The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, Congressmen making last minute decisions discuss tomorrow's tough vote on NAFTA. We have a report on anti-Mafia feeling in Italian local elections, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault discusses human rights with the head of Amnesty International. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: President Clinton pulled out all the stops today in his bid to win tomorrow's House vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement. The White House spent the day wooing lawmakers on both sides of the aisle using enticements like new wheat protections for western legislators and help for citrus producers for members of the Florida delegation. Late today, White House officials claimed to be just "single digits" away from the 218 votes needed to prevail. But while the President picked up votes, he also drew criticism. AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland accused him of abdicating his leadership of the Democratic Party by offering political cover to Republicans who voted yes. The President responded after a meeting with pro-NAFTA governors at the White House this morning.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: My job is to try to lead the United States and to try to help this country move forward and to do what I think is right to get that done. I do not believe we can grow this economy without expanding our trade. I'm doing the job that the people elected me to do to try to expand the economy.

MS. WARNER: The President brushed aside criticism that he was trying to buy votes with political favors. He said lawmakers who made special requests were nobly motivated by concern for their constituents but congressional opponents of NAFTA attacked the President's dealmaking.

REP. MARCY KAPTUR, [D] Ohio: You know, there are two trade agreements going on. One is NAFTA, and the other trading votes for pork, which is now going on within the bowels of the White House. And you can't believe what they're trading. Some people are going to trade America and our working people for peanuts, some for citrus, some for sugar, some for home appliances, some for grazing fees, some for rapid transit systems, roads, bridges, harbors, airplanes, banks, and even helium facilities. What is going on here is wrong, and I say to the President of the United States, win it on the merits, not the pork.

MS. WARNER: We'll have more on the story right after the News summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington unanimously ruled today that the Naval Academy must allow the graduation of a midshipman who admitted to being gay. The court also ordered that he be commissioned as an officer. Joseph Steffan was forced to resign from the academy in 1987, six weeks before his graduation. A Navy investigation had confirmed that Steffan told a fellow midshipman about his sexual orientation but found no evidence that he engaged in any homosexual conduct. The Navy had no immediate response to today's ruling. In a White House ceremony today, President Clinton signed legislation making it more difficult for the government to interfere with religious practices. The bill is designed to counteract a 1990 Supreme Court ruling which curtailed the rights of native Americans who used an hallucinogenic drug in religious ceremonies.

MS. WARNER: A survey released today said that nearly 5 million elderly Americans live in fear that they won't have enough to eat. The study was conducted by the Urban Institute, a Washington-based research group. About 10 percent of those questioned said they sometimes went without food because they had no money. A similar number said they occasionally were forced to choose between buying food or medicine. The report said that many elderly who expressed such fears live well above the poverty line.

MR. MacNeil: Violence continued in the Mideast today. Two Palestinians were killed in the occupied territories, and in South Lebanon, Muslim guerrillas launched rockets at Israel's self- declared security zone. They were the heaviest such raids in two months and brought quick retaliation from Israel. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

LOUISE BATES, WTN: It's the worst fighting in South Lebanon in months, Israeli warplanes pounding what they said were Hezbollah positions. And there were artillery and rocket duels between the two sides. Israel also moved to beef up its forces in the area. An artillery convoy supported by Israeli paratroopers headed North as did a unit of Israeli armor. There was also trouble in the occupied territories. In the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian man stabbed and injured two Israelis before being shot dead by a bystander. The Israelis said the dead Palestinian belonged to a militant Muslim group that's opposed to the Israel-PLO peace deal. In the West Bank, mourners buried a Palestinian teenager shot dead only hours before when Israeli troops stormed a school and shot at youngsters who they said were throwing stones at them. The killing of the 16- year-old boy sparked riots in the West Bank town of El-Bireh. And in Hebron, Jewish settlers went on the rampage, damaging Palestinian property in retaliation for an attack on a Jewish settler on Monday.

MR. MacNeil: A dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over their shared border flared today into an incursion into Kuwait by more than 300 Iraqis. They were protesting Kuwait's construction of a 15-foot- wide security trench along the border. Official Kuwaiti reports said Iraqi soldiers also opened fire on a border post near the demonstration. The Iraqis left the area after U.N. observers intervened. That's our summary of the news. Now it's on to last- minute decisions about NAFTA, Italy's anti-Mafia campaign, and a Charlayne Hunter-Gault conversation. FOCUS - NAFTA - COUNTING VOTES

MS. WARNER: First tonight, NAFTA. Tomorrow the long legislative battle over the North American Free Trade Agreement ends with an evening vote in the House of Representatives. The Clinton administration and it's pro-NAFTA allies won additional converts today in a contest both sides said was still too close to call. We begin our look at the NAFTA end game with a background report by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: Pennsylvania Republican George Gekas had been leaning in favor of NAFTA. Today he became a definite yes.

