav republic of Serbia today declared an end to the country's civil war. Slobodan Milosovich told the republic's parliament that conditions now exist for a peaceful solution to the conflict. He said one of those conditions was the arrival of U.N. peacekeepers to enforce a two-month-old truce. But as he spoke, officials in the neighboring Croatian republic reported renewed artillery attacks on towns along their border with Serbia.

MR. MacNeil: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir today denounced U.S. conditions for housing loan guarantees. He told Israeli Radio the U.S. was exploiting humanitarian aid to get Israel to change its domestic policies. On Tuesday, Sec. of State Baker said Israel would have to halt Jewish settlements in the occupied territories if it wanted the full $10 billion in guarantees. Shamir rejected that. He vowed to continue to pursue the guarantees, saying, "Whoever prevents us from getting them does a grave injustice."

MS. WOODRUFF: Former U.S. Senator S. I. Hayakawa died today. He was 85 years old. The California Republican first gained national attention in 1968 when as acting president at San Francisco State College he confronted student demonstrators. The diminutive, semantics professor climbed onto a sound truck being used by the students and yanked the speaker wires. The incident won him popularity with critics of the student protest and led to his political career. He was elected to the Senate in 1976, but only served one term. In recent years, Hayakawa was working on a revised edition of his 1947 best-selling book "Language in Thought and Action." That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, a look at today's drug summit, a report on global warming, an interview with Jerry Brown, and an essay on AIDS and the arts. FOCUS - THE FIX

MR. MacNeil: We focus first tonight on the international war against drugs and the debate about how well it's going. In the second drug summit in San Antonio today, President Bush and leaders from six Central and South American countries [U.S., Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela] renewed their pledge to fight the production and consumption of such drugs as cocaine and heroin, which are a $40 billion market in the United States. But controversy was injected into the summit by President Alberto Fujimori of Peru, which grows 60 percent of the world's raw coca leaves. Fujimori rejects crop eradication, saying it means making more on a whole people. Instead, he favors substituting other crops for coca. He talked to Correspondent Charles Krause.

MR. KRAUSE: Thank you, Mr. President for joining us. The coca farmers in Peru may be poor, may only be earning four or five hundred dollars a year, but it's much more than they could earn from any other crop that they could be planting and producing at this time. How can you move against them?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: That is not a true statement because if these farmers have the market facility for legal produce, they would get much more money, not even for export crops, for international consumption like simple crops as rice or corn or meat. They would get much more than $400 per year. It's a matter of market. The only product that has market there is coca. The state has not, or the system has not made the possibility for marketing other produce.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you think the United States is, in fact, committed to this idea of yours that crop substitution can decrease the coca crop much faster than eradication? I ask you because Assistant Secretary of State Bernard Aronson testified before Congress last week and what he said is that crop substitution is a dangerous fantasy that simply will not work.

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: We have signed an agreement between Peru and the United States where we state very clearly our objective of substitution, one of the objectives. And this position of dangerous fantasy I consider as dangerous position on the part of the United States to take with respect to this agreement. I am afraid that maybe the repression of thinking is coming back again, when 10 years of experience has given us this complete fable.

MR. KRAUSE: In other words, you are convinced that in Peru anyway the only way to stop the production of coca leaves is not through repression, is not through armed intervention, but rather through providing economic, alternate economic opportunities for these people.

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: We have to work on both sides. Intervention is important and the other is this alternative development. But both are a necessity.

MR. KRAUSE: You say that interdiction is important. Would you be willing to accept U.S. special forces training for your police and military as is already occurring in Colombia?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: It's acceptable when this report goes to, for example, training people for fighters but not for ground operation.

MR. KRAUSE: Why is that?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: Well, the problem is complex, and if we want to take these kinds of steps and fighting against a whole people, we may, you too, to produce a little Vietnam. That would be very dangerous. We want, we know how to manage our own problems.

MR. KRAUSE: As you know, Congress has held up some of the aid that was appropriated for Peru because of concerns that your army is not sufficiently respectful of human rights and also there have been charges of vary deep-seated corruption in the Peruvian military. To what extent do you think those charges are valid?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: From the human rights we have made significant progress. We have reduced to one-fourth the human rights violation that we had before since 1989, half for 1990. We expect to drop very fast on this human rights violation. There are some criticisms about corruption in the army. This is not new, but we are fighting against corruption and in the army we have also made some progress. Still, remains corruption in police. That's true. We have still the suspicion also. But it is same suspicion as we have from DEA operation in Peru itself.

MR. KRAUSE: You're saying that you believe that American DEA agents working in Peru are also corrupt,.

