The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in Denver. I'll be out here all week marking the midpoint of the Republicans' first 100 days. We'll start with a view from the state capital. Then Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports on some children of welfare, and we have an update from Somalia. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: This was a holiday, Presidents Day, for most Americans. President Clinton spent the day at Camp David, but in an interview, he said the extreme right wing of the Republican Party was leading the opposition against Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Henry Foster. On the CBS "This Morning" program, he said the opponents believed all abortions should be criminalized. The interview was taped on Friday. The new chairman of the NAACP said today she and other NAACP members will gather in Washington this week to support the Foster nomination. Myrlie Evers-Williams was elected to the NAACP position Saturday. She said the civil rights group would also be focusing its attention on the new Congress. She spoke on NBC's "Today Show."

MYRLIE EVERS-WILLIAMS, Chairperson, NAACP: I am frightened. We are frightened of what we see happening at this 104th Congress. There seems to be an attempt to roll back the gains that we have made. I'm referring now to a number of things but particularly affirmative action.

MR. LEHRER: She said she was also not sure how committed President Clinton was to minority issues. The final 13 Cuban boat people were flown today from a Panama refugee camp back to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. About 8500 Cubans had been moved to Panama to relieve overcrowding at Guantanamo. A U.S. Marine is missing in Somalia after his helicopter crashed in the Indian Ocean during a training mission where other crewmen were rescued. They have minor injuries. The copter crashed as it lifted off the Carrier USS Essex near the capital, Mogadishu. The Marines are preparing to help evacuate United Nations peacekeeping forces from Somalia later this month. We'll have more on the story later in the program. In Chechnya, a four-day truce ended with reports of scattered fighting. Shelling could be heard south of the capital, Grozny. Talks aimed at ending the cease-fire collapsed overnight. And that's it for the News Summary this holiday evening. Now it's on to how the Republican revolution looks so far from Denver, some of the welfare children, and a Somalia update. FOCUS - HALFWAY MARK

MR. LEHRER: Our main business tonight is a half-time look at those 100 days, the time the Republican leaders of the new Congress said it would take to ignite their Washington revolution and to deliver on their Contract With America. As all regular NewsHour viewers know, Colorado is the place we chose to observe this Washington happening from their back. Robert MacNeil is in Denver tonight and will be there all week gathering midway perspectives.

MR. MAC NEIL: Since Congress is in recess this Presidents Day weekend, many members had an opportunity to hold town meetings with their constituents. One of them was held by Republican Dan Schaefer in Aurora, Colorado. Tom Bearden has our report.

TOM BEARDEN: Heather Gardens is a retirement community in the Denver suburb of Aurora. About 3600 people live here in high-rise apartments, townhomes, and patio homes. The average age is 72 years old. Most residents belong to the Republican Party and are generally quite politically active. That was evident from the turnout for Republican Congressman Dan Schaefer's first town meeting since the 104th Congress first began. A standing-room-only group of 300 heard Schaefer talk about the balanced budget amendment that recently passed the House. Schaefer tried to reassure the retirees that reducing the federal deficit won't come at their expense.

REP. DAN SCHAEFER, [R] Colorado: What we're kind of gunning at here is to say, federal government, be like you, be like me, be like the state, and let's just hold down our spending situation so that we're not going to exceed it. Now, if there are some out there who are saying this is going to be very detrimental to people who are on Social Security, ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell you that is not all the case at all. It's not going to happen. This is not what we're after. We're after governmental spending. You and the people who have been dealing on Social Security, I have a mother that's on it, myself, and so we are not in the process of doing anything with the Social Security trust fund.

MR. BEARDEN: Rep. Schaefer went on to check off the five pieces of legislation listed on the so called Contract With America that have passed so far: the balanced budget amendment; the line item veto; unfunded mandates; the crime bill; and the National Security Restructuring Act.

REP. DAN SCHAEFER: But we have passed at this point in time out at the House five points of the ten dealing with the Contract with America. We have been working late. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But we are intent on doing the things that we think is going to be the best for this country.

MR. BEARDEN: Schaefer said the Republicans want to replace a lot of federal programs with direct block grants to the states. One audience member questioned that concept.

MILTON MADOR: [in audience] Some states have very high standards. Some have very low standards. I think the block grant to the states will not give an individual citizen throughout the entire United States a fair shake. In one state, concerning education, if the standards are high, the school system is going to be a very good one. Regardless, we have private -- I think private or charter schools, whatever, and in other states where education is not considered to be a high-ranking element that there the youngster in that state is not going to get the same opportunity for education as in a higher state. Would you please comment on that.

REP. DAN SCHAEFER: I'd be happy to. We think that if the state wants or the community wants to do it, that's fine, but they should make the decision, themselves. We should be not making the decision for them from the federal level. And so I don't think that we're looking at a deterioration in education or in crime or anything else by the utilizing of block grants. All we're saying is that your local municipalities and school boards and state legislatures, you guys know how to handle this better than we do. We want to be able to help you provide what we can, but you handle it from this point on.