REP. GEORGE GEKAS, [R] Pennsylvania: There is no choice but to support NAFTA because in the final run it is American spirit and American competitiveness that will prevail and make NAFTA work.

MR. HOLMAN: Louisiana Democrat Billy Tauzin had been leaning against NAFTA. Today he came a definite no.

REP. BILLY TAUZIN, [D] Louisiana: NAFTA will on January 1, 1994, allow unlimited amounts of Mexican sugar in the form of candy to come into our country duty free. Fool us once, your fault. Fool us twice, our fault. Mr. Speaker, the so-called "sugar letter" may read "Dear Sweetie" today but tomorrow we fully expect it to say, "Dear John." Tomorrow my vote will be against NAFTA.

MR. HOLMAN: And Democrat Jim McDermott of Seattle definitely hasn't made up his mind.

MR. HOLMAN: What will you decide based upon?

REP. JIM McDERMOTT, [D] Washington: What I think is in the long-term best interest of the state and the city of Seattle. We are a state that is heavily dependent on trade but I have had a long history of being involved with labor and the environment, so it's a very tough decision. I have friends on both sides who feel very strongly. Usually when I vote, all the good guys seem to be on my side. It's not that way this time.

MR. HOLMAN: As long as Jim McDermott and the other two dozen or so members of the House of Representatives remain undeclared on NAFTA, they can expect to hear from Congressman Bill Richardson.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON, [D] New Mexico: [on phone] Hi. Is he there? How are you doing? Hey, listen, hey listen. What are your thoughts today? You know, it's down to the wire. We're going to need you. We're going to need you.

MR. HOLMAN: Richardson, a Democrat from New Mexico, is one of the top House strategists in favor of NAFTA. He is engaged in what he calls hand-to-hand combat, fighting for every last vote.

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: [on phone] We're going to need you, man. What can I tell you? It's down to maybe five or six like you. Can you go today? Can we talk today?

MR. HOLMAN: Congressman, it's almost midday. Where are you with the votes?

REP. BILL RICHARDSON: Well, we're cautiously optimistic that we will make the goal of 100 Democrats to complement the 120 Republicans, but there's a giddiness on the side of the NAFTA supporters that is mistaken. We don't have the votes yet. We're about eight short on the Democratic side and another ten short on the Republican side. Momentum is with us. We've had a good day. We've got several positive conversions of members that are previously undecided but anything can happen on the floor of the House. You can have a revolt on a bill that surely appears to pass. You can have a defeat. I am convinced that we will not know the outcome until we go into the vote tomorrow at 9 o'clock in the morning.

MR. HOLMAN: But debate over NAFTA has created an extraordinary political alliance on Capitol Hill. House Democrats and Republicans frequently at opposite ends of bitter, partisan debates, have been civil, even cordial towards each other as they work these last hours to get NAFTA passed.

NEWT GINGRICH: And we're getting together not just to give you a photo op but to actually work a list of names in a way I've never seen in the Congress on a bipartisan basis. It's because, I think, we have a chance to put together enough Democrats and Republicans to get to a majority on Wednesday. I think it's very close. I think we can do it, but I don't think anybody should kid themselves. This is a full court press for the next 48 hours.

MR. HOLMAN: The unique nature of this relationship leaves some questioning its sincerity.

SPOKESPERSON: When all the votes are being counted in the middle of the roll call, do you really trust Newt Gingrich with what may be the future of your presidency?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, I wouldn't even characterize it that way. I believe that Newt Gingrich believes in NAFTA just like I do, and I believe he wants it to pass. And do I trust him to do everything he can to deliver every vote he can? You bet I do. And let me say that, you know, we can't win for losing around here. When we were voting on the budget, you were asking me how terrible -- wasn't it terrible we didn't have any Republicans voting with us.

MR. HOLMAN: The President's problems this time around are mostly with Democrats. The top Democrat vote getters in the House, Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Majority Whip David Bonior, are working against NAFTA and pulling a number of Democrats and Republicans along with them.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Majority Leader: The Clinton presidency and all of us will be judged by how the economy does. I can argue to you that this NAFTA will not help the economy. We need a better NAFTA. We need to take care of a lot of problems that weren't taken care of in this draft. So I would argue to you that we would help the future of the country, we would help people's standard of living, and ultimately we'd help the re-election effort of President Clinton and others by getting a better NAFTA.

MR.HOLMAN: Pressure on the undeclared House members will continue through tomorrow, right up to the vote scheduled for tomorrow night.

MS. WARNER: Both sides focused their attention today on Florida's 23-member delegation. President Clinton said they can turn the tide for NAFTA. Perot supporters urged the mostly anti-NAFTA lawmakers to stand firm as they entered a closed meeting this morning but several members later indicated they were thinking of voting yes. We turn now to four newly-declared members of the House of Representatives and one who is still undecided. Rep. Marge Roukema is a Republican from New Jersey who yesterday came out for NAFTA. Rep. Bob Torricelli, a Democrat, is also from New Jersey. Yesterday he declared his intention to vote no. Democrat Glen English from Oklahoma today pledged to vote for NAFTA, and Republican Congressman Bob Inglis from South Carolina said yesterday he plans to vote no. And Mel Reynolds is a Democrat from Illinois. He joins us following an afternoon meeting at the White House where President Clinton made a pitch for his support. Congressman Reynolds still has not said which way he'll vote. Welcome to all of you. Congresswoman, let me start with you. Why did you finally decide to come out for NAFTA?

