The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight two congressmen debate new legislation on juvenile crime; what does Central America need now that the wars are over; academic standards for college applicants face a court challenge; and a new discovery about asthma in the inner city. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton told Central America's leaders today they will be real partners with the United States, not just neighbors. He made the remarks at the opening of a summit in San Jose, Costa Rica, with leaders of six Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. The President also signed a trade agreement aimed at reducing U.S. tariffs on Central American goods. Hundreds of Costa Ricans gathered to welcome Mr. Clinton and the other leaders. This afternoon summit participants held a news conference at the National Auditorium in the capital. President Clinton said he believed Central American immigrants in the U.S. should get special consideration under the new immigration law.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There will be no mass deportations and no targeting of any citizens from any country. They will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. And, again, I will say I'm not so sure as--whoever your anonymous source was--that the Congress will be unwilling to recognize the fact that these Central American countries are in a rather special category. After all, the United States Government was heavily involved with a lot of these countries during the time of all this upheaval.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton plans to spend two days at the summit before returning to Washington. We'll have more on the story later in the program. On the Zaire story today United Nations Amb. Bill Richardson again urged President Mobutu and rebel leader Kabila to arrange a peaceful turnover of government power. Richardson was in Paris to arrange a second meeting for the leaders after last week's proved inconclusive. Rebels today appeared to be honoring Kabila's promise to hold off their advance on the capital of Kinshasa. Mobutu is in neighboring Gabon meeting with regional leaders. A summit there ended this afternoon with a call for peace in Zaire. Richardson said more talks between Mobutu and Kabila are crucial to prevent a blood bath.

BILL RICHARDSON, U.N. Ambassador: We hope that dialogue for a peaceful solution to the conflict has been established. We believe that there must be no military solution to the political and economic crisis in Zaire. America's longstanding goal has been a negotiated settlement. This should lead to an inclusive, transitional government and fair and free elections. We press hard in all our meetings for a soft landing to the crisis.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Back in this country the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing violent juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. The vote was 286 to 132, and it now goes to the Senate. The bill would make adult trials routine for defendants as young as 14 if they are accused of federal crimes of violence or serious drug offenses. The legislation would give states federal funding incentives to do the same. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Also at the capitol today the Senate wrestled with an appropriations bill to provide 5.5 billion dollars in emergency relief for disaster victims. Seven hundred million of that would go to flood relief in the Dakotas and Minnesota. The Senate adopted an amendment Republicans said will prevent a repeat of the 1995 federal government shutdown which Arizona Republican John McCain said was also a disaster.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: There are natural disasters which need to be addressed, and by the way as the Senator from Texas pointed out, are being addressed. The money is flowing. There is no hold-up in the money. The disaster assistance is being rendered as we speak. But there's also manmade disasters, Mr. President, and my state went through one, and the nation went through a manmade disaster, and it is equally our obligation to see that a manmade disaster does not happen again.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Democratic Senator Robert Byrd urged his colleagues to put politics aside and get the money to places where it's needed.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: People in these 33 states need help. They need it as soon as they can get it. They need it now. They needed it yesterday. They needed it a week ago. And it's grossly unfair to them to use this instrument of disaster relief as a vehicle for political gain. It is cynical, and it is cruel.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton said he would veto the bill if the no-shutdown provision remained because it would give Republicans power to free spending at unacceptably low levels. Also in politics today Republican Party officials announced they returned $102,400 in foreign campaign contributions. A party spokesman said an investigation revealed a Hong Kong company had funneled the cash through a Florida subsidiary. The Democratic Party has also pledged to return foreign campaign donations amounting to $3 million. US Airways announced major cutbacks today. The company, formerly known as USAir, said it would reduce flights on some of its money-losing routes. Officials said 103 pilots would be furloughed and some crew and maintenance centers would be shut down. U S Airways is the nation's sixth largest airline. It reported strong profits early in 1997, but has the highest overhead in the industry. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Congress gets tough on juvenile crime; the summit in Central America; NCAA academic standards; and a new discovery about asthma. FOCUS - JUVENILE PUNISHMENT

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Getting tough on juvenile crime is first tonight. Margaret Warner has that story.

MARGARET WARNER: The House of Representatives late this afternoon resoundingly approved a bill designed to toughen the way the nation's criminal justice system deals with juvenile offenders. Republican Congressman Bill McCollum, chairman of the House Crime Subcommittee, is chief sponsor of the measure.

SPOKESMAN: We need to provide a change, a repair, in a broken juvenile justice system in this nation we have one out of every five violent crimes in America being committed by those under 18 years of age and of those who are under 18 that are adjudicated for a violent crime or convicted, if you will. We are finding that only one out of ten of those ever served any time in a secure detention facility of any sort.

MARGARET WARNER: The last ten years have seen a surge in violent crime committed by juveniles as young as ten years old. From 1985 to 1994, crimes committed by young people nearly doubled. Those arrest rates eased in 1995 but concern remains that the coming surge in the teenage population over the next ten years could trigger a rising crime rate as well. The bill applies directly to young people who commit federal crime. The Justice Department says that's only two hundred to four hundred young people each year. For young people charged in the federal system the bill provides that juveniles 14 or older and some 13-year-olds, as well, would be tried as adults for violent crimes and serious drug offenses; U.S. attorneys would set up special task forces to apprehend violent young offenders. The bill also prods the states, who handle the lion's share of juvenile crime, to adopt similar measures by offering $1.5 billion in block grants over three years. To qualify for the money a state would have to do four things: try 15-year- olds as adults for serious violent crimes; impose a sanction for the very first delinquent act by a young person, and escalating sanctions for subsequent offenses; preserve all felony conviction records after a juvenile offense, and make them public; and let juvenile court judges issue orders against parents or guardians for failing to supervise a youth after conviction. House debate today grew heated. While not denying it's a problems, some Democrats objected to the thrust and some of the particulars of McCollum's proposed solution.