WALLY ALSPACH: We've got several nice questions from the audience. Here's a good one for you. What agencies do you have in mind cutting in order to balance the budget?

REP. DAN SCHAEFER: Okay. Okay, everybody hear that question, huh? Well, I would say to you all right now that there is not an agency out there that is not a candidate.

MR. BEARDEN: Patricia Rose was worried about cuts in military spending.

PATRICIA ROSE: [in audience] Is Congress bound to repeat history once more and dismantle the military defenses, because we've got a world full of terrorists who are continuing to disrupt the world?

REP. DAN SCHAEFER: Very good. Thanks, Patricia. The question was, in case you didn't hear it: Are we on the road to further dismantle our military? Well, for the last six years, the military budget has not went up. A lot of people thought it has, and it's went up according to inflationary factors, and that's it. And there's been continual cuts out there. And I think that what we have got to do is continue what we did in the 80s, not necessarily a huge build- up, but to give our men and women the best that they possibly can have as far as equipment and logistics, supplies, if they are going to be engaged.

MR. BEARDEN: Carl Patterson said people have to be willing to sacrifice to balance the budget.

CARL PATTERSON: [in audience] I am a veteran, an AARP member, a Social Security recipient, and a registered Republican. However, I would like to discuss why nobody wants to make a sacrifice to balance the budget. There's enough blame to go around for everybody in the country about the national debt. We know that everybody here is probably a Social Security recipient, 95 percent of 'em are probably veterans, but nobody in that group wantsto do anything to balance the budget. There's you and 434 other members down there that don't want to do anything to balance the budget. If there's a military establishment someplace that maybe can be eliminated, if you're in that district, you don't want to do anything about. And the guy over in Illinois and Florida and New York, they don't want to do anything about it either, because that's where they get the votes. We don't like people coming around pandering to us because we're old and gray-haired and have glasses. [laughter in audience] We want to take some responsibility in trying to balance the damn budget. Bite the bullet and get some back bone and get some statesmen in this country like Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. And they bit the bullet. Those guys bit the bullet, but nobody down there wants to do it now. All they want to do is pander to somebody else, some other group.

MR. BEARDEN: Congressman Schaefer said he got the point and promised to return next summer with an updated report.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, a different kind of report card. No people are watching the progress of the Contract With America more closely than members of state legislatures. And joining me in the House chamber of the Colorado State House are: Senator Mike Feeley and Representative Peggy Kerns, the Democratic Minority Leader, and Senate President Tom Norton, and House Speaker Chuck Barry, the Republican leaders in this legislature. Sen. Norton, what kind of a grade would you give the 104th Congress so far?

TOM NORTON, President, Colorado Senate [R]: Well, I think they're doing very well. I'm reluctant to put a specific grade on it till they get their work done, but I think they're advancing very well on the Contract With America and getting us some opportunities that I look forward to following up on at the state level.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Feeley, how do you feel about it?

MIKE FEELEY, Minority Leader, Colorado Senate [D]: Well, I probably don't --

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel about it, Sen. Feeley?

MIKE FEELEY: I probably think that they have a lot of work to do yet. They are 50 days through right now, and I'm not sure that we've seen a lot of progress. I don't think there's been a significant impact on people's lives as yet.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Kerns.

PEGGY KERNS, Minority Leader, Colorado House [D]: I'll give them an "A" for long hours, but I'm concerned about -- the effect of what they're doing has on the state, and so I'm going to withhold judgment on any grade yet.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel, Mr Berry?

CHUCK BERRY, Speaker, Colorado House [R]: Well, I think they've made a lot of progress. The performance I would give an "A" for so far. They've clearly got a long way to go. Part of the measures that have passed the House need to go through the Senate, where you have the filibuster rule, and I think there's a concern that things will bog down, but what they promised the American people they would do in the contract and what the American people voted for on November 8th, I believe they're beginning to deliver on it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Norton, you've recently expressed some fears about the balanced budget amendment consequences on the state, both in the opening day of this legislature and another piece that I've read you've written recently, and you've talked to the potential of a constitutional crisis. What are your fears, and have they been allayed at all by the way this has gone through at least the House and is being debated in the Senate?

TOM NORTON: Well, my fears are that Colorado has a constitutional amendment which is a spending limit, and we need to go to the voters to approve taxes. If we have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, then we need to work very closely with Congress to make sure that the budget is not balanced by shifting those costs to the state, and that there remains a balance between federal funding and state funding and that we don't just lose all of the discretionary funding that the state has in the process.

MR. MAC NEIL: You've particularly I saw were anxious or worried that federal mandates, unfunded or not, would continue even with the balanced budget unless there were protections against that. Are adequate protections being built in, in your view, to protect Colorado from being hung up on having to fulfill mandates that the federal government leaves with you?