REP. ROUKEMA: I made my decision based on the complete survey I'd made of all the issues, particularly how they're going to impact the economy and capital investment both here and abroad. I am absolutely convinced that unless we reach out to new markets in the new global economy, the Cold War is gone, it's a global economic war, and we have to create these markets for our goods overseas, and this is the opportunity to do it. As far as I'm concerned, the jobs that have been lost either to Mexico thus far or more particularly to Southeast Asia, they're gone. They're gone, and they won't come back. But we do have an obligation the next four, five, ten years to create the capital flows that are going to create new jobs, higher quality jobs in the United States.

MS. WARNER: well, Congressman Torricelli, what tipped the balance for you against NAFTA?

REP. TORRICELLI: Well, sharing those same commitments in the believe in, in free trade and the need for America to export, in the final analysis, the agreement to me just wasn't good enough. Without guarantees that Mexican labor can organize, without sufficient guarantees that we're not exploiting the Mexican environment by sending companies there to evade our laws, I don't think we're creating a free market. We're creating, instead, a situation where people simply evade many of the laws that we've composed here in the United States. I think by going back, by rejecting this NAFTA, and telling the Mexicans that if you want to be in free trade with the United States, you must respect the rights of labor, and generally create a market that is competitive, therefore, by equal obligations of both sides, and by strong environmental laws, we'd be having a better agreement.

MS. WARNER: Give me a little analysis here, the two of you. You're from two districts in New Jersey, the same state, a high unemployment rate, your districts actually abut. You both struggled with this, yet, in the end you came to totally different views. How do you explain that, Congresswoman?

REP. ROUKEMA: Interesting isn't it, yes. Well, I looked at the kind of businesses we have in New Jersey, whether it's pharmaceuticals, medical devices, automobile parts, financial services. My district is somewhat a bedroom community for financial services. In all those areas I know we are going to profit greatly because of the intellectual property rights, the way they're handled. That's a boom to telecommunications, AT&T, pharmaceuticals. Those are booms for a state like New Jersey, and, indeed, the whole country. Financial services, the agreements will open up for the first time enormous investment opportunities in Mexico. And that's important to all of us because to the extent that they can expand investment, that makes jobs right here at home.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Torricelli, are your industries that different from the Congresswoman's?

REP. TORRICELLI: No. I think we probably went through a similar process, looked at the same facts, and came to narrowly a very different conclusion. I think everything that Marge said is true. All those industries will benefit and grow over a period of time. Long-term there advantages in NAFTA for the country and for my state. Part of the problem is that in the near-term, however, there are dislocations, in light assembly, in manufacturing, in the garment industry, and I suppose coming out of a recession I simply can't look those people in the eye and tell them that for some long-term advantages, for higher income people, you are going to pay a price now, particularly in light of the environmental and the labor rights issues that I also cited.

REP. ROUKEMA: I'd like to add something, because I did reach out to the labor community too, and there is no question but that we need more investment in retraining and new skills and providing a bridge for the transition. I think the North American Development Bank, which is going to be part of this, that has already been agreed upon, will be the bridge to the future for those that are dislocated.

MS. WARNER: Let me get Congressman Glen English in this now. Congressman English, you came out today finally for NAFTA after a lot of agonizing and dealmaking, I gather, with the White House. What turned the tide for you?

REP. ENGLISH: We're not with regard to the specifics of NAFTA but with regard to enforcement -- we've seen trade agreement after trade agreement in which agriculture -- and that's the primary industry in my district -- has come up short. We've not seen those agreements lived up to, we've not seen enforcement, and our big problem is the enforcement area. What we worked out is making certain not only that this agreement will be enforced as it applies to agriculture but make sure that the Canadian agreement which had passed earlier and is in effect, that some of the ills are corrected in it.

MS. WARNER: And you've got those assurances from the White House?

REP. ENGLISH: Indeed, we have. We went further than just getting assurances. We got the actual mechanism. We know down in detail exactly how it's going to be done and how it will be targeted to make sure it's done.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Bob Inglis, you didn't get similar assurances from the White House concerning your own industries, I gather. Is that what tipped the balance for you against NAFTA?