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: Oh, yes.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you have evidence of that?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: No, you don't have evidence about corruption.

MR. KRAUSE: There have been reports that Cindero Luminoso, the Maoist guerrilla group which is active in much of your country, in effect, protects the coca farmers from intrusions by the military, on the one hand, and also negotiates with the drug traffickers on behalf of the farmers to get better prices for them and that in this way, Cindero has won the support of many of the coca farmers in your country. Is that true?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: That has changed completely. There is not any more military intrusions against the true coca farmers. That's why these coca farmers don't need the support of troops that protect against military intrusion. The military now enters with machinery for making better roads so that the rice and corn may be marketed in better prices, for example, and instead of having the protection against the military, this population is working side by side with the military. The strategies have completely changed this turmoil.

MR. KRAUSE: So in other words, your strategy is to move against those who are buying the coca leaf but not against those selling it.

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: And those who process the coca leaf. We want to have these 250,000 coca farmers not as enemy but as ally. This is a very important point of ours. We cannot fight against 250,000 farmers, or kill them or just kill by famine or putting in prison. This is almost impossible.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you think the United States understands that?

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: President Bush understood very well and he sustained me in this position. I visited in September last year, but still there are people, I would say many, I would say frankly that the DEA position there are people who understand only this oppression way and this is a mistake not only for the United States, but for all the world because it will continue.

MR. KRAUSE: President Fujimori, thank you very much.

PRESIDENT FUJIMORI: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: The United States has pledged nearly $85 million in military aid and economic aid to help Peru eradicate its coca crop, but some of the money has been delayed in disputes over Peru's human rights record and allegations of corruption in the army. The Yiayaga Valley, where much of the coca is grown and there United States built a drug fighting base for the Peruvian army and police, is also the center of a rebellion from the Shining Path Guerrillas, the self-processed Maoist group. For the U.S. view on this, Melvyn Levitsky, Assistant Secretary of State in Charge of Narcotics Control Issues, joins us from San Antonio. Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics & International Operations. He joins us from the Senate Gallery. Sec. Levitsky, we just heard President Fujimori and you were able to hear him in San Antonio.

SEC. LEVITSKY: Yes.

MR. MacNeil: Does the administration still think that crop substitution is a dangerous fantasy?

SEC. LEVITSKY: Well, I don't know where that quote came from, standing by itself at least. I was a the hearing where this was said, and what we said is it's a dangerous fantasy if it is looked at alone, that is, there must be strong law enforcement against the drug traffickers who come in via small airplanes from Colombia and pick up this product. Our policy has been to combine law enforcement, economic assistance, and demand reduction, and, in fact, listening to President Fujimori, I'd say that we agree with his assessment. We are not urging that he fight 250,000 coca farmers at all, but in order to keep the price low and to keep the drug traffickers, that is, the rich, vicious drug traffickers in Colombia, from preying on them, you have to have strong interdiction, control of air space and law enforcement in order to make that formula work right and to have economic alternatives for those farmers in legitimate areas.

MR. MacNeil: Do you --

SEC. LEVITSKY: So I would say we have basic agreement and he pointed out that we signed an agreement with him with those main elements in it. And we support it.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think that they are providing enough of the other side, the strict law enforcement?

SEC. LEVITSKY: Well, that has been a problem and, in fact, one could sympathize with a government that had to deal with probably the most vicious terrorist organization in the world today, the Cindero Luminoso, with extreme poverty that President Fujimori was left with at the beginning of his regime. It's been a very difficult struggle, because this is an isolated area. I have been to the upper Yiayaga Valley and believe me, it's no picnic. It is very rough and isolated and with isolated army and police units that are subject to corruption by drug traffickers and to threats by both the traffickers and by the Cindero Luminoso, so it is not easy at all. But we have worked together and we expect to continue to do this and Peru, obviously, is a key country for us. 60 percent of the cocaine originates in that one valley and around it, so we have to continue to work on this, otherwise, there will be more cocaine on the streets of America.

MR. MacNeil: Does the U.S. want to put troops in there? You heard what he just said?

SEC. LEVITSKY: Absolutely not. There has never been a plan to put troops in. We have provided some level, a very small level, of military assistance to train the air force to gain control of the air space, and that's the key element that President Fujimori and we talked about at the summit, in which, by the way, we had very strong agreement among seven Presidents on what to do about the drug war. There is a coalition among those Presidents to fight hard against this menace, not just to the United States but to each one of their countries.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Kerry, since Congress has withheld some funds from Peru, what do you think about President Fujimori's position, as he just outlined it?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I think he's frankly on target essentially and I think his criticisms of the policy have been accurate up until now. It's interesting to note --

MR. MacNeil: You think that he is being pressed to do more repression?