TOM NORTON: I don't think they are as yet, but I think they're working on those. Part of the mandates legislation that was passed in the Senate goes a long way, but those are prospective, and they don't talk about a number of the mandates that we have now and how the rules might change with those mandates in the future. So I still think there's work that needs to be done there, and I would prefer a protection in the Constitution. But that's very difficult to do, and I respect the fact that it's difficult to get that level of protection in there.

MR. MAC NEIL: Are you worried about that, Sen. Feeley?

MIKE FEELEY: Yes. I'd agree with Sen. Norton on that. I think that to pass the mandate protection in a statute while we place in our Constitution a federal balanced budget requirement really doesn't get to the problem. If we don't have that same protection at the same constitutional level, I think everyone in state government is very concerned.

MR. MAC NEIL: What's the worst that could happen, in your view?

MIKE FEELEY: The worst that could happen is that federal programs, current federal programs, would simply become the responsibility of the state to pay for, and without that, states don't have the adequate --

MR. MAC NEIL: Even though block grants are intended in many of these programs?

MIKE FEELEY: Well, block grants, they may very well help, and I'm not sure that they'll help in every circumstance. I think that the larger social programs which are matters of federal and national concern, if they're transferred down to the states, we just don't have the money to pay for it. I also think that one of the speakers at Rep. Schaefer's meeting said there is a difference between the way states address different issues. There's a greater concern in some states, and I'm concerned that matters of natural concern can be dealt with on a patchwork basis with states who are not adequately prepared to fund those programs.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel about this? Are you worried too, Rep. Berry?

MR. BERRY: Probably not as much as Sen. Feeley is. I don't want any more federal mandates, funded or unfunded, coming on Colorado, but I think there are a lot of members of Congress who are fighting that as well. I'd love to have a constitutional amendment against federal mandates. And if there are 2/3 in both the House and the Senate, I know most of the Republicans certainly favor that, then let's have it. But I just think that we've got to get our deficit under control. We owe it to our children and grandchildren not to keep passing these enormous deficits onto them. I see the only way we can do this is a balanced budget amendment.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Kerns, I wonder whether the states may feel at the end of this process -- if it all goes through as the majority hopes in Washington -- that the states will be left with a kind of moral mandate to continue these -- to continue to look after people who need looking after. Do you -- I wonder what you think about that.

PEGGY KERNS: Well, there's no question that long-term a balanced budget amendment will help states, and because of the unfunded mandates issue, but we're the government that is closer to the people than the federal government. We're the ones who sit in public hearings here at the capitol and hear the cases of people who need government assistance, and we're moved by that. And I think in Colorado particularly we have found a role for government that works fairly efficiently, and I would say that with a Republican legislature over the years and a Democratic governor over the years. We have a partnership here. So I am worried about it, because when we -- when Congress is talking about balancing the budget and then they pass in statute this unfunded mandates bill, which really isn't that good a piece of legislation, because first of all it doesn't start until October of 1995, and then it just says that in -- they would address unfunded mandates by looking at the budgetary impact and some things like that. It does raise the question at our level and the local level about what we will be forced to do. And we probably in this state would not turn our backs on some of the programs that we now fund, whether they're block grant given, or whether the federal government cuts the funding or not.

MR. MAC NEIL: And you could be, in other words, in a position of having to raise taxes, if Colorado was going to fulfill its obligations to its citizens, and taxes are no easier to raise here than they are in Washington.

TOM NORTON: Well, that's true. We would have to put something on the ballot in Colorado because we in the legislature cannot raise taxes. That's a vote of the people. So part of what we need to do in working with the federal mandates in the balanced budget is we've got a requirement to balance our budget. We need to get the taxes collected at the level at which they're expended. So if we restructure that, rather than sending money to Washington and sending it back, that's helpful to some degree in the block grants but the longer-term restructuring so that we can be responsive is what's necessary.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's turn to the crime bill that was considered, the '94 crime bill which the Democrats got through with a lot of debate. Now the Republicans have considerably rewritten it and gotten it through the House so far. What's the impact of that going to be on Colorado?

MIKE FEELEY: Well, I was very unhappy to see this new initiative when there's been such a short period of time since the crime bill was enacted last year. I think that the police departments around the country and certainly here in Colorado are a little upset that, that funding is going to be changed so radically. I'm not sure that the block grants will have the effect, and I think it's unfortunate. It seems to be, quite honestly, from my perspective a lot of smoke and mirrors, let's just do something different for the sake of doing something different. And I think that law enforcement will suffer as a result.

MR. MAC NEIL: Law enforcement will suffer in Colorado?

MR. BERRY: I don't think so. Giving block grant local communities, to city councils, letting them decide how it's best spent to prevent crime is a good idea. If a certain community, Aurora, Colorado, doesn't want to play midnight basketball, why should they have to? And so I think empowering these communities through the block grants is the best way to fight crime.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel from Aurora?