SEN. PATRICK KENNEDY, [D] Rhode Island: When you put kids in adult prison, guess what? They don't serve as much time because the judges don't have the heart to sentence a kid for as long as an adult. Second, if the kid is in jail, we're lucky that they don't end up murdered or committing suicide, as my former colleague just said. Third, if they stay there long enough, they come out meaner and harder than you sent them in to begin with. Now, this bill is a joke because it ignores these facts, and what's more, it ignores the fundamental truth that prevention works.

MARGARET WARNER: Some Democrats offered amendments to add money for prevention or to weaken some of the bill's provisions, but all the amendments were defeated, with many Democrats voting with the Republicans. The House then voted to adopt McCollum's bill as drafted. SPOKESMAN: The yeahs are 286, the nays are 132. The bill is passed.

MARGARET WARNER: The position of the White House isn't entirely clear. The Justice Department worked with McCollum on the bill. But the administration wants an additional provision requiring gun dealers to provide child safety locks on all guns they sell. Attorney General Janet Reno spoke to that issue today.

JANET RENO, Attorney General: This is a reasonable, simple precaution that can be taken to put a lock on a gun to prevent it from being used by children who might not be aware of the danger. I think it's a reasonable precaution, and I urge it.

MARGARET WARNER: The Republican leadership, however, refused to allow a vote on the safety lock provision. The Senate next takes up its own version of the juvenile crime bill.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, we have further debate on this bill. With us from Capitol Hill are two members of the House Judiciary Committee. The chairman of its crime subcommittee, Bill McCollum of Florida, and Democrat Bobby Scott. And welcome, gentlemen. Congressman McCollum, why did you decide to sponsor this bill? Why is it needed?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: Well, I think it's not just a question--the fact is you've heard on the program that there's so many new and increasing and alarming numbers on violent crime among teenagers, but it's something we discovered in six regional hearings around the country over the last two years, and that is that when a youngster today throws a rock through a window or writes and spray paints graffiti on a wall, it's very unusual that a law enforcement officer will even take that youngster in before juvenile court, let alone have a juvenile judge give him a sanction. Juvenile judges in many of our urban areas see kids for these kind of misdemeanor crimes ten or twelve times before they get any sanctions today, including community serviced, that sort of thing. And the experts told us that, look, if the kids don't know there are going to be consequences and don't receive some punishment for these early delinquent act, is it any wonder that when they get to be a little older and they have a gun in their hand that they pull the trigger without thinking there are going to be consequences. So the reason for this bill is because I think and I think most experts believe that the juvenile justice systems of the whole are broken, not just because we got so many violent juveniles out there we're not incarcerating as we should, because that's a fairly small number, but because the hundreds of other cases, thousands of other cases of these less serious crimes are not being punished--and as a consequence--which they used to be--and as a consequence we've got a very bad system. So we decide how do we help provide leadership. Most of this is state and local matters. And we put a 1 + billion dollar grant program, an incentive grant program in here to the states that qualify, so they can get more probation officers, more social workers, more judges, and build more detention facilities, and that sort of thing, if they need it, so they can actually start seeing these kids from the very first offense and graduate those sanctions on up. So that's the real essence of the bill.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And Congressman Scott, you voted against the bill. Why did you do that? You didn't find these arguments convincing, obviously.

REP. BOBBY SCOTT, [D] Virginia: I think there's a consensus on the question of graduated sanctions. Traditionally judge has the opportunity to either give a warning or jail the juvenile. And there are a lot of things in-between community service and things of that nature that I think can make a difference. But the primary thrust of the bill is it sounds tough. When you treat juveniles as adults, it sounds tough. The unfortunate thing that you saw in your piece, all of the available evidence shows if you treat more juveniles as adults, the violent crime rate will go up. If you have a choice--if you treat them as adults, they'll be warehoused with adults when they're sentenced. If you treat them as juveniles, they'll receive education, counseling, and preparation for when they get out, and the recidivism rate is much less when they-- particularly the violent recidivism rate is much less when you treat juveniles as juveniles. But all of the studies show the same thing. The only exception is those who commit the very heinous crimes and universal--universally in all of the states, they are treated as adults today. So if you open it up to more juveniles being treated as adults, all of the studies show the violent crime rate will go up. Now, if your goal is to reduce crime, this obviously ought not be something that's, that's in your bill, but if your object is to sound tough, then that's--it sounds tough, but it's counterproductive. And that's why I oppose the bill. You have these tough-sounding but counterproductive provisions like treating 13--primarily treating more juveniles as adults. It's been proven to be counterproductive.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman McCollum, what about that argument, that it could be self-defeating, the argument he just made and that Congressman Kennedy made?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: I don't agree with that argument. And I think the reason why that argument's fallacious is a couple of things. First of all, juveniles are prohibited from being mixed with adults by this bill and by existing federal law, and the states don't do that. You are not allowed to co-mingle them in the same cell even if they are being sentenced until adults, until they reach 18, then they can be after that. Secondly, most of your really violent young people are the ones who are going to be the worst. They're going to be the recidivists. They're going to be the ones most likely to come back and repeat their crimes. And unfortunately, although about half the states have gone to truth in sentencing laws where they require longer sentences and that is service of the time given, 85 percent rule and that sort of thing, there's still a substantial number of states that simply have a revolving door still. So the bad people get back out and commit more crimes. I don't think the statistics show at all that kids are more likely to be recidivists because they're locked up for long periods of time. I think the real alarming fact is that you've got today only one out of ten who commit a violent crime that is serving a day in a detention, juvenile detention center, not even one day. And I think that's wrong, that and the fact that you don't have any sanctions from the very beginning to show kids the consequences of this behavior, so we wind up with some really horrible results.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Scott, address, if you would, that argument about the consequences of misbehavior, or there not being any consequences.