SEN. KERRY: I think it's happening almost automatically because we have pressed them to involve the military. You will notice that the Presidents of Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru all fundamentally rejected the United States and the end strategy, which up until now has been to use the military and to encourage them to use the military. And what you basically had in San Antonio was a rejection of the United States strategy and a statement we don't want money to the military, we want it for crop eradication, or we don't want it to the military, we want it to the police. And I liken it a little bit, frankly, you know, it's not unlike the President's trip to Japan. He goes to the drug summit and these people basically are saying, no, we're on the wrong strategy. President Fujimori said we have wasted millions of dollars.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Sec. Levitsky, do you want --

SEC. LEVITSKY: Pardon me, but I was at the drug summit and I just came from the drug summit and nothing like that was said. What was emphasized --

SEN. KERRY: There's a headline now in the Washington Post today that says --

SEC. LEVITSKY: Well, I'm sorry --

SEN. KERRY: -- "Peru's Leader Hits U.S. Drug Policies," and he's quoted specifically for the very same things he just said. And you did not --

SEC. LEVITSKY: President Fujimori did not --

SEN. KERRY: You did not come out --

MR. MacNeil: Gentlemen, one at a time. Let Mr. Levitsky speak and then we'll come back to you, Senator.

SEC. LEVITSKY: Look, I'd like to set the record straight here because I just came from the summit. I was in the meetings. I heard President Fujimori's statement at the end, and frankly, he pointed the finger more at the Congress than he did at the drug strategy, but that's beside the point. The point is that we have not tried to force these countries into using the military. What we have said is, particularly in Peru, President Fujimori knows he has to use his military against the Cindero Luminoso, which has a role in this, in this problem. That is, they are there. You cannot have crop eradication and crop substitution and law enforcement unless somehow security is provided. And we have not forced it on Bolivia as well. We have a waiver in the law that Congress passed to provide military assistance to police. And, increasingly, we are using that waiver to provide equipment and training to police forces that are working in the drug war.

MR. MacNeil: Let me change --

SEC. LEVITSKY: And that is thoroughly legitimate.

MR. MacNeil: Let me switch over because we haven't got a huge amount of time tonight, gentlemen. Sen. Kerry, switch over to the other point. Congress has withheld money because it believed that the human rights record of Fujimori's army was bad. He just said today in our interview that it's improved greatly. Has it improved enough to encourage you to release the funds that have been withheld?

SEN. KERRY: I don't believe so, No. 1, on the human rights issue, No. 2, because there is tremendous confusion between the anti-drug effort and the effort to repress or deal with the Cindero Luminoso, who I totally agree with Sec. Levitsky are a menace. There is no question of that. But it was President Fujimori who used the analogy of Vietnam. And I think that we have to be terribly careful about what happens. But, you know, we're missing the point here. We really are.

MR. MacNeil: What's the point?

SEN. KERRY: The point is that the strategy supposedly began with a specific percentage reduction in the consumption and production and with the reduction of cocaine transferred to the United States. Neither have happened. In fact, the goals of the Andean strategy have been two or three times altered and now there is an amorphous goal. Secondly --

MR. MacNeil: Can I just interrupt you for a second, Senator? The answer to my question the Congress doesn't feel the human rights record has improved enough to release the funds, is that --

SEN. KERRY: Well, I can't speak for the entire Congress --

MR. MacNeil: But for you.

SEN. KERRY: -- but I have serious questions --

MR. MacNeil: For your committee.

SEN. KERRY: -- about that.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah.

SEN. KERRY: And we're going to look at that issue before we make a final judgment.

MR. MacNeil: Okay.

SEN. KERRY: I would hope --

MR. MacNeil: Then let me go back to Sec. Levitsky on the other point. President Bush did say at the conference that the use of cocaine had come down 35 percent since he took office.

SEC. LEVITSKY: Absolutely. And it is clear and I think clear to people in the United States that particularly casual use of cocaine and other drugs in the United States has come down tremendously. The strategy is working. The President has devoted more resources to this drug war. We have -- if you look at just the statistics on what has happened in the last three to four years, there are four times as many seizures by these Latin American countries that we have worked with and trained and helped equip in their police forces. Four years ago the drug lords were running around in Colombia owning private zoos, having streets named after them. Most of them are in jail right now.