PEGGY KERNS: Well, I guess I'll quote my governor, Gov. Romer, who came to my town meeting this past week and talked about that. He has a little different perspective, and he said, I'm trying to figure out why we would take our tax money, send it to Washington, and then have them send it back to us in order to hire the ultimate of local control, and that is our police force. And so I'm struck by that, particularly since our taxpayers in Aurora last year approved a tax increase to hire more police. So though I don't necessarily --

MR. MAC NEIL: But you'd still be free to do that, if this goes all the way through, right?

PEGGY KERNS: Right, but, you know, when Gov. Romer said that, I had to agree, because I used to be on Aurora City Council, and so I would pay my federal income tax to send it to Washington to have them send it back to me in order to hire more policemen when I have that control as a city council person myself.

MR. MAC NEIL: What's the answer then?

PEGGY KERNS: Well, I want to elaborate a little bit on what Sen. Norton said about block grants. The idea sounds good, but block grants may not be a different way of doing business. Certainly, if we hand over money to the lowest level of government, what we would hope would happen is that citizens would have input on how that money is spent. And I think that may be a string we may want to apply to giving out block grants. If we really want to empower people and push government down to the best, the local level, then citizens need to be involved in how that money is spent.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do you think about the crime, changes in the crime bill, Sen. Norton?

TOM NORTON: Well, I think they'll be helpful. I think if we get the block grants where people can be involved in making the decisions at the local level, one of the biggest problems with the hiring of police was that the money was available to begin with, and it decreased 20 percent a year over a five-year period, which means we have to raise the taxes locally to do that. If we can get a block grant system in which there's some stability to that and yet local decisions, I think there's a benefit to the process.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think, Sen. Feeley, do you think Washington is leading this revolution on some of these issues, or it is following the states?

MIKE FEELEY: I think that there's a certain amount of following. I think that there are a lot of great ideas that first come from the states. I know two years ago, we passed some significant welfare reform legislation, and I think that a lot of people around the country took notice of that. I think that in the states we have the opportunity to do that, and some good ideas come forward. What I'm concerned about, though, is some of the rhetoric we hear about empowering states, when this weekend in Manchester, some of the Republicans were talking about the tenth amendment but at the same time before the House Judiciary Committee this week, they're talking about federalizing tort law, something that's been the prerogative of state courts and state judges since we became a country. I think that there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on, and I think that some of the good ideas come from the states but I'm very concerned about some of the rhetoric we hear.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think it's a bad idea, the -- reforming the tort law the way the Republicans are proposing it?

MIKE FEELEY: Frankly, I do, but that's just where I fall on the issue. The larger concern I have is whether or not this federal government and this Congress really believes that local control is best. Why would they take away the state's prerogative to control that aspect of states' laws? I don't understand.

MR. MAC NEIL: Why would they do that, and is it a good idea, Sen. Norton?

TOM NORTON: Well, I think there's a lot of reform that's necessary in the tort system, and Colorado has one of the best reform systems around. We've had it for a number of years, but there is some, some additional need there, particularly at the federal level, and if they can incorporate at the federal level the tort reform that's necessary so that there's some uniformity across the state, there may be some benefit.

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah. But are you worried by this, the federalizing of tort reform? If the purpose of the Republican majority and their contract is to give power back to the states, as Sen. Feeley says, isn't this going against that?

MR. BERRY: Well, I think to some degree it is, and I hate to see the federal government intrude in not only this area but one of my problems with the whole crime package is we're going to decide what all of these crimes ought to be punished across the country in a uniform way, the federalization of criminal law. And so I think they need to be very careful about that, and I hope they would be hesitant to just mandate all of those things to the states.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Feeley mentioned Manchester, which is Manchester, New Hampshire, where a large number of Republicans, including some Senators, were taking the early steps in the presidential race over the weekend. Sen. Norton, do you fear that presidential politics may dilute this policy, this process that's going on, or spoil it, or get in the way of it in any way?

TOM NORTON: Oh, I don't think it will get in the way. I think that the American people spoke fairly loudly about wanting some of the reforms, and I think it will enhance that whole process. I do believe that it's a grassroots, starting at the state and local governments that is making the changes that the people want, but I think the presidential race will build on that and that will be a lot of the rhetoric and discussion about what it is that needs to go on.

MR. MAC NEIL: What's your observation, what Republican presidential politics may do to this process, coming from the other party?

PEGGY KERNS: Well, there's no question I think the public is more interested in what is going on now. I mean, my phone calls are running at a higher rate than they have, letters, et cetera, so it seems to me that the interest that was stirred up during the fall elections maybe have continued. But I would hope it would get politicized. I think that if we at the state level can continue to look at what the Republican Congress is doing outside of the presidential campaign rhetoric, we're all going to be better off. It's going to be hard to resist though.

MR. MAC NEIL: The House leadership was very anxious to put the so-called social issues like abortion to one side to get on so it wouldn't get in the way of passing the Contract With America. Now, the presidential politics a year in advance of New Hampshire has already put some of those issues like abortion right smack bang in the middle of that, Sen. Specter coming out as a pro-choice and trying to get the others to declare themselves the other way. Is that not going to be divisive to the party as it -- just as the House leadership feared?