REP. INGLIS: Well, I asked the President actually to give me some assurances in a letter that I sent to him that we would focus on developing an investment friendly climate in this country. Unfortunately, there was no response to that. In my opinion, the problem with NAFTA is not so much NAFTA, itself. NAFTA by itself might be all right. It creates, in my opinion, a positive, investment friendly climate in Mexico. The problem, in my opinion, is what we are doing in America. We are daily in the Congress of the United States making America investment unfriendly with the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, the family medical leave bill, striker replacement, payroll tax for health care, payroll tax for job retraining, increase in minimum wage. All of these things that are coming down the pike will make America investment unfriendly, and when you put those together, that's the problem. NAFTA's a slightly positive draw to Mexico, and it'll bleed off investment dollars is my fear.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Inglis, it seems to me you and Congressman English, your districts are similar in that you both had particular industries or agricultural products that were threatened. If the President had done something say for the textile industry in the way of protection, could you have been persuaded to vote for NAFTA?

REP. INGLIS: I don't think so. In fact, as you know, the textile industry is very divided on this, or actually the plurality is probably for it because they got some protections. There's a domestic content requirement that some in the textile industry feel would be a good thing and result in expanded opportunities for the American textile industry. So it's not so much that particular industry, although I am very concerned about that industry, of course. It's really the whole manufacturing base of our economy and whether we're creating in this country an investment friendly climate. I fear that we're not, and until we correct that, I've got to focus on that, on that problem of NAFTA being the force that will draw away some investment dollars and thereby taking away jobs.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Torricelli, let me ask you this. When you and your colleagues are all debating something like this and it's heavily lobbied and there is no clear cut, partisan separation, what in the end usually tips it, do you think? I mean, is it concern for your district? Is it concern for your future politically, which, of course, has to be a factor, or you can look -- step back and look at the big picture? What do you think in the will prevail?

REP. TORRICELLI: In a large institution people come to the judgment in different ways. There are certainly many people -- the long-term interest of the country is what dominates. That's why they're there, they take a national perspective, and that's their decision, and many who come with the concerns legitimately of individual industries, their communities, their states. Somehow it is the genius of this process that when you put all of those together it tends to produce the best result. And for all the cynicism, in my experience, that tends to be the case.

MS. WARNER: So did you think -- the New York Times today, as you know, editorialized about all the Congressmen and Congresswomen around the New York area and said those of you got lots and lots of money from labor, such as yourself, were, as they put it, running scared from NAFTA -- is that just unfair?

REP. TORRICELLI: I thought the New York Times did a real disservice to what otherwise has been one of the better debates I've heard in the Congress. I have never seen an institution take an issue so seriously and spend so much time. The New York Times listed PAC contributions from labor. Well, they could have also listed the PAC contributions from industry or wealthy individuals who support it. I thought that was a low point in the national debate and significantly off the mark.

MS. WARNER: What do you think drives a decision like this?

REP. ROUKEMA: I tend to agree with Congressman Torricelli. I think that the Congress divides up into certain interest groups, regional as well as sector, whether it's agricultural or financial services, but I think that the balance of power in a debate like this goes to those of us that are really trying desperately to look at the national future and the national picture. And I think there are a good number of those that see their own constituents' interests in concert with the national interest. And I think despite the fact that both sides treated the subject very poorly initially, making outlandish claims and prognostications that didn't have any connection with reality, whether they were predicting job losses or job increases, and this approach that this is a no-brainer. It wasn't a no-brainer. It was a serious topic of discussion, especially for a country with a middle class that finds its job opportunities escaping, and they are fearful that the middle class is going to be eroded. So this is serious business. I think in the end, despite the special interests, I think the balance will come down in favor of what's the national interest.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Glenn English, where do you think the balance is here between special interests and national interests in terms of the debate in these closing days?

REP. ENGLISH: Well, I think there's obviously a mix. I think that every member does come to his own decision in different ways, but I think that obviously all of us have to keep in mind the impact it is going to have on our district, and that does weigh very heavily upon us. But bottom line is that we all live in a country that's united and I think that all of us are convinced that this process gives us the best possible decision. So I feel we're going to come up with the right decision whichever way it goes.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Reynolds, let me ask you -- you're still wrestling with your decision -- has anything you've heard tonight help you? Do you look forward shortly to joining this company of people who've decided?

REP. REYNOLDS: Well, I'm -- thanks for coming to me, I appreciate it. I have listened to the debate for quite some time now. I didn't want to be an automatic no or an automatic yes. I think traditionally new members have been expected to act a certain way when they got here. I had a chance today to talk to the President, and we discussed this issue. I talked with labor, which I think has, quite frankly, has overreacted to this in a very sort of mean- spirited way. I've spoken with the business industry who also, in my opinion, has in some instances overstepped their bounds. And so this has been a difficult decision, but I have to make my decision. I'm making my decision on whether or not I think this is good for the Second Congressional District of Illinois. And then there's another part. I think that we have to look out for those in our society who are in the lower income classes and in the middle class, and for African-Americans in particular, as it relates to myself, I have to be certain that when someone callously says, well, some low-wage displacement or dislocation is going to take place, that that doesn't mean the African-Americans in my district. And I have to look at the traditional parts of the business community that African-Americans are in, transportation, the service section, sector, and how are those industries going to be affected if the NAFTA goes through, and will, it in fact, create jobs? And that's what I'm hashing over now and will be making a final decision tomorrow at midday.