SEN. KERRY: Can I --

SEC. LEVITSKY: This is a tough war. This is a tough war and of course the drug lords are going to try to corrupt and to use violence but the question is: Are we going to let them get away with it? And the answer from this summit is a very resounding no.

MR. MacNeil: Senator, what is your view of the effectiveness of this strategy and the reduction in drug use since the Cartajena Summit two years ago?

SEN. KERRY: The measurement depends on your base line. If you take a base line of 1988, you can point to a reduction as Sec. Levitsky has done in cocaine use among middle income Americans, mostly white America bedroom communities. If you look at the last year, however, year and a half, production is up, cocaine consumption is up in the United States, and it is particularly up in the inner cities in America and violence is up. The number of drug-related murders are up. The measurement to the average American sitting at home is not how many metric tons were seized. The measurement is, is more cocaine coming into my community, or is much coming into the community? The fact is that today compared to when this all began we have an only 1 percent increase in cops on the street in the 10 major cities of this country.

MR. MacNeil: Well, can I get a quick reply to that from Sec. Levitsky?

SEN. KERRY: Well, can I just finish one quick thought, because I think it's important to this. There are five pillars of this drug war. Eradication and interdiction are two of them. The three most important are domestic, and they are law enforcement, treatment, and education. On every one of those we do not have an adequate commitment at this point. So we're robbing those in order to have an eradication program which a President of a country says is hurting his country.

MR. MacNeil: Sec. Levitsky, President Bush said at the summit today that attacking consumption in this country was the U.S., the most important U.S. role and priority. In view of what the Senators just said, what is the President going to do about that?

SEC. LEVITSKY: The President has asked the Congress for $12.7 billion to fight the drug war and a balanced program of both domestic and foreign measures. The Congress, for example, cut treatment. So we have to have a better and a bipartisan way of dealing with this. The President has doubled the resources in his term devoted to diminishing drug abuse in the United States and drug supply coming in. And I would say that the Congress should pass his budget. It is a good, balanced budget and it gives us a strong handle on drug abuse in the United States and for international programs and international programs are extremely important because if drugs flow into the United States, the demand side of this issue is going to be diminished considerably. You aren't going to be able to do as good a job on bringing down usage across-the-board.

MR. MacNeil: Senator, he says the ball is in your court.

SEN. KERRY: Well, you know that's the game that unfortunately, Robin, you're too familiar with andthe American people are becoming too familiar with. The fact is that in every single year since I've been in the United States Senate, which is 1984, we added more money to local law enforcement and to the drug war than the administration asked for, with I think one exception, and the one is the one where because of the budget agreement Mel is correct. There was a reduction from the request on treatment alone. But we put an extra billion dollars into the crime bill for local police enforcement on this and it languished merely because the President wouldn't accept the assault weapons ban. So I mean, we can go back and forth, but I can show you statistically and accurately that we've put more money in every year than the President asked for.

MR. MacNeil: Gentlemen, we can't go back any further tonight. I thank you both very much for joining us.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you.

SEC. LEVITSKY: Thank you. FOCUS - THE HEAT IS ON

MS. WOODRUFF: Now, another summit, this one on global warming and global politics. Heads of government who gather in June for the first earth summit will likely face nothing more difficult or more politically sensitive than what to do about global warming. This week representatives from 148 countries met at the United Nations to try to work out a common approach and today the United States addressed one key issue, financial aid, by pledging $75 million to help developing nations deal with the problem. But as Correspondent Tom Bearden reports, negotiating an overall agreement has been painfully difficult and many see the U.S. as the chief culprit.

MR. BEARDEN: They've been gathering in meeting rooms around the world for over a year, grappling with the daunting task of trying to get more than a hundred countries to agree to do something about global warming. The prime concern is over carbon dioxide, CO2, which results from burning any fossil fuel, coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the so-called "greenhouse effect" strengthens. Carbon dioxide traps the sun's heat. The planet's temperature rises. Some scientists are afraid that global warming could lead to widespread drought in America's bread basket. They fear it could begin to melt the polar ice cap, causing sea levels to rise. Coastal areas could be inundated. Some islands could even disappear. Robert Van Lierop is the ambassador to the U.N. from the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu.

ROBERT VAN LIEROP, Ambassador, Vanuatu: Right now the existence, the survival of many small island and low lying coastal developing countries is threatened. As the sea level rises, those countries may cease to exist. In the Maldives, a small Indian Ocean country, the President has recently had to announce the evacuation of the population from four of that countries islands because the sea level has risen so much.

MR. BEARDEN: But not everyone agrees that global warming is an impending crisis. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Robert Reinstein is the chief U.S. negotiator.