MR. BERRY: Well, I hope not. The Republicans clearly came together in the fall elections, and people who were pro-choice were voting for pro-life candidates. People who are pro-life were voting for pro-choice candidates because they wanted a change in Washington. And so if the Republicans let this issue divide them now, it certainly could halt the progress that we've made so far, particularly in the United States Senate, where it's critical to get through these programs that the House has already passed.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I noticed that you said, Sen. Feeley, in your opening day remarks in this legislature, that the citizens didn't want or need representatives who were going to sharpen the ideological differences in order to appeal their constituencies but people who would bring the partisan sides together, the parties together to achieve solutions. Using that as a measure, how do you see the first fifty days in the 104th Congress?

MIKE FEELEY: Well, I think that the first fifty days was very intelligent in terms of setting aside some of those more divisive social issues, and I think that that's a very good idea. What I was talking about in my opening day remarks is what really happened in November, and from my perspective, I don't think the changes were all as cataclysmic as might be suggested. I think that there was a reaction to quibbling and bickering and partisan politics, and because the Democrats were in control in Washington, they were voted out. Who knows what would have happened if the control was on the other side. I think people were just tired of the bickering more than anything. So that's the point I was making in that remark, but I do agree with Rep. Berry that putting aside some of those divisive social issues does help move things along, things that we need to address.

MR. MAC NEIL: And what kind of marks would you give the 104th Congress on sharpening ideological differences or trying to bridge them in order to achieve solutions?

TOM NORTON: Well, I think they're doing a good job in bridging those. I also would agree that we don't need some of the more divisive issues. There are a number of issues that we need to go forward on and resolve that the American people are talking about, and we need to go forward on those issues, and --

MR. MAC NEIL: And the presidential politics don't bother you in surfacing those issues?

TOM NORTON: No, they don't. I think that -- I think that they can talk about those issues and define themselves ideologically and still go forward without disrupting the process.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, that's the time we have. Gentlemen and Ms. Kerns, thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, children on welfare, and a Somalia update. FOCUS - TROUBLED KIDS

MR. LEHRER: Now, some of the children who, like it or not, are part of a Washington debate about welfare reform. They are the ones who have to be taken from their parents because of neglect or abuse. Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: If you didn't know, it would be hard to tell from this scene just how much trouble there's been in these young men's lives, but each one of these happy bowlers has been a troubled child, removed from his family because of its abuse or neglect, and often for the delinquency that it fostered, young men like Jermaine Tyson, now 16. He's been in the child welfare system since he was 10.

JERMAINE TYSON: I've done a lot of bad things that my mother was like, stop, kept on telling me stop, she was warning me, I ain't listening. You know, if your mother tells you something over and over again and you'd be like, she ain't gonna do it, she's just talking to be talking so I'd stop. Well, she's serious.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Lashimah Young is 18 years old. She's been in the child welfare system for a little over five years.

LASHIMAH YOUNG: About five years ago, my father was just, you know, he passed away, and I went into the role of, you know, selling drugs or whatever because my mother, you know, she just wasn't doing enough for me and my two younger brothers, and so I went into the role of selling drugs. You know, I got caught.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Francisco, five years old, and Jane, ten, are also part of the child welfare system. Francisco has been in foster care for about a year, Jane for more than six years. They're not related. Today they and their sisters live with Rosa Pena and her two young daughters, one biological and one adopted. Since 1988, Mrs. Pena has been a foster parent to 10 children.

ROSA PENA, Foster Parent: Sometimes they come with a lot of problems, psychological, you know, and I have try and do the best I can with them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Have you always been successful at it?

ROSA PENA: Oh, yes, yes. Oh, I've never had any trouble. I've had other kids that go back to their parents, and I keep in touch with them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mrs. Pena's foster children, Lashima Young, and Jermaine Tyson, have one thing in common: They were placed in foster care by the courts. Nationally, there are about a half million children in some kind of foster care. In New York City, the care of those children is overseen by private agencies under contract to the city's Welfare Administration, agencies like Leake and Watts, located on a 30-acre campus just outside New York City. Leake and Watts receives most of its funds from the state. On a budget of $40 million a year, its services include residential facilities, group homes, and foster care placement in private homes. Some 1,000 of New York City's total of more than 40,000 children are in the care of Leake and Watts. Marian Crandell is the agency's director of residential social services.