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: Well, first of all, let's put to rest the idea that we're not tough on our--on crime. We're behind the incarceration rate of any nation on earth. The average country locks up about 100 per 100,000, some, Japan, Great Britain, about 50 per 100,000. The United States leads the world already at 500 per 600 per 100,000. I've got cities in my jurisdiction 1500 per 100,000. We've got some areas that have more of our young people- -of our young males in jails and in prisons than in college. We've got some states already spending more for prisons than they do for higher education. So we're locking up a lot of people. The fact is if we want to reduce crime, let's keep that rate as it is. So if you're going to put another 500 million dollars a year into the problem, it will be a drop in the bucket building prisons. It won't make any difference at all if you try to spend that money in prisons, what states are already doing, it won't make a difference. But if you put that money into prevention, it can actually make a difference. A lot of programs--we had a hearing ironically yesterday showing that programs had a significant impact on the-- in the Washington area and in other states with very little money that's put where it can do some good, but just building prisons when we're already locking up more than anywhere else on earth, it just won't do--

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: We're not just building prisons. I think that's the point, Bobby, and prevention, I agree with you on, is apples and oranges. We think there will be another bill, and we plan to have one out on prevention that you're talking about. What we've got, though, are 15 year olds and above in the state systems, and that's the age we encourage the states to treat them as adults, and actually that's discretionary. We simply want the states to say and before they get the money in this bill that they're going to allow or permit at their discretion prosecutors to try as adults 15 years and older kids who commit serious violent crimes, and they're limited to murders and aggravated felonies, that sort of thing, very serious stuff, and in the federal government already today, without any--the current law says 13 and 14 year olds who commit certain serious violent crimes can be tried as adults. It's still the discretion. We don't change that with the prosecuting attorney general. What we do is add a couple of opportune crimes that make sense, that today a youngster who is on federal property commits a murder with a gun, they can be tried at 13 years old as an adult. That same youngster commits a rape at knife point on federal property they can't, so we tried to change those laws so that all violent crimes that you would think of today as violent crimes can be if the prosecutors and attorney general wants it to be tried in the federal system in a uniform fashion as adults. That's all we did.

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: The fact is we're not trying juveniles in federal court. The fact is--the juveniles are just a handful, but the juveniles being tried as adults today, of that group, the majority of them are being tried as adults for non-violent offenses, so if we're already down that far on the list of offenses, you can't possibly imagine a rape at knife point. And any state in the union where they're not being tried as adults--

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, they couldn't be tried as adults in the federal system--in addition to that, we're looking at the opportunity for prosecutors that the Justice Department wants to be able to do--prosecutors at the federal level to get at these gangs in the cities and help the states and local governments spread these people out and incarcerate these youngsters who are committing violent crimes to--

MARGARET WARNER: Rep. Scott, let me just askyou, why do you think so many of your fellow Democrats actually voted for this bill? I think there were more than 70.

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: I can't answer someone else's vote. I can answer mine. The fact is that all of the studies show that if you try more juveniles as adults, the violent crime rate will go up. People may not like those studies; they may say well, this is not accurate, or this, but there are no studies on the other side. All of the studies show that the violent crime rate will go up because there's--if you treat a juvenile as an adult, in most states they get locked up with adults. In Virginia, if you're 17 years of age, and you're tried as adult, you will go to the adult facility.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Federal law prohibits that if they take federal money today, Bobby, and it'll prohibit it even more if this bill goes into effect--

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: Virginia today if you're sentenced at 17, 16 as an adult, you will go to an adult facility.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: They won't qualify for any of this money.

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: And--

MARGARET WARNER: You're saying--

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: We can debate on that point. I hope that that's true.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: It's true. We had an amendment to help make it true; I agreed with it.

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: And the bill as it came out of committee because of your cooperation was a whole lot better than some of the other ideas that were floating around--very cooperative on that point--but the states--if you are sentenced as an adult in most states you will go into the adult facility.

MARGARET WARNER: Very briefly. Congressman McCollum, starting with you, what do you think of the prospects in the Senate for a very similar bill?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: I think they're very good. Sen. Sessions, who chairs the subcommittee is already working with us on this. He used to be an attorney general in Alabama, and in fact, was our leader in one of six regional meetings we had around the country last year on that, so I think they're very good.