ROBERT REINSTEIN, U.S. Delegate: There's no scientific evidence at this point of any sea level rise or sea level change due to anthropogenic influence, human influence, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. I have not heard any scientist claim that.

MR. BEARDEN: And there is no crisis today.

ROBERT REINSTEIN: I have not seen any evidence of a crisis due to human activities.

MR. BEARDEN: That is one of the key issues being debated.

SPOKESMAN: South America is here, Asia [pointing at map].

MR. BEARDEN: Most scientists say the theory of global warming is well established, but how quickly it will occur, what it will cost and when is still debatable, but the majority also agrees that the time to act is now, before it's too late.

ROBERT VAN LIEROP, Ambassador, Vanuatu: It's the scientific uncertainty that worries us, because to do nothing is taking a severe gamble with people's lives and with the future of life as we know it on this planet.

MR. BEARDEN: Most of the developed countries want the Rio Treaty to stop the growth of CO2 emissions, even as the world's population expands. To accomplish that, the Europeans are advocating conservation through higher fuel taxes, switching fuels from coal to natural gas, increased emphasis on public transportation. Bert Metz is the director of the climate change program in the Netherlands Ministry of the Environment.

BERT METZ, Netherlands Delegate: That's one of the most important issues of debate now, will the treaty have that commitment to do something about the growth to stop the program in the Netherlands and the European Community, and others have argued it should, it should stop, and we've found a formula for that, saying that the emissions in, our emissions in the year 2000 should be approximately where they were in 1990, which is another way of saying that we should stop the growth.

MR. BEARDEN: Is the U.S. the big stumbling block as this meeting progresses?

BERT METZ: The U.S. has so far said it was not ready to accept such a commitment to do things which would have the effect of stopping the growth.

MR. BEARDEN: The U.S. isn't willing to go along because the administration argues that we don't know nearly enough about the potential effects of global warming to start spending a lot of money and changing people's lifestyles.

ROBERT REINSTEIN: People have not worked out the cost. I'm putting aside the questions of whether it is scientifically based. It is not. It's a political gesture in essence. But people haven't costed it out. And it varies very much from country to country how much it might cost and how difficult it might be. The United States generates close to 60 percent of our electricity from coal. It's our own coal. It's plentiful. It's cheap. It's secure. This is not the case in some other parts of the world. People's options differ, depending on the situation and the relative costs of those options differ.

MR. BEARDEN: The U.S. says carbon dioxide is just one of the greenhouse gases to be addressed. The administration wants each nation to formulate its own plan and then consult with other nations, eventually dealing with all greenhouse gases. But Tennessee Senator Al Gore says the United States is alone among the industrialized countries in resisting a cap on CO2 emissions.

SEN. AL GORE, [D] Tennessee: Well, it's embarrassing really because on a whole range of important questions, the line-up is a hundred and thirty-nine countries on one side and one country, the United States, on the other side. It's almost unforgivable that at this turning point in world history when Communism has collapsed and all the world is choosing democracy and free markets as our pathways to the future and yet, all the world is acknowledging that we face a global ecological crisis which must become the central organizing principle for the post cold war world. At such a moment for the United States to not just fail to lead but actively oppose the progress that the rest of the world wants to see is really a great tragedy.

MR. BEARDEN: Does the United States, as the critics charge, stand alone and risk becoming an international pariah?

ROBERT REINSTEIN, U.S. Delegate: I don't feel that we stand alone at all. That is not my impression. A number of the points we have made have been supported by other countries. In terms of the CO2 targets, some countries have CO2 targets. Some other countries have targets for all greenhouse gases.

MR. BEARDEN: Reducing emissions in the industrialized world won't accomplish very much if developing countries increase theirs. Treaty advocates say they'll need help in building clean burning industries to feed their populations without pouring millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Chandrashekar Dasgupta is the head of the climate change delegation from India.

CHANDRASHEKAR DASGUPTA, India Delegate: I believe that what we need is a massive program of international cooperation and this would require funding. It would require finances and it would require technology which should be provided by developed countries. When I say that these should be provided by developed countries, I am not asking for a program of development aid, still less charity. What we are talking about are an effluence of finance and technology which is the interest of all countries and certainly of developed countries, because when you are talking of global warming, it is irrelevant in which country that project is implemented. Whether it is implemented in your own country or in a third world country, the benefits are of a global nature.

MR. BEARDEN: The U.S. has announced its willingness to contribute $75 million to help developing nations stabilize their CO2 emissions. But Reinstein doesn't mince words saying the U.S. is not considering changing its position on a CO2 cap, something other countries say is critical to a successful treaty.