MARIAN CRANDELL, Leake and Watts: They come with many difficult family problems. They call them dysfunctional families, if you will, which means many things, but these families are having a very difficult time making it in terms of employment, dealing with their own social problems, which bring them to what we have known as drugs and alcohol abuse, and the physical abuse, and many of these social problems that we read about in the paper. This is what we get.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Founded in 1831 as a home for poor orphan children, Leake and Watts has seen its population surge with every major social upheaval. In 1848, it was the Irish Potato Famine, then the Civil War, the influenza epidemic of 1918. Today, it's drugs and AIDS. By all accounts, Leake and Watts is one of the better agencies grappling with this new population, almost all of whom are black or Hispanic and poor. But experts, both inside and outside the system, argue that what happens at Leake and Watts is a far cry from what happens in the system at large. A New York State Comptroller's audit last year called children in the child welfare system innocent victims of an overburdened and ineffective" billion dollar bureaucratic system." Marcia Lowry is head of the Children's Rights Projects of the American Civil Liberties Union. She spends much of her time in court trying to protect children in that system.

MARCIA LOWRY, American Civil Liberties Union: Leake and Watts is a good agency, but generally the child welfare system in thiscountry is damaging children in a large number of ways. It's actually devastated many of the children that have to come into state custody. The number of children in the child welfare system has grown by more than 60 percent in the last 10 years. The number of children who are coming in come in at a very young age and stay longer, and many of them move from one facility to another, one home to another, one setting to another, and they are getting increasingly damaged while in state custody.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

MARCIA LOWRY: Well, the system is just not taking care of these children. It is simply housing them. And it is not addressing their problems, and it's not trying to find permanent families. It is a custodial system.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Reformers have been trying for more than a century to address those issues, first by closing orphanages, then by adopting the principle that taking children out of the home should only be a short-term response to an emergency situation. Today, about 2/3 of the children who enter the welfare system are placed in foster homes. James Campbell is executive director of Leake and Watts.

JAMES CAMPBELL, Executive Director, Leake and Watts: A lot of our foster homes today are what we call kinship, relatives, a sister of someone who has been on drugs, or a mother of someone who has gone to jail or died or been on drugs, and the children can live there, and that's the right way. That's where it should be first.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When relatives are not available, Leake and Watts turns to families recruited through churches or volunteers like Rosa Pena, a divorced mother of four. Mrs. Pena gets about $6,000 a year per child from the state. It's the state's least expensive child welfare option.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the toughest part of this, even with all the love that you have and the energy, what's tough about it?

ROSA PENA: Well, like sometimes when they take 'em away, that's very hard for me and for the children. I've had other ones that they've been with me four, five, six months, and then they go back to their parents. That's very hard, because, you know, when they come into my house, I know they're not my children, I know I have to let 'em go someday.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The ACLU's Marcia Lowry argues that the frequent moving about is one of the biggest problems with the foster care system.

MARCIA LOWRY: It's a rare child who's fortunate enough to wind up in a good foster home and to stay there. Even with better foster parents, children are often shuffled from one place to another. One young man that's a plaintiff in one of our lawsuits, he put himself in a garbage can when he was eight years old and asked to be thrown away, has been in eighteen different placements; he's now fifteen years old.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Kathryn Croft is the new deputy executive commissioner of New York City's Child Welfare Administration. She says they're working to correct the problems her administration inherited.

KATHRYN CROFT, New York City Child Welfare Administration: We're constantly working on trying to improve the system. The foster care system, itself, is and should be a temporary assistance safety net. Ideally, we should be getting it right, you know, the first time in terms of matching the needs of the child with the foster home. Sometimes it doesn't work.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But sometimes, as in Mrs. Pena's case, it does. The court has now freed her foster children for adoption, and Mrs. Pena plans to adopt all four. New York City has instituted a program to speed up the adoption process,but nationwide, bureaucratic red tape continues to be a major problem.

MARCIA LOWRY: Sometimes the foster parents do want to adopt a child, but the agency, the state system, doesn't make the child legally available for adoption so that the foster parent can't, very very common situation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: One of Lowry's principal concerns is children who are sexually abused or otherwise harmed while within the system. She attributes the problem to poor supervision. New York City's Commissioner Croft says part of the problem is outmoded record keeping. One of her priorities is trying to computerize New York City's antiquated system. That alone, she says, would free up caseworkers and improve supervision, but she also says --

KATHRYN CROFT: Well, it's difficult for me to say that every child in the system is getting the level of care and services that, that they should be getting, but New York City is a very large system. I mean, what we like to do is to ensure that children get the best care that's possible, and those situations where it comes to our attention that that is not the case we clearly take immediate and corrective action.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Other critics argue that the system has grown faster than it has been able to produce qualified staff.

DAVID LIEDERMAN, Executive Director, Child Welfare League: The system doesn't have the resources. The system doesn't have the staff ratios that we need in order to handle the numbers of kids that are coming in.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: David Liederman is executive director of the Child Welfare League, an organization of child welfare agencies. He calls the child welfare system a system on overload.