MS. WARNER: And how effective is the lobbying that you're being subjected to? In other words, tell us a little bit about it. And does it influence your thinking?

REP. REYNOLDS: Well, the most effective lobbying when it comes to myself is lobbying that is serious but is very thoughtful and deals with the merits. When I'm approached and told that if I don't vote for something, we're going to work to defeat you, that to me is, is not something that I consider at all. For the most part, I've talked to heads of national labor unions, and for the most part they have been fair. I talked to leaders of business, and for the most part, they have been fair. I think the most, the best way to influence me is by talking about the substantive merits of this debate. This is not an easy debate. If anyone thinks it is, then they ought to just come and see the reams of notes and documents that we've had to pore through for the last six months, especially in the Congress and especially on the Ways and Means Committee where we had to look at this thing, look at it very hard, and I think that all -- and there are sincere people on both sides of this. People who decided to vote for it, who decided to vote against it are very sincere folks and who just have intellectual, if you will, disagreements on this.

MS. WARNER: And have you felt threatened by possible retribution from labor if say you were to vote for NAFTA?

REP. REYNOLDS: One must remember who I defeated to get here, and they will realize that I'm not easily taken to threat. And so yes, I have been threatened. That has not played in any way into my decision. If anything, that's the wrong approach with me. I think that once this over, no matter how I vote, we need to sit down, the business community as well as labor, and we need to discuss this. You know, I'm 11 for 11 since I've been in Congress in labor votes, and I would hate to think that we can't discuss things if I happen to vote for NAFTA, and I'd also hate to think that the business community would not be willing to sit down if I voted against NAFTA.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Torricelli, what about this issue of feeling threatened by labor if you -- you are voting against NAFTA, of course -- but how much of a factor do you think that's been?

REP. TORRICELLI: Labor and business have had the importance of NAFTA all out of perspective. It is --

MS. WARNER: Both sides.

REP. TORRICELLI: It is important to the country but Mexico has an economy that is 4 percent of the United States. The border is largely already open to investment with low tariffs. The difficulty I think in labor's perspective has been that all the years of frustration witnessing bad trade agreements with Japan and Korea and China has come to be represented, inappropriately in my judgment, with NAFTA, as one who believes in the North American Free Trade Agreement but simply has trouble with some of the details of this agreement. There is going to be win or lose tomorrow a North American Free Trade Agreement. If this fails, the President simply must the next day pick up and start this process again and improve it. And I think over time, I hope, labor and business get this into perspective and understand the long-term advantages.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree with them, that both sides have been too intense?

REP. ROUKEMA: Oh, absolutely, and I don't think they've done their arguments justice, I really don't, because of that intensity and the unfairness of their, their approaches initially. I've got to say that business did come around and they were very forthright and very open and intelligent in the approaches that we ultimately made. But I want to say something though about whether or not there's somethingbeyond Wednesday if we walk away from this agreement. Canada is already talking about opening negotiations with Mexico on a bilateral agreement if this fails. Japan and Southeast Asia we know are standing there. This may not be perfect but I believe the handwriting is on the wall, that we will lose something ultimately if we don't approve this treaty tomorrow.

MS. WARNER: But there's no future treaty if this one doesn't --

REP. ROUKEMA: Not one that is as good for our own country as I believe this one will be.

MS. WARNER: On the subject of retribution, I wanted to ask you, because Ross Perot, of course, has also threatened particularly Republicans who do not vote his way, and I think he got about 16 percent in your district. Did you fear, or do you feel that threat?

REP. ROUKEMA: I have felt the threat, yes. It's definitely out there. I've had long conversations with the Perot people and my phone has been ringing off the hook since my decision on this with a lot of vituperative reactions from the United We Stand people against my position. I don't know how much they will carry through on that. I do think, without question, the vast majority of my people will understand and endorse my decision.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Bob Inglis, how powerful are the Perot people in your district, and has their lobbying had any impact on, on you?

REP. INGLIS: United We Stand America is a significant force in our district, and, of course, the interesting thing about this debate, as you heard here tonight, is that there are people on both sides that are very, very serious about their either opposition or support for the agreement, and it is very difficult to, to look out in an audience and see people whose judgment you respect on very different sides of the issue. So it's, it's a hard one to call.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Glenn English, do you agree with that? Is that what makes it particularly difficult, that the normal lines, I think what Congressman Bob Inglis is saying, is that the normal lines, your normal allies aren't necessarily where they usually are.

REP. ENGLISH: I don't think it's necessarily that as much as it is that a lot of the argument has been exaggerated on both sides, and I think emotion is playing an enormous role as opposed to logic and reason and facts, and that's what I think has really become unfortunate, but there's no question people feel very strongly about this issue. There's times in which there's a question of how much they really no about the real NAFTA. I think that's become obscured with emotion.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Reynolds, do you agree with that, that emotion is playing too big a role?