ROBERT REINSTEIN: And as far as changing our position on CO2 targets, it's not in the cards. We've come to the conclusion that this particular approach doesn't work not only for us but for a number of other countries.

MR. BEARDEN: So those who insist that there will not be a meaningful treaty without a CO2 cap agreement by the United States are doomed to disappointment in June?

ROBERT REINSTEIN: I would say so, yes.

MR. BEARDEN: The current session runs through Friday and will resume in March. As one delegate put it, "As each day passes, the chances of a successful conclusion fade." NEWSMAKER - '92 ELECTION

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight another in our current series of conversations with the Democratic candidates for President. Former California Governor Jerry Brown took his outsider message to Washington State today. He was in Seattle when I spoke with him earlier. Gov. Brown, thank you for joining us.

GOV. BROWN: Thank you.

MS. WOODRUFF: We did some rough calculations on the first four states, Governor, and we figured that out of about two hundred and sixty thousand votes cast almost you have won about twenty thousand or less than 8 percent of the vote. You came in a close second in the main caucuses but you were at or near the bottom in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Dakota. When are you going to win one?

GOV. BROWN: Hey, we're getting ready. We're out here in Washington. We're fighting in Colorado. We're making our case and that case is that the political system needs fundamental reform. We need to make a commitment in reality to social and economic justice. We need to move off nuclear power. We need to commit this society to sustainable energy and do that by creating millions of jobs. And, of course, we need to reform the tax code, and I have a plan to do that. When that catches on, we hope as soon as possible, but I will say the Democratic primary nomination is up for grabs, it's turbulent, and you're going to see changes throughout each state race.

MS. WOODRUFF: You say it's turbulent and yet since you won less than 10 percent of the vote in two consecutive primaries, you are on what's called probation for federal matching funds. As I understand it, you've got 30 days to win over 20 percent, or you get cut off. Are you going to be able to do that?

GOV. BROWN: Yes. We're going to do that. We're in this thing to stay because I believe what we represent, and we call it "we the people," is an honest alternative to a failed status quo. It's based on the authentic tradition of the Democratic Party. Jefferson, when he started this institution 201 years ago, gave as our goal stopping the power of the few from rising on the labors of the many. And I don't consider candidates and campaigns that are fueled by the thousand dollar checks of the few to be authentic representatives of our Jeffersonian tradition. So I'm going to stick with it and I'm going to go to every state and we will not quit until we work real change in this party and in this country.

MS. WOODRUFF: You talk about fueled by the thousand dollar checks of the few. Are you suggesting that your opponents, Governor, are corrupt in some manner?

GOV. BROWN: Oh, boy, you bet I am! I'm saying they're part of a rotten system that is not serving tens of millions of the American people. And in New Hampshire, in Maine, where you really see hardship, people are angry about it. And when I see that our Army Corps of Engineers repaired or built a thousand buildings in Kuwait where they worked no more than two hours a day and we have so many homeless, so many people are losing their homes because --

MS. WOODRUFF: What I'm specifically --

GOV. BROWN: -- they don't have the money. Yeah.

MS. WOODRUFF: I'm specifically asking about your Democratic opponents who you're going after when you talk about these thousand dollar contributions.

GOV. BROWN: Sure it is. This whole party has been taken over by essentially Republican interest groups in derogation of our authentic tradition to represent those millions of people that I think are more properly served by the Rainbow Coalition, by environmental activists, and that's the coalition that I'm putting together as an alternative to Clinton and Tsongas, and what I consider to be essentially elite Republican-style pretenders to the Democratic tradition.

MS. WOODRUFF: So even though you're having a tough time with money, you're not having any second thoughts about limiting your contributions to a hundred dollars?

GOV. BROWN: No, because I knew this was going to be a barrier but it's the barrier that causes the discipline of reaching out. And through our 800 number we've already received pledges of $1.3 million. Over 100,000 people have called in and it is growing. State by state and step by step we are building a coalition and a commitment that I believe can work real change in this society and in this nation.

MS. WOODRUFF: You talked about when your message gets across. Do you think your views are adequately getting across, have been getting across to the voters so far?

GOV. BROWN: No, I don't think they have because when you don't have the enormous war chest, I mean, let's face it, the major networks got together every night to allocate their four pool crews. Well, there were five candidates in New Hampshire and Maine and they said, the CBS representative, that for most of the time Brown was non-existent. I mean, that is an expressed quote on camera. So I know I'm bucking not only the lack of thousand dollar checks, but I'd say a rather complicit way that the national media functions.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, you are here with us and I --

GOV. BROWN: And I really appreciate that.