MARGARET WARNER: And Congressman Scott, what do you think?

REP. BOBBY SCOTT: I would hope the Senate would look at the actual facts in the study and determine to try more 13 year olds and juveniles as adults will increase crime; it's counterproductive. We need to put the money where it'll make some difference, and if we've got people 10 years from now in the high crime rate, we need to deal--

MARGARET WARNER: All right.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: The big difference--

MARGARET WARNER: We're going to have to leave it there, both of you. Thank you very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the summit in Central America, NCAA academic standards, and a new discovery about asthma. FOCUS - CENTRAL CONCERNS

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next tonight the United States revisits Central America. President Clinton is making the first trip of his presidency to the region. He met today in Costa Rica with seven regional leaders. We take up the role of the United States, past and present, in Central America. Charles Krause has the story.

CHARLES KRAUSE: A decade ago Central America was at war, consumed by insurgency, counter-insurgency, and revolution. Tens of thousands of Salvadorians, Nicaraguans and Guatemalans were killed, while in the United States, Central America became a contentious foreign policy issue between Democrats in Congress and Ronald Reagan in the White House.

PRESIDENT REAGAN: In Central America, as elsewhere, we support democracy, reform, and human freedom. We support economic development. We support dialogue and negotiations among and within the countries of the region, and yes, we support a security shield for the region's threatened nations in order to protect these other goals.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The Reagan administration was fearful of another Cuba and determined to defeat what it viewed as a direct challenge from the Soviet Union. As a result, the U.S. poured billions of dollars worth of arms and economic aid into Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. In Nicaragua, the money went to finance the Contras, a counter-insurgency force armed and trained by the United States. Throughout most of this century, the U.S. mostly ignored Central America, depending on military dictators like the Somozas in Nicaragua to ensure that U.S. interests were taken care of. When reform-minded governments viewed as hostile to the United States did manage to come to power, they were in most cases quickly overthrown, as happened in Guatemala in 1954, when the CIA organized a coup that ousted Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. In the early 60's the Kennedy administration briefly tried a different approach: economic aid and democracy-building. But the alliance for progress was soon eclipsed by Vietnam. The United States did not focus on Central America again until 1979, when the Sandinistas ousted the last of the Somozas in Nicaragua with help from Cuba. Almost overnight, U.S. concern mushroomed as the Sandinista victory propelled leftist guerrilla movements throughout the region, again threatening Washington's influence an control. In response, by the mid 80's, the Reagan administration was spending well over a billion dollars a year on overt and covert military operations in Central America. To support the army and elections in El Salvador; to support the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua; to establish a major U.S. military presence in Honduras, including mock invasions by U.S. marines; to provide covert counter-insurgency support to the army in Guatemala, considered the most brutal in Central America; and finally, to arm and train soldiers from all the Central American countries, except Costa Rica at the School of the Americas in Georgia. Indeed, the Reagan administration was so determined to defeat the leftist advance in Central America that it violated a congressional ban on support for the U.S.-backed rebels in Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra affair in the 1986--Illegal arms shipments to the Contras were revealed when the Sandinistas captured CIA contract employee Eugene Hasenfus after they shot his plane down over Nicaragua. But in 1990, after a decade of bloodshed and controversy, there was a turning point for the U.S. when Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas were forced to hold elections which they lost. Violetta Chamorro's victory was supported and cheered by the United States.

JAMES A. BAKER, Secretary of State: In this year of remarkable political change, freedom I think it's fair to say won another victory yesterday in Nicaragua.

CHARLES KRAUSE: With the Sandinistas defeat, the guerrillas in both El Salvador and Guatemala began serious negotiations, leading to peace treaties and elections in both countries. Today, for the first time in a generation, the guns have been silenced, and there's peace throughout the region, but the poverty that caused Central America's past instability remains while the United States has turned its attention elsewhere. U.S. economic and military aid to the region has plummeted from about $1.2 billion 10 years ago to an estimated $125 million this year, a decrease of 90 percent. And according to the prestigious inter-American dialogue, a group whose members include five former U.S. and Latin American presidents, no more than a third of the people in any of the Central American countries think they're better off now than in years past. After today's summit President Clinton and the seven other heads of state signed what they call the Declaration of San Jose. It reaffirms their commitment to a hemisphere-wide free trade agreement within eight years and to a continued dialogue to avoid mass deportations of Central Americans now living in the United States. President Clinton spoke and took questions after the ceremony.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We work for the cause of peace in Central America and applauded it when it prevailed, and this meeting here, which is I said is the first time since 1968 when President Johnson met with the leaders of Central America--that such a meeting has occurred, and this one has a different agenda, this is designed to send a message that we believe it is in the interest of the United States and the people of the United States, as well as the right thing to do, to have an economic and a political partnership with Central America as we move into the next century.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, for three perspectives; Sen. Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. Bernard Aronson was the assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs from 1989 to 1994. And Isaac Cohen is a native Guatemalan and director of the Washington office of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Gentlemen, welcome. Mr. Cohen, there were high expectations going into today's meeting on the part of the Central Americans. Was the declaration specific enough to deal with the region's real problems?

ISAAC COHEN, United Nations Official: Well, I think there was a lot of expectation because I believe that this signals the fact that the Cold War has ended and that the United States is not interested in the region anymore for security reasons because there's no security threat at all. The fact that economic issues were on the top of the agenda and that trade and immigration were the two top--that, well, we are in a different kind of--these are different times.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Sure enough. But did President Clinton meet the hopes and expectations of the presidents of the region who were hoping for something on free trade and something on immigration?