REP. REYNOLDS: I think there's no question that emotion is playing a big role but when you tell somebody that they're going to lose their job -- I had a gentleman call me on Friday in my district, and he said, "I'm opposed to NAFTA." I was talking to anyone that called that wanted to talk about NAFTA, and he said, "I'm opposed to NAFTA." And I said, "Why?" He said, "They're going to transport my job to Mexico." I said, "Where do you work?" He said, "I work for the City of Chicago." I think there's a lot of distortion, and I don't mean to take it lightly. But I've gotten a lot of close kind of calls. A lady came into our office on Saturday and was almost in tears and my wife, who's my political director, was sitting there, and she took the lady into the conference room and she talked to her, and she was worried about losing her job. My wife said, "What do you do?" She said, "I'm a nurse." It's -- there's been so much emotion and so much distortion that this -- and these decisions that are going to be the future of our country -- and that's what we're talking about here -- we need to be able to sit down and make measured and detailed and substantive analysis without this emotional whipping going on in order that we can make intelligent decisions.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Torricelli, do you think this emotional whipping is, that that's the right way to describe it?

REP. TORRICELLI: The nation I am glad has had this important debate, but not only has it been out of perspective with importance, it has been very highly charged. And I think one part of this they we haven't yet addressed today is the emotional impact this is having within the administration. My guess is, is the President wins this tomorrow by a very narrow margin, but it may be the question what he had won, given the state of emotions. He has turned against the core constituency of the Democratic Party, labor at variance to the environmental community which has been critical to this electoral success of this administration, against a majority of House Democrats he's going to need for health care reform and much more important issues for this country and an alliance with Newt Gingrich. I think before the administration does too much cheering tomorrow night if they win, they had best thing long and hard about the long-term consequences of this victory.

MS. WARNER: Well, I'm sure we're going to be thinking long and hard about victory or defeat in the coming days. Thank you, Congresswoman, gentlemen. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, a report from Italy and Amnesty International. FOCUS - ELECTION ITALIAN STYLE

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, a report from Italy on an election held under the gun. The guns are those of the police and the army. They've been sent to Sicily to protect individuals and candidates who oppose the Mafia in its stronghold. Gaby Rado of Independent Television News reports from Palermo.

MR. RADO: The Italian army on duty in Sicily, guarding the home of a hotel proprietor in the small resort town of Capo D'Orlando. These days, wherever Rosario Damiano goes, even if it's only to the reception of his own hotel, armed police are there beside him. He's lived like this for two years since he was a key witness in the trial which put 18 local Mafiosi in jail. There's other proof here that the threat's still present. It was at this car showroom that the gangsters first struck, setting fire to vehicles and shooting up the dealership signs. But it was also here that the revolt of Capo D'Orlando began. The showroom manager didn't follow Sicilian custom, which is to keep silent and pay protection money. He joined up with other shopkeepers in town and resisted the Mafia.

FRANCESCO SIGNORINO, Garage Owner: [speaking through interpreter] I was afraid to because I accused them because I was at the end of my tether. I was desperate. I couldn't find a solution so I immediately collaborated together with the other businessmen. That's how I got the association going.

MR. RADO: It's not a typical Sicilian tale. Palermo, the island's capital, is still controlled by Mafia families who call their organization "Cosa Nostra," "Our Affair." They've divided up the city amongst themselves with their own system of government, taxes, and laws. The Mafia is invisible, but its influence can be seen everywhere, such as in the unhindered building projects and land speculation which have failed to improve the lives of ordinary people. It's also led to a corrupt bureaucratic chaos which means only some 30 percent of public money actually gets spent. And what's helped the Mafia is the withdrawn, secretive nature of this society. For instance, it's well known that shopkeepers everywhere are paying protection money to the Mafia but they won't have talked about it to each other, nor probably will they have mentioned it even to their closest relatives. Here in Palermo, the Mafia has made sure people know what happens to those who do speak out. Pina Grassi runs a fabric shop in central Palermo. Outside in the streets stand three plainclothes policemen whom we weren't allowed to film. They're there because two years ago Mrs. Grassi's husband, Libro, refused to pay protection money. Mrs. Grassi is sure that her husband was killed because he'd come out in the open, setting a public example. And the Mafia's vicious response has had the intended result.

PINA GRASSI: [speaking through interpreter] On the anniversary of my husband's death, we received many messages of support as well as tributes at the place where he was killed, but there was no word from his traders' association nor any official acknowledgement.

MR. RADO: An image more familiar to bygone days in Latin America: Barbed wire and an army present outside a Catholic Church. The heavy security is here to protect the parish priest of Santa Lucia because he's a Mafia target as proved by the bullet holes in the wall. Father Paolo Turturro lives with the knowledge that two months ago the Cosa Nostra gunned down a fellow campaigning priest. Palermo has a growing number of clerics ashamed of the blind eye which until recently the Catholic Church turned on the Mafia and its moral defilement of society. Father Paolo is now engaged in caring for poor children who in the old days would have been natural recruits for the gangsters.