MS. WOODRUFF: The reason I ask you this is because we've been interviewing a large number of voters in New Hampshire and just this past week in Maryland, and I wanted to read to you some of the comments people make when you ask them about the candidates, and we asked them specifically about you. One woman said, "If he weren't so far out, I would be interested, but he scares me because I think a President has to know how to get along with all factions." Another person said to us, "I just don't think he's a serious candidate." Somebody called you "a California kook who wears a turtleneck and spouts his 800 number." How do you get beyond that perception, Governor?

GOV. BROWN: Because I'll tell you, I'm right here talking to the American people and if they think that Clinton and Tsongas and the others who spend their time raising money in private with thousand dollar donors, who represent a fraction of 1 percent of the American people, if they thinks that's the party, they should vote for them. But I have experienced along the campaign trail that everyone who shows up to the town meetings that I go to, none of them have ever had that capacity to give a thousand dollars. They're a totally different group of regular Americans who've been abandoned, who I think are being treated contemptuously by the Washington establishment, and by those candidates. And while what I'm doing is not easy, and I'm a flawed vessel, I acknowledge that, but somebody's got to stand up and say, we got to take this country back. It's incredible, with our $6 trillion economy, that we can't provide full employment, a medical care system for all Americans and a decent prenatal and Head Start and educational environment for our children. I mean, I think it's obscene. And to carry on a charade of this Presidential Gong Show without standing up and telling the truth I think is irresponsible. So I acknowledge to you that I've got a ways to go here, a long way.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, I want to ask you specifically about something that you do talk a great deal about, and that is the flat tax proposal.

GOV. BROWN: Yeah.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're talking about sweeping away the entire current income tax structure and imposing a flat 13 percent tax on everybody. Now, as you know, the criticism of this, Governor, has been that it's regressive, that it's a tax increase for everybody but the very rich.

GOV. BROWN: No, I think just the opposite, that for people making $100,000 a year and particularly middle and low income people, it'll be a tax reduction because it sweeps away the most regressive tax of all, and that's the payroll, Social Security, and Medicare tax that falls when you count the employer's share at 15.3 percent starting at the first dollar and going up to about $55,000. That tax, which over the last 15 years has been raised six times, is highly regressive. We abolish that along with the income tax and the gasoline tax, the airplane tax, all the other taxes and we replace it with a 13 percent value added and a tax on personal, unadjusted gross income of 13 percent, but we give a new deduction, which makes it very progressive, and that is rent. People can deduct their rent or deduct their home mortgage interest, as they do now, and their charitable contributions. Then you multiply 13 percent of whatever your income is then left, and I promise you that low and middle income people will have a reduction.

MS. WOODRUFF: How then do you explain the comments of people, Bob McIntyre, for example, of the Citizens for Tax Justice, this is a nonpartisan group respected here in Washington --

GOV. BROWN: I know that group.

MS. WOODRUFF: They say that as many as 90 percent of Americans would pay more under your system. They've done a chart on it, they've run it out. I've got it here in front of me. And literally everybody who is earning anywhere from the top 90 percent or the - -

GOV. BROWN: I'd like to see how he does that because I know that if you're making $10,000 today, employer-employee withholding or withdrawal from your paycheck is 15.3, so if you're making $10,000, that's, what is that, that's $1530 and there's no deductions whatsoever. That's highly regressive. And what we have in the whole tax debate is a complete ignoring of the fact that the Social Security, Medicare, payroll tax keeps going up and that's the one that is so oppressive to the average person.

MS. WOODRUFF: We've also spoken to the economists at the American Enterprise Institute and other places as well who talk about this as a highly unfair proposal and again the Citizens for Tax Justice say that when you add the national sales tax, this value added tax that you've talked about on top of this, and in their words, "It would make the grotesque unfairness even worse," that only the very wealthy would get a significant tax cut.

GOV. BROWN: I don't agree with that. As a matter of fact, liberal economists like Heilbroner and Thurow are advocating a value added tax. And when you look at what Bush is proposing and then what Sen. Bentsen and the other candidates and Rostenkowski, they're beginning to chew away at the tax code as they do every year or two and I see that as a source of corruption, the campaign fund-raising, and it provides for those with the money, with the lawyers and the lobbyists a unique capacity to take advantage of those tax breaks, whereas, a 13 percent across-the- board allows a simple, fair, honest collection of taxes. Everybody understands it. You don't need a lawyer and you don't need even a tax preparer. You can figure it out on a postcard and most Americans will benefit, and I think they'll be very grateful for that kind of simplicity.