ISAAC COHEN: Well, the Central Americans were expecting to get some kind of commitment for a free trade agreement with the United States. I think that they got a--well, they agreed that they were going to work later on 2005, as a deadline to build a free trade area in the Americas, and they got an expansion of the CBI--

CHARLES KRAUSE: Caribbean Basin Initiative.

ISAAC COHEN: Caribbean Basin Initiative.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Which is the free trade agreement--a trade agreement between Central America, the Caribbean, and the United States?

ISAAC COHEN: Correct. And I think those are concrete things on trade. On the immigration probably we retained a recognition on the part of President Clinton that there's a special situation with the Central American immigrants obtained to the United States as a result of the war.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Aronson, from your perspective, was today's agreement significant?

BERNARD ARONSON, Former State Department Official: I think it's significant that the President went to Central America--his trip to Mexico. It's important for the United States to show that we care about Latin America, so that in itself is a good thing. I think Isaac is right; that the President probably provided a little bit more help and comfort on the issue of immigration than he did on free trade. He didn't really depart much from established positions on free trade, and I think there he missed a little bit of an opportunity. The Central Americans had proposed something bold, a regional free trade agreement not negotiated country by country with the United States. They understand that the United States isn't ready to do that today; that Chile is first in line. But I think the power of an idea shouldn't be underestimated, and it might have been a bold stroke for the President to embrace it at least rhetorically, but I think it was a successful visit, and the visit to Mexico was extremely successful.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Sen. Dodd, missed opportunity was one of the phrases. How do you evaluate the President's trip today?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: I agree. I think there's unanimity here. This is extremely worthwhile. It's the first visit of an American President to Central America since 1989. It'll be the first visit of an American President at a summit level with Caribbean leaders ever, and of course the visit to Mexico is extremely important. And I think the President was right in describing the realities about the free trade situation. The President has been very clear, in fact, as a candidate in 1992 expressed his strong support for NAFTA. He was able to get that NAFTA agreement through Congress. He has tried over the last now two or three years to get an expanded fast track agreement, and of course a Caribbean trade enhancement act which has been--not been- -the action--there are some legitimate issues about environment and labor issues that must be resolved, and I don't minimize the importance of those, but I think it would have been--for the President to say, don't worry, I can absolutely get this for you, you've got to be mindful that there's a place called the Congress up here, which has very strong feelings on these issues, and--

CHARLES KRAUSE: And you are a member of the Congress . Why isn't the Congress willing to work then with the President to get the authority, the fast-track authority which would allow this--these free trade agreements to be negotiated? Why can't you get it passed?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: I wish I could answer that for you. I happen to be supportive of trying to get the fast track. I want to emphasize I think the environmental and labor issues do have to be resolved, but that question may be better asked of Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Trent Lott. I don't know where either of them stand on this and there's been some indication they're supportive, and it's not to suggest this is partisan. There are Democrats-- obviously Dick Gephardt has expressed some opposition in the past of these issues--in the House, so we need more emphasis on this, more leadership I think in Congress . The President said he'd like to see it get done, so I'm hopeful that it'll happen. Let me just emphasize to you that if we don't move on this in the next few weeks, it'll get harder as you get closer to the election cycle of '98. I think it'll be more difficult politically on these issues, and so it's important that we move quickly.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Aronson, you worked for both Democratic and Republican administration, and you're certainly someone who's now- -I suppose--Washington. How do you evaluate the political situation here with regard to free trade specifically, who's responsible for trying to get something through that will at least help the Central Americans in a time of some need?

BERNARD ARONSON: I think when the Miami summit was held in December of 1994, there was a lot of hope the President embraced commitment to free trade by the year 2005. Then the peso collapsed in Mexico, and I think that undermined the consensus in this country temporarily. But having said that, the United States is missing a huge opportunity in this hemisphere to show some leadership on free trade, and Sen. Dodd is right. The Congress has to give the president that authority. I hope that they'll reach a consensus. This shouldn't be an issue that divides us on partisan basis, and I would hope some compromise could be reached, because as we are failing to move forward, other countries are moving forward. Brazil is taking the lead, the European Union is negotiating with Latin America, and a vacuum has been created in which the United States is failing to take advantage. The special trade representative says that by the year 2010 we're going to export more to this hemisphere than Japan and Europe together.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Fair enough. But we're trying to concentrate on Central America and specifically these five countries. Mr. Cohen, tell me--from Central America's point of view, why is a free trade agreement so important?