FATHER PAOLO TURTURRO: [speaking through interpreter] Here, the neighborhoods have been forgotten, not just in Palermo but all over Sicily. The parish as 12,000 inhabitants. Up till now it's never had a school or a field for playing games. For 50 years, the Mafia took advantage and offered people power and the chance to exploit others. So the Mafia became a mentality, a way of life for them.

MR. RADO: A key moment in the struggle to galvanize the public against organized crime was the murder of the anti-Mafia magistrate, Giovanni Falconi, his wife, and three bodyguards in a horrifying bomb attack near Palermo last year. That, and the killing a few weeks later of another investigator, Paolo Borcelino, led to an up surge of public revulsion, still evident today in tributes left on a tree outside Falconi's old apartment. The murders, coming as they did, during the cleanup of Italian public life, forced the then-government into sending several thousand troops to Sicily and into giving the police the powers the magistrate had long requested to tackle the Mafia. Many suspected leaders of the organization were arrested, some in their homes where they'd lived undisturbed for years. It also made the Mafia a key political issue. The three main candidates for next Sunday's elections of the mayor of Palermo all have anti-Mafia credentials. Alfonso Giordano is a judge who handed down a total of 2600 years in jail terms during Mafia trials in the mid '80s. Former Mayor Al Depucci was herself a victim of an assassination attempt, while the frontrunner, Leoluca Orlando, another former mayor, leads a national party, La Rata, whose main platform is fighting organized crime. The closed curtains in broad daylight shows a campaign conducted to the accompaniment of death threats. The mayor of Palermo must be one of the most dangerous political posts in the world. Orlando clearly sees it as a springboard for national leadership.

LEOLUCA ORLANDO, Mayoral Candidate, Palermo: I really believe because I am not alone, because the majority of population of Palermo is tired to live between shame and fear, and is now the time to change. In the rest of Italy, the system is still strong, the old politics is still strong, but in Palermo,I think that we can hope to change something before the other part of our country.

MR. RADO: If Orlando wins, he'll be taking on the state-within- a-state created by the Mafia, and he'll be fighting it a time when the political system is in turmoil, an extra burden, because history has shown that the Mafia gains strength when government is weak. CONVERSATION

MS. WARNER: Finally, our regular Tuesday night Charlayne Hunter- Gault conversation. Tonight she talks with Pierre Sane, secretary general of Amnesty International, the world's largest independent human rights group. Their conversation followed the release of a recent amnesty report detailing human rights abuses.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In chilling detail, Amnesty describes officially sanctioned murders in more than 60 countries in its latest report "Getting Away With Murder." The report argues that it's no longer just dictatorship an authoritarian regimes that are violating the rights of their citizens but governments that have stated commitments to human rights are now gunning down their opponents as part of a deliberate policy of repression. Amnesty cites India and Turkey as two such cases. Amnesty also names what it calls some of the world's worst human rights violators, countries like China, Iraq, and Burma. It also singles out Latin American countries like El Salvador, Colombia, and Brazil as using covert operations by death squads and armed paramilitary groups. I met with Pierre Sane in Washington in October as he was beginning an eight-month campaign to stop the bloodshed and terror. The 45- year-old native of Senegal has been secretary general of Amnesty since 1992.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Pierre Sane, thank you for joining us.

PIERRE SANE, Secretary General, Amnesty International: Thank you for inviting me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You've said that the disappeared pose the greatest threats to human rights in the '90s. Explain to us what is the disappeared and why you made that statement.

PIERRE SANE: The disappeared are people who have been taken into custody by governments and for whom government deny any knowledge in terms of their whereabouts. Government deny that they are holding them prisoners, and very often those people end up after having been tortured end up being killed and their bodies are dumped somewhere. We have documented thousands and thousands of cases like this from Latin America to Africa, to Asia, and we feel it is important we bring this phenomenon that is spreading to the attention of the International Community.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is it spreading?

PIERRE SANE: It is spreading because the political instability and the changes in the world have brought many governments to, to present themselves as the founders of human rights and also as promoting democratic forms. While in the 70's, the disappearances, extrajudicial execution, were used by dictatorial regimes who had no pretense whatsoever of respecting human rights. Today those governments who are using disappearances at the same time pretend to respect human rights, so they use death squads, theyuse security forces which they claim they do not really control so that they can deny what has happened. So for them they think that through this method of terror, through this technique of repression, they can call to, into submission new generations of activists, political opponents, they can silence government critique by putting, if you want, a reign of terror on their own people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said -- you named various regions of the world but is it worse than any one place or the other, does it happen in every country?