MS. WOODRUFF: Governor, you said last week that you would like, and this was a quote, you would like Jesse Jackson for your running mate. Is that a final decision on your part?

GOV. BROWN: I said that that would be my first choice and I'll tell you why, because the level of change that I am offering and seeking in this political campaign requires a coalition of the most activist, the most committed, the most inspirational and passionate leaders we have, and I'd put Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition right at the center of that. And I'd also add people like Ralph Nader and leaders in environmental and women's groups. We can't move the party or the Congress without a coalition of our most creative, great leadership groups. And I'd put Jesse Jackson right at the center and that's why I expressed that view, to let people know where I'm coming from and the extent and magnitude of the change that I consider necessary to get America back on the right track.

MS. WOODRUFF: And have you talked about this with the Reverend Jackson?

GOV. BROWN: I have spoken with him and I didn't expect that he would give any kind of definitive comment and I give that preference so people would know what does this "we the people" campaign really represent, who are our allies, what are we looking for, and this is an alternative. This isn't what I call the Presidential Gong Show where the few that are given the thousand dollars from Wall Street and Beverly Hills dominate. No, this is an attempt to reach into the grassroots, use the 800 number, pull in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people and be part of a new Democratic Party that is grounded in the grassroots and a profound commitment to social and economic justice.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Governor Jerry Brown, we thank you for being with us.

GOV. BROWN: Thank you, Judy. ESSAY - GERM OF AN IDEA

MR. MacNeil: We close with an essay on that most common of afflictions, the common cold. Our essayist is Chet Raymo, professor of physics at Stonehill College and a columnist for the Boston Globe.

CHET RAYMO, Boston Globe: It's that time of the year ago, slush, fighting wind, freezing rain, time for the sniffles and sneezes, time for the common cold. It's those viruses multiplying like crazy in our noses. They have ravaged our respiratory systems and now they are ready to find other victims. So they irritate our noses and make us sneeze, 10,000 globules of moisture, packed with common cold viruses afloat in the air to drift into someone else's nose. A virus is nothing more than a bundle of genes wrapped in a protein coat. A common cold virus has one goal, to penetrate a cell in the human nose. Inside the cell, it opens its coat to release pirate genes that take over the cell's reproductive machinery and start making copies of themselves. A few days later the symptoms appear, all too familiar from cold remedy commercials, the sore throat, the runny nose, the sneezing. A decade ago, we knew very little about the viruses that cause the common cold. Now, due to brilliant work by scientists such as Michael Rossman of Perdue University and Richard Koano, formerly of Merck and now of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, we know the structure of viruses almost atom by atom. Most cold causing viruses are part of a family called rhinoviruses, rhino meaning nose as in rhinoceros. They are put together like fuller geodesic domes, 60 protein triangles arranged to make an almost sphere. On the surface of the virus are bumps, surrounded by deep circular canyons. The bumps seem to be the key to the virus's success. By the time our bodies learn to recognize one virus by its bumps and prepare antibodies that will attack and destroy the virus, along comes another virus with different bumps. The cold virus is master of a hundred disguises. But all rhinoviruses must have something in common if they can attach themselves to the same cells in our noses. What they seem to have in common is an attachment mechanism hidden at the base of the deep and narrow canyons. Researchers are hoping to find drugs that will block these attachment points on the lining of the nose or in the canyons of the virus. Who would have guessed that the cause of so much mischief is a thing of such beauty and tinker toy simplicity? The common cold virus has reduced life to its essence, genes making genes. Everything it requires for that task it commandeers from a cell in the human nose. A cure for the common cold is not yet in sight, but drugs that prevent infection appear to be possible. Researchers at the University of Virginia are tracking viruses from nose to nose, deliberately allowing volunteers to become infected with colds in the hope of learning how to stop the viruses getting from here to there. But our best hope for relief may lie in the elegant geometry of viruses and in drugs that block the lock and key fit between canyons and the surface of the virus and the corresponding bumps in here. I'm Chet Raymo. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again the main stories of this Thursday, the House rejected President Bush's tax plan but passed a Democratic version featuring an election year tax cut for middle income earners. This evening Mr. Bush said he would veto it. The President also wrapped up a drug summit with Latin American leaders by pledging to step up the war on drug suppliers and users and the President of the United Way resigned amid reports that the charity paid him a salary of nearly $1/2 million. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We're sorry we were unable to bring you Amei Wallach's essay on AIDS & the Arts. We will reschedule it soon. And we'll be back tomorrow night with a look at the challenge in Maryland to Paul Tsongas to prove he can win votes outside New England. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.