ISAAC COHEN: Well, it is essentially because the United States having agreed with Mexico on the North American Free Trade Agreement and Canada, there is a tremendous risk of trade diversion. That means that trade is going and coming from Central America to the United States is not going to be diverted to and from Mexico, and worse still is the fact that there is some investments that are going to Mexico instead of going to Central America. This is the main concern. And I think it's a real concern, and I think the United States has said that since negotiations are in process for creating a free trade of the Americas by 2005, this is the way we should deal with these issues, but in the meantime I think I go back to the point on the Caribbean Basin Initiative, there are some very important products for Central America that still do not enjoy duty free access to the U.S. market, and I think that is the President's commitment in San Jose entails the opening- -the U.S. market to those--to those products, I think this is the major breakthrough.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Sen. Dodd, the President, while he wasn't specific on free trade for Central America, free trade agreement, he certainly did talk about his budget and the fact that certain tariffs will be reduced if his budget is passed. What's the likelihood that that will happen, that in fact Central America will get some relief from the current situation?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: Well, I think that's the strength of our economy. We can do a better job abroad if things are better at home, and clearly with the annual deficit now, it looks as though it may be as low as 70 or 75 billion down from almost 300 billion four years ago, our economy is tremendously strong. That'll allow us, I think, to be more helpful in some of these situations. Let me just underscore the point that was made earlier. Remember, 10 years ago, this very year, 1987, we were talking about Guatemala along with El Salvador, civil war, Nicaragua had a Marxist government there, you had great strength in the region. We're now looking at all of these countries, democratic, the Caribbean, with the exception of Cuba, are democratic governments, and they need our attention, and they need our assistance. It's in our self interest to try and expand the economic opportunities. If not--and I say this with a degree of caution--but these new one- democracies are fragile, and they're going to succeed if it can be proven that this political system can also provide economic opportunity and hope for people and we've got to play a key role in that.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Is the United States doing enough?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: Well, I think we are under the circumstances and again, I think the fact that, as Bernie has pointed out, these were good trips in Mexico and obviously in Costa Rico, then to Barbados, the President will be going to the summit in Chile following on the summit of course he hosted a year or so ago. He'll be traveling in the Southern Cone. I know from talking with him he has a great deal of interest in this area. I think he regrets we didn't pay as much attention in the previous four years, except for the summit, which is not insignificant, and so I look forward to a lot more interest, a lot more renewed activity here in Congress to see if we can't begin to fulfill some of these promises we've made to strengthen the economic opportunities in this hemisphere.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Aronson, do you think the United States is doing all that it should, given the history, the recent history--

BERNARD ARONSON: You know, I think we make a mistake repeatedly in Latin America, paying attention when there are crises, and then when the crises are resolved, we turn away, and that's a historic mistake we need to learn from, and I hope that we will learn this time. The Senator is right. These countries need our support and attention. It's also an opportunity for us. We export more to Central America than Europe and Russia today, but if we don't pay attention, then the problems will start to overrun the countries, and I don't think frankly we are. I think the Congress is sporadic in its attention. I hope the President will follow up his trip with real leadership on the fast track, and I hope this idea of embracing Central America and free trade will be--will be supported because you have to create a goal and some hope for people, even if it isn't going to be realized in the next year or two, and given all of the involvement we've had, we ought to now embrace a positive agenda for the region. And there's an opportunity to do so.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Cohen, you are a Guatemalan citizen. Do you think that the United States is doing all it could for your country and for the other countries in the region?

ISAAC COHEN: I think that the days where the expectation was for the United States to come up with some kind of a system where these countries are really going. I think that we move in times of reciprocity. I think that the Central Americans are committed to a free trade area of the Americas, they're willing to make the sacrifices on the condition that the U.S. opens its market, so instead of aid, we are more interested in trade, I think today in Central America for one thing. On the other hand, no longer are we interested in handouts of foreign assistance because I think those were the instruments of the Cold War. And the fact that today Salvadoran residents in the United States send back about $1.2 billion every year, more than the amount that the United States was pouring in economic assistance for a year in all the countries of Central America is very meaningful, so we are--I think we are beyond the days when the United States was seen as the givers, you know, and its economies were the recipients of favors.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Will it be enough though, is there a danger of political instability?

BERNARD ARONSON: I don't think that Central America or Latin America is going back to dictatorship. I think that people have tasted the fruits of dictatorship on the right and the left, and they don't want it, and I think the forces of the global marketplace keep these countries in line. The real question is: Are we going to have a positive agenda and realize the opportunities and help these countries consolidate democracy and deal with their need for growth, or are we going to kind of be lackadaisical and not pay attention; that's the real issue.

CHARLES KRAUSE: I'm sorry. I'm very sorry but we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you all very, very much.

FOCUS - ON THE SIDELINES

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next, a legal battle over academic standards for college athletes. Joan Cartan-Hansen of Idaho Public Television reports.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Eighteen year old Zach Lawrence wants to play football for Boise State University. In high school he was a top notch fullback, but he was sidelined when he failed to meet the National Collegiate Athletic Association's initial eligibility standards. Under NCAA rules a high school athlete must receive a combined score of at least 820 on the SAT verbal and math test before being allowed to play in any college sport in their freshman year. Lawrence is an above-average student but he has a learning disability that makes it tough for him to process what he reads. He didn't score high enough on the SAT to meet the NCAA's standards.

ZACH LAWRENCE: Just to have someone look at it and just say no, you know, that--that just kind of bugs me because it's like they're not even giving you a chance. They're just kind of--they're just kind of throwing you away. They're just saying, no, you cannot play.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: College-bound high school seniors with learning disabilities are not the only ones who've had trouble with the NCAA's initial eligibility requirement. Ironically, some gifted students have also been denied their certification. The NCAA requires that all student athletes take 13 core courses, and it's the NCAA--not the local school--which decides which courses qualify. Some years and for some students the NCAA accepts classes with titles like Intermediate Algebra or Critical Reading and sometimes it does not. Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone started questioning the NCAA's requirements when dozens of students from his state were denied their initial eligibility after taking advanced level classes.