DAVID LIEDERMAN: It's not because the people working in the system aren't trying. They're doing the very best they can. But none of them walk on water. I mean, they're all human beings, and you take someone with a bachelor's degree in history and you provide them with two or three weeks of training in child protective services and then you turn them loose in some of the most difficult situations that you can encounter, that's a very tough job.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For children who grow too old for foster care, the next option is a group home. The average cost in New York State is about $14,000 a year per child. Lashimah Young is a resident in one of Leake and Watts' group homes. She goes to an alternative school and works in the community. At night, she and the other group home residents return to the supervised environment of the home, where they receive counseling and other services. At 13, Lashimah was locked up in a facility for juvenile offenders. She remained there until she was 15. She was one of the ones bounced around from family to friends to foster care to a group home, never staying in one place more than a few months. She's been in Leake and Watts group home since September.

LASHIMAH YOUNG: I have a lot of friends here. They -- you know, there's times when we have arguments and everything, but they're all pretty nice and friendly here, happy and stuff.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But they have problems too?

LASHIMAH YOUNG: Yeah, of course. Everyone has problems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Including group homes, according to Marcia Lowry.

MARCIA LOWRY: Typically, group homes are used for the kids who are growing out of the family foster homes, children who have been in so many different places without any adequate services or treatment that their behavior is becoming very difficult to tolerate, and in the group homes, you often have an aggregation of children with problems. And so the problems exacerbate themselves and feed on each other until many of these kids graduate out of the group homes into the juvenile justice system, where they become another bureaucracy's problems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The child welfare system has one final level of care, a residential program. At Leake and Watts, there are about a hundred teenagers living in ten cottages on the agency's campus. Several new buildings are being constructed to meet the increasing demand. More often than not, these are tougher cases, adolescents who've been in the system for a while, been through foster care or groups homes, yet continue to need special services. In New York State, residential care for a single child averages about $44,000 a year. What do you think you'd be doing if you weren't here?

JERMAINE TYSON: If I'd have never, if I'd have never came here, well, I don't know, I probably would have been here selling drugs or something, I'd have been doin' something that was against the law. I know that definitely for a fact.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you think so? Why wouldn't you have been doing good things?

JERMAINE TYSON: It's the environment, like, if you're hangin' with nine criminals, you're bound to be the tenth criminal. You know, 'cause that's what you're used to, so you fall into the same trap they fell into. That's what you're used to. That's all you're used to hearing, all you're used to seeing, so it becomes a part of your life.

SPOKESMAN: [meeting] All right. Let's move on to Jermaine Tyson. Does anybody have anything you want to bring up on Jermaine the past week?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At teen meetings like this one, Jermaine's counselors, social workers, and teachers track his and the other residents' progress. Their goal is to replace destructive behavior patterns with more productive ones through a program of reward and punishment.

JERMAINE TYSON: Everyone needs a hero or a role model.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After years of cutting school, Jermaine is now attending classes at Leake and Watts. Counselors say they're pleased with the progress he's made. Jermaine now says he wants to college. But this picture of residential care, critics argue, also need adjusting.

MARCIA LOWRY: Most children need services but they don't necessarily need it in a residential program, and so many of the residential programs have children who are there just because there's no place else for them to go. We, in fact, know of a young man who is in the Leake and Watts program who has been in state foster care since he was born. He's now 19 years old. He's been in a whole bunch of different programs, and he's a very bright young man he doesn't -- he hasn't finished high school -- I don't know how he's going to get a job. I don't know what's going to become of him, and so many of the young people in government custody are like that. They're people that really one could hope for a lot for, and yet, we can't hope for anything from these young people as they grow up, other than they don't hit us on streets, and many of them will, and it's no surprise.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The criticisms of the child welfare system date back to the first state-run orphanages. In recent years, it's been Democratic administrations that have spearheaded the move to reform the system with only limited success. Whether the new Republican Congress can do any better is the next chapter in this story. UPDATE - DEPARTURE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the Somalia story one more time. U.S. Marines are back on the ground and offshore, and in some danger. One Marine was declared missing today after a Marine helicopter crashed into the Indian Ocean. The Marines are not in Somalia to end a famine, as they were in 1992. Our report is by Judy Aslett of Independent Television News.

JUDY ASLETT, Independent Television News: United States Marines gearing up for the last leg of the evacuation of UN troops from Somalia. The low key departure is a stark contrast to the massive publicity surrounding the Americans' arrival on this same beach two years ago.

SPOKESMAN: We're just here to help our friends get out of the country -- help the UN.

MS. ASLETT: The Americans lost 36 men during the Somalia mission, which included an ill-fated attempt to catch the country's most notorious warlord, Gen. Farah Aidid. As the UN peacekeepers now pull out, they're leaving behind a nation that's still the beggar of the world. After four years of war, the capital, Mogadishu, lies in ruins. All attempts to find a political consensus blocked by rival militias.

MAJOR SAULUT ABASS, Commander, Pakistan Forces: Whenever the UN wants to go into the country. The UN will not be in any position, in my opinion, to enforce a military solution on that country unless people of that country want to have a political solution of their own. It is a political problem which aggravated into a military conflict amongst the Somalis. The UN decided to help, so it is now with the consent of Somalia that we will ever be able to find a solution to this problem. Nobody else can enforce a solution on this country.