PIERRE SANE: No. We have identified those countries where it is happening. Obviously, it continues to happen in countries where you have civil wars and civil conflicts, violent conflicts. But it is also happening in merging democracies. It is happening in countries like Colombia, where the government claims that it is the fact of drug traffickers, but it is not true. We know that these are lies. It is happening in India. It is happening in countries like Philippines. It is happening in South Africa. It is happening in Sudan, in Angola, in Guatemala, and San Salvador, in many places in the world today. It is happening in Bosnia.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So it's not just -- excuse me -- it's not just new and emerging nations, it's nations that have some tradition of democracy.

PIERRE SANE: Yes. It is happening in countries where you have also social instability, political instability, and governments instead of dealing with those problems through peaceful means and democratic means use violence but because they want to continue to protect an international image and the part of the league of the good guys, if you want, they are hiding behind this method of, of repression.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you see this as being on the increase?

PIERRE SANE: On the increase in terms of the number of governments that are using this technique, not on the number of people that have been disappeared or that are being killed, but in terms of the different parts of the world where it is being used and the different governments that are using the technique.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What can be done about this?

PIERRE SANE: Well, first is to expose them because, like I said, those governments pretend to respect the democratic norms and pretend to adhere to universal principles of respect for human rights. So the first thing to do is to go behind the lies and unmask the hypocrisy. And for that you need good research, you need to come up with the facts. You need to link the violations that are committed, the disappearances, to the security forces and to the government.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How hard is that to do?

PIERRE SANE: It is very difficult, especially for local human rights organizations, and for the activists, and they are the one on the front line today. Human right defenders are being targeted by the government for disappearances, for political killing. But still we get the information, and in Amnesty we have research teams that check this information. And then once you have the information, information that is accurate, that government cannot deny, is to expose it through the media, through the campaign, and this is what we are launching this year. We're going to run a ten- month campaign. We're going to give new reprieve to those governments who are committing these abuses, and we will take this campaign in all those regions of the world and in all those countries where these crimes are happening. We have to stop these governments from continuing the murders and the kidnappings.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When Americans think about human rights, or human rights crises, I think in their minds, it's always a crisis or crises over there, in Haiti, in Bosnia, in Somalia. What about America's own human rights issues, are there serious ones in this country as you see it?

PIERRE SANE: Very serious ones. And all the more serious that, if you want, the U.S. government has now claimed for itself the mantle of world leadership, and world leadership comes with moral responsibility, and unless you have your own house in order in terms of respect for human rights, this moral leadership will not be accepted worldwide. and the house is not in order because the U.S. government is breaking some international laws. Returning Haitian refugees who are fleeing political persecution, who are fleeing from the killing fields in Haiti is against international law. It is callous, it is inhuman, and it is cruel. But there are other human rights violations in the United States that we have documented at length. One is police brutality, the treatment of indigenous people, and of course, the death penalty. And the death penalty which is the supreme form of denial of the basic right, the right to life, which is cold-blooded murder, organized, staged by the state, and it takes, you know, months of proceedings and preparation where people are executed, are hanged, are poisoned, are electrocuted. Minors are being put to death. People who are mentally retarded are being put to death, and we have documented evidence that points towards racial utilization of the death penalty.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Pierre Sane, you are from Senegal, the first African to head Amnesty International. How do you think your perspective differs, perspective on these human rights issues differs from your predecessors?

PIERRE SANE: As an African, of course, I look at the world from an African perspective, and as an African, I have an experience which is centered on living as an African in Africa and outside Africa and of being, therefore, confronted with some situations that maybe my predecessor would not have experienced because being a European, being an English, an Englishman.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like?

PIERRE SANE: Like racism, like living in a society which has experienced in its history 400 years of continuous, non-stop violation of human rights, and therefore, where people know in their, deep in their bones what it means to be deprived of rights.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: YOu say you're an optimist. What about your optimism as it relates to the prospect of making organizations like yours obsolete or unnecessary in your lifetime?

PIERRE SANE: We're working towards that. I'm not sure it will happen, and I don't think that governments will make us that wonderful gift in my lifetime, but we will certainly make progress. And actually when you look at the situation worldwide, there has been progress in many countries. We continue to focus on the bad guys because we believe that respect for human rights should not be something that you have to be rewarded for. It's normal. Governments are put in place in order to secure a decent standard of living for their people and ensure that basic freedoms are provided to their people. When they are not doing it, they are committing violations, they are committing crimes. But in many countries there has been progress, and we just have to make sure that we keep the vigilance, we keep monitoring, we keep reporting, we keep mobilizing public opinion. Our best allies are in this respect the journalists and the media who in many countries also are on the front line and are the ones who also disappear.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Pierre Sane, thank you for being with us.

PIERRE SANE: Thank you very much. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, President Clinton stepped up the political arm twisting and dealmaking to win tomorrow's House vote on NAFTA. The White House claimed to be within single digits of victory. A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Naval Academy to graduate a midshipman who was expelled after he said he's gay. And this evening the Senate voted to give the Justice Department new powers to stop blockades of abortion clinics. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Robin. That's it for the NewsHour tonight. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Margaret Warner. Good night.