SEN. PAUL W

ELLSTONE, [D] Minnesota: It's a problem for kids who, again, took Algebra in 8th grade instead of 9th grade, kids who went on and took classes at the college because they did so well, and all of a sudden--they've worked hard, they've been great athletes, they have a good grade point average--and they think they're getting an athletic scholarship--and then they're told they're not going to get it.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Determinations about academic eligibility are made by a private company hired by the NCAA called The Clearing House. The NCAA ran this ad during the recent national college basketball championship game.

AD SPOKESMAN: If you want to play sports at the NCAA in Division 1 or Division 2 schools:

ANOTHER AD SPOKESMAN: You must be certified by the NCAA initial eligibility Clearing House. Remember, if you're not certified, you can't compete as a freshman in Division 1 or 2.

AD SPOKESMAN: Want to play? Know the rules.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Clearing House was established in 1993 to guarantee a level playing field for the country's Division 1 and Division 2 schools. In years past, a student who didn't meet academic standards of one university was simply involved in another. By setting up a single clearing house the NCAA found a way to stop squabbles among universities trying to recruit athletes with academic problems. Boise State University Athletic Director Gene Bleymaier sympathizes with students like Lawrence, who are caught in the NCAA's bureaucracy, but he says the standards are important.

GENE BLEYMAIER, Boise State University: The NCAA would like to- -and best as possible--assure that student and student athletes that come to universities and colleges are qualified to do the work and that there is a good likelihood that these students will go on and be able to graduate. The research that has been done over the years indicates that the higher the standard that the NCAA sets, then the higher the graduation rate of the student athletes that come to the university.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: NCAA officials argue it's better for student athletes who don't meet the initial standards to spend their first year of college concentrating on their studies. If they make the grade after that, then they can play college sports. But Senator Wellstone believes the NCAA may be overreaching its authority.

SEN. PAUL W

ELLSTONE: The question that, you know, I ask, as a former Division 1 athlete and as a college teacher for 20 years, is: who appointed the NCAA to be the super school board for 24,000 schools in this country? It's crazy.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Sen. Wellstone argues that by defining what is an acceptable core course, the NCAA has effectively decided what constitutes a minimum education in America.

SEN. PAUL W

ELLSTONE: The school board association in Minnesota said, we don't want you doing this. I think the National School Board Association is looking at this. I may very well look at this legislatively because I think we now just have had some real injustices.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Lawrence doesn't want to be a victim of what he sees an injustice, so he sued the NCAA, asking a federal court to allow him to play. His attorney, Steve Matthews, says the NCAA's academic standards and its eligibility process are discriminatory.

STEVE MATTHEWS, Attorney: We believe that under the Americans with Disabilities Act that the NCAA has an obligation to evaluate students with legitimate learning disabilities on a case by case basis. Whether it be the core courses, or the SAT scores, they have an obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to examine each student on a case by case basis. And we don't believe that's happening.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: For more than a year the Justice Department has been asking the NCAA to change the way it evaluates learning- disabled students. Since the Lawrence case is in litigation, the NCCA's general counsel declined to comment. Instead, Director of Compliance Services Kevin Lennon sent the NewsHour this videotape of a teleconference for high school personnel. In it, he explains one of several accommodations now being made.

KEVIN LENNON, Director of Compliance Services, NCAA: Students with learning disabilities will be able to submit their own initial eligibility waiver application. Previously, we've required a member institution to do this on the students' behalf. That will no longer be the case for this population, for students with learning disabilities.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Lennon also disputes Sen. Wellstone's allegations about how the NCAA handles gifted students, and he says the NCAA is coming up with new criteria for those students who get stuck in the process. But none of these changes affect Zach Lawrence. What got Lawrence back onto the field was a restraining order against the NCAA. The order allows Lawrence to participate in spring football practice.

ZACH LAWRENCE: I'm the most excited person in the locker room right now. I got there a couple of hours early, and I was just checking my gear, putting it on, making sure it was all right. I'm just excited. I just want to get out there, you know, playing, what I love to do, and just being out here and knowing that I can play without any NCAA rules holding me back from playing.

JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN: Lawrence will still need to go to court to settle the issue of whether the NCAA's rules are discriminatory, but if his challenge is successful, it may also force the NCAA to change the way it processes applications for all student athletes. FINALLY - COMBATING ASTHMA

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, the latest on asthma, the most common chronic illness in children. Twelve to fourteen million people in the United States have asthma and more than four million of them are under the age of eighteen. The number of cases has more than doubled since 1980, as have deaths from the disease. Kids in America's inner cities are especially at risk. A study published today in the "New England Journal of Medicine" begins to explain why, and it involves cockroaches. With us to explain is Dr. Floyd Malveaux, dean of the Howard University College of Medicine. He co- wrote the study. Thanks for being with us, Doctor.