MS. ASLETT: The United Nations has spent a total of 2 billion pounds on its operation here. It's also become the country's largest employer. Several million were spent on its headquarters at the former U.S. embassy which it would have left intact had agreement been reached between the warlords. But that never happens, and the compound is now completely gutted. The UN, itself, shipped out anything that wasn't nailed down. What little was left is being looted by Somalia militias, down to the copper wire and the foundations.

KOFI ANNAN, UN Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping: I was here in October. Gen. Aidid, himself, told me we are going to have an interim -- we are going to have a broad-based conference, and we will form an international government by October, end of October. I then told them all the factions, that's including Aidid, bravo, do it, because if you do not do it, the council will have no option but to decide to withdraw UNOSOM.

MS. ASLETT: In the absence of any political settlement, the country is again in the hands of the technicals. These are the men who organized most of the looting and have fought for faction leaders over aid. Numerous agreements have gone no further than a handshake, all sides wanting all or nothing. But as the U.N. pulls out its troops, it's also taking its humanitarian support. And with little left to fight over, those belonging to Gen. Aidid's inner circle hope there may be a new opening for peace.

OSMAN ATO, Somali National Alliance: One good reason is because we see an obstacle moving away between the Somalia. There was barrier, which was UNOSOM, and once that barrier leaves, we believe the Somali community will come up with the formula of solving their own problem.

MS. ASLETT: So far, though, there's been little sign that Aidid's main opponent in Mogadishu is ready for compromise. Ali Mahdi, who controls the north of the capital, still refuses to even talk to Aidid and says he's not confident there will be peace.

ALI MAHDI, Leader, Somalia Salvation Alliance: I cannot say I'm optimist clearly because after 40 years, or 40 years of trying to reach an agreement on behalf of the central authority, I will have failed.

MS. ASLETT: With the collapse of UNOSOM's imposed structures like the police force, the immediate problem is security, some communities already finding their own forms of justice. In North Mogadishu, there is now a semblance of law and order, but as all those who live here know, that security comes at a price. This area is now controlled by Islamic fundamentalists, and their way of cutting down on crime is to impose the strict Muslim law of the Sharia courts. The judge and his advisers practice law straight out of the Koran. These men were found guilty of looting a building and stealing a metal bar. Sentence was carried out immediately and in public. In this case, the men were given 25 lashes. Whipping is the most common sentence in these courts, but why Sharia law has had such a big impact is that the Koran also allows for the amputation of hands and feet.

SHEIKH SHARIF MUHUGADIN, Head, Sharia Court: [speaking through interpreter] For those who had their hand cut off, we must ask the question: What have they done? That person has stolen things from other people and killed other people so he deserves to have his hand cut off.

MS. ASLETT: Outside the capital, two years of good harvests have virtually brought an end to the famine. This school's playground in Baidoa used to be a graveyard, with more than 500 bodies buried here. But now the town, once known as the City of Death, has a thriving market. There's also local government put in place by UNOSOM. But it is a fragile peace. And now the UN is finding out there are fears it could all fall apart.

PIERCE GERETY, Head, UNICEF Operations in Somalia: Hijackings are common. Kidnappings are common, and if there was large scale fighting, it would undoubtedly disrupt the supply of food. There would be displacement of people, and, again, people would be able to get enough to eat.

MS. ASLETT: During the height of the famine and civil war Muhammed Amin was one of many forced to flee his home. When the fighting eased, he returned to Mogadishu with his family. He and other local businessmen pay a neighborhood militia for their protection. It's a way of them supporting each other, and this time he hopes to keep his business going.

MUHAMMED AMIN, Shoemaker: [speaking through interpreter] I believe I a skilled worker. I earn my living from my work whether UNOSOM leaves or not. I don't get anything from UNOSOM.

MS. ASLETT: While Somalia waits for life without UNOSOM, the withdrawal is picking up pace. The largest contingent, the Pakistanis, are the first to leave. In another two weeks, the UN will be gone, the goal of leaving behind even a transitional government abandoned. Abandoned too are the people of Somalia, as when the UN pulls out, it's leaving nothing behind. This orphanage asked UNOSOM for some beds. Their request was turned down. Instead, they're relying on handouts which will soon run out.

JIBRIL AHMAD, Orphanage Director: [speaking through interpreter] We needed it before and we still need it. We need food, medicine, beds, everything. We need them to give us mattresses, bed sheets, we need all this.

KOFI ANNAN: This has demonstrated the new mood in the international community, that the international community is prepared to take the hard decision and withdraw if they do not get the cooperation of the protagonists. And I think that is a very important lesson, both for the U.N. and for those countries at war.

MS. ASLETT: The beds and other equipment that could have been given away have been burned here at the United Nations rubbish dump. Even these enamel mugs have been systematically punctured, making them unusable. The UN's policy of total withdrawal is having the most drastic effect. The very people the UN originally came to help are now left with nothing, at the mercy of the warlords. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Have a nice holiday evening. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.