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX, Howard University College of Medicine: It's a pleasure.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What were you seeing in the inner cities that made you start this study?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Well, I think my intro statement is quite accurate. We started to actually see an increase in the illness due to asthma in the 80's. The death rate also increased during the 80's. We saw a tremendous increase actually, of up to 50 percent increase in the death rates. And when we looked at the death rates or analyzed the death rates, the increase was primarily in minority populations, especially in African-Americans. At the beginning of the 80's, for example, for all age groups, African-Americans had a death rate twice as high as that of the rest of the population. But by the end of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's actually the death rate or the disparity between the two had risen to three to one, so most of that increase in death had occurred among minorities. In addition to that, not only did we see an increase in death rates, but we also saw an increase in the prevalence of this disease; that is, people, you know, actually having the disease, which saw an increase in the incidence. People developed the disease.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I read that 8.6 percent of the children in the Bronx have asthma.

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Yes. That's also very interesting because it seems that among certain groups of individuals that the rate is disproportionately high. Among some Hispanic populations, for example, it is relatively high. Among African-Americans it is also slightly higher, but certainly not high enough to, I think, explain the disparity and the mortality and the morbidity that we're seeing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So what did you find in the study?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: In this particular study this study really is a take from I think other findings in the past, where people have looked at sensitivity to environmental allergens, or things that people are allergic to, with all those allergens. We've looked at allergens in inner-city populations because that's where a lot of the morbidity is. The illness--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Morbidity--

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Being illness associated with asthma. So obviously we found that in this particular study there's a correlation between being allergic to cockroaches and also having a relatively high concentration of cockroaches within your own environment. That contributes to the illness.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In other words, if you have a lot of cockroaches, you tend to get allergic to them and then you develop asthma?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: That is true, except that in order to develop the allergies you have to have the genetic predisposition to do that. So not everyone is going to develop allergies. Simply because you're exposed to high levels of cockroach antigen or allergen, so to speak, you won't necessarily develop the sensitivity to them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What is asthma and how would a cockroach give it to you?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Yes. Well, asthma is a--is a problem of the lungs, where individuals have difficulty breathing. It's manifested by some wheezing sounds, tightness in the chest, sometimes coughing, especially coughing at night, and the reason for that is because there is partial obstruction of what we call the bronchial tubes or the air tubes, those tubes that carry the air directly into the lungs. Over time there may be inflammation actually within the walls of those two, again leading to that obstruction.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There have always been cockroaches in America. There have always been poor people in America. Why wouldn't there be more asthma now, and why would it be related to cockroaches?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Well, certainly we're not saying that because this study shows that there is this correlation that is necessarily the reason that we're seeing this tremendous increase, obviously not. I think that there are many factors associated with this. I think that really the reason we're seeing the increases related to poverty. People who live in poverty or live in crowded conditions. They have more cockroaches. They experience other problems as well. They have limited access to health care. I think that is contributing to the increase in the mortality and the morbidity of asthma.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And here you're talking about asthma overall, not just with children but asthma worldwide, which is going up dramatically.

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: That's correct.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you think it has to do with poverty.

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Absolutely. Because if you look in different populations, not only in this country, certainly in Australia and New Zealand, we see the same types of things. And among poor individuals there, the death rate is higher, the morbidity is higher. We've done the analyses in our cities here in this country. If you go into places like Chicago; Washington, D.C.; New York; and look at where the concentration of hospitalizations occur because of this disease, look at where most of the deaths occur in this disease, you will see them concentrated primarily in those areas where there is significant poverty.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: If I have this cockroach problem and my kids had asthma or I had asthma, what should I do about it, what should one do?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Well, for anyone who has asthma, there are a couple of things, or a number of things that can be done. First of all, if you are allergic to something, first you should try to avoid it. Even if you're not allergic, if there are irritants, for example, like tobacco smoke, you have to avoid tobacco smoke, so clearly we recommend that individuals who have children with asthma should not be smoking in the home at all, not in the next bedroom or the next room, but not at all.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Trouble with cockroaches. They're really hard to get rid of it.

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: Cockroaches are difficult to get rid of, but we do have means, actually, of doing that. There are now from some compounds that--that are quite effective, but, you know, probably the best way to do this or to attack that problem is a good dose of education. And that is teaching people how to deprive cockroaches of food and water. That's what they desire. They will go where the food and the water is. So if there are no dirty dishes in the sink at night, for example, and we deprive them of that source of food and water, tie up the garbage, make sure they don't have access to that, they will go somewhere else and actually seek their food and water.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Some of the articles about your study have said that one of the reasons that the rate of asthma may be rising in inner cities among children and the tie-in to cockroaches is partly that kids are inside so much more, so they're spending more time perhaps in a bedroom eating in front of the TV, the cockroaches are in their bedroom, they sleep there, they're there all the time, because it's dangerous to be outside. Is that a misreading of your study?

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: I don't think we can interpret the study that way. I think that's an extension perhaps of what the data actually shows. Data in the study shows that there is a correlation between being allergic and having high levels of exposure in your environment. Then you are likely to have more symptoms, or you will have more symptoms. That's what the study shows. Why you are actually exposed to higher levels and so on is conjecture. Certainly if individuals spend more time in the homes now, then their exposure is going to be greater. So there may be some correlation here but the study really doesn't indicate that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thanks for being with us, Dr. Malveaux.

DR. FLOYD MALVEAUX: It's a pleasure. RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton today promised Central American leaders there will be no mass deportations of Central Americans under the new U.S. immigration law. The House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing violent juvenile offenders to be tried as adults, and late today the Senate passed a disaster relief bill. It included an amendment to prevent a repeat of the 1995 budget-related federal government shutdown. The President has vowed to renew it. We'll be with you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot and more. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.