The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we continue our Newsmaker interviews with the incoming Republican chairman, tonight from the House and Senate Budget Committees. Then two bishops from the Catholic Conference discuss their alarm at the violence in American society. Jeffrey Kaye reports on the court challenges to California's new law on illegal immigrants, and essayist Richard Rodriguez considers American attitudes to death. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: The government reported today that consumer prices rose just .1 of a percent in October. That was the smallest price rise in six months. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates in an attempt to forestall inflation. Clinton administration officials today rejected any delay in the vote on the world trade agreement known as GATT. They were responding to a letter to the President from Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, who's expected to become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Helms implied he would hinder Mr. Clinton's foreign policy agenda if the vote were not delayed. Vice President Gore had this reaction on Capitol Hill.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Let me set the record straight and say it in absolutely clear, unmistakable terms. Delay of the GATT would mean the death of the GATT, pure an simple. Anybody who says delay the GATT is really calling for a death sentence on the biggest tax cut in the history of the world and a death sentence on a measure critical to our economic health here in the United States.

MR. MAC NEIL: Senate Republican Leader Dole said he hoped the GATT treaty would be passed this year but he said some flaws in the agreement needed to be fixed first. GATT was negotiated by more than 120 countries over several years. The House is scheduled to begin debate on November 29th. The Senate will take it up December 1st. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Mrs. Clinton today defended the administration's foreign aid budget. While touring a slum in Jakarta, Indonesia, she was asked about Sen. Helms' stated desire to cut back foreign assistance. She said it was in the U.S. national interest to try to improve the plight of poor people in other countries. President Clinton today urged Indonesian President Suharto to improve his country's human rights record. He stressed again that the United States would not sacrifice its stand on human rights in return for expanded trade with Asia. Later, the Clintons left Jakarta for a few days of rest in Hawaii before returning to Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: U.S. Catholic bishops today approved a document to expand the role of women in the Church. While continuing the prohibition on women as priests, it encourages women to such leadership positions as theologians, administrators, and canon lawyers. It also denounces sexism in the Church and promises to guard against it. At a news conference in Washington following the vote, Bishop John Snyder of St. Augustine, Florida, talked about the intended effect.

BISHOP JOHN SNYDER, St. Augustine, Florida: I would hope it would call us on a local level in a parish or a diocese, as well as nationally, to look at whether we are fully recognizing the gifts of women and opening the possibilities that exist within the Church, it's an invitation to search, to use the insights of women now who are certainly professional in scripture and theology and canon law, and to have their input as well as those of the men who maybe are in those fields.

MR. MAC NEIL: An organization of feminist Catholics known as Catholics for Free Choice criticized the document. The group's president said it was not the first time the bishops had made a commitment to improving women's authority in the Church and the promises are beginning to ring hollow. We'll have more on this and other issues raised at the bishops meeting later in the program. One and a half million children worldwide have been killed by wars during the past decade. That's according to a new report from the relief group Save the Children. Another 4 million have been permanently injured, and 12 million have been made homeless. The group said that nine of ten people killed in wars are civilians, many of them children.

MR. LEHRER: A group of newly-elected House Republicans came to Capitol Hill today. They discussed the legislative agenda for the new Congress with veteran Republican members. The freshmen told reporters they were eager to address a broad range of issues.

REP.-ELECT STEVE CHABOT, [R] Ohio: People have been crying out for years to truly balance the budget that Congress has been unable or unwilling to do for many years now. I think we've got a real chance for the first time to make headway in balancing the budget. I'm committed to doing that.

REP.-ELECT SUSAN BROOKS, [R] California: We have a tremendous problem in California called illegal immigration. It needs to be dealt with. It's a federal responsibility. It has not been dealt with on the federal level, and I hope to come with my Congress members here and deal with that.

REP.-ELECT SUE MYRICK, [R] North Carolina: Back in North Carolina, people are very tired of paying up to half their income in taxes, and they also are very tired of a criminal justice system that doesn't work and crime rampant on the streets. And they're tired of a welfare system that hasn't worked over the last 30 years. And so they spoke loud and clear this time, and they sent myself and others up here to change things.

MR. LEHRER: One House race has gone down to four votes. A recount of the 186,000 votes cast in Connecticut's 2nd District gives that small edge to Democratic incumbent Sam Gejdenson over Republican Edward Munster. The issue is expected to go to the courts and might have to be finally resolved by the new Republican-controlled House in January.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gov. Lawton Chiles declared a state of emergency in Southern and Central Florida today as Tropical Storm Gordon continued to battered the state's Atlantic coast. At least four deaths from storm-related accidents have been reported. Gordon came ashore again this morning just South of Fort Myers, flooding homes, streets, and cropland. It had maximum sustained winds of 45 miles an hour. Rescue efforts continued today in the Philippines after an earthquake and tidal wave killed more than 65 people. Most of the victims lived on Mindoro Island, near the epicenter. Roads and bridges were destroyed, and most of the island is still without electricity. The quake, which hit early yesterday, measured 7.1 on the Richter Scale.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Republican view of the budget, two Catholic bishops on violence and other issues, a Proposition 187 update, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. SERIES - CHANGING THE GUARD

MR. MAC NEIL: First tonight, we continue our series of Newsmaker interviews with some of the Republicans who will now preside over key congressional committees. Tonight we focus on the budget committees in the House and Senate. These committees will oversee federal spending and budget cuts. In the House, the new chair will be John Kasich. In January, the 42-year-old Ohio Congressman will begin his seventh term in Congress. As the Budget Committee's ranking minority member, Kasich played a primary role in drafting a Republican alternative to the 1993 Clinton budget. The Senate Budget Committee will be led by Pete Domenici. Now in his fourth term, the New Mexico Republican served as Budget Committee Chairman from 1980 to '86. Both chairmen join us tonight from Capitol Hill. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us.

SEN. DOMENICI: Thanks for having us.

REP. KASICH: We're glad to be here.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman, before we get to programs and taxes, what will be different about the way you will arrive at budgets from how Democrats have done in terms of procedures? For instance, I've heard -- I've seen you quoted I think as saying you will -- you will change the base line by which budgets are calculated.

REP. KASICH: That's a given, Robin. The situation there is we don't want an increase in spending to be labeled a cut, and in Washington, if you increase spending for a program but you don't increase it as much as somebody says you ought to, then it's labeled a cut. What we want to do is we want to budget and score keep just like you do at home, the American family does. If you spend more than you spent the last year, that's an increase. If you spend less than the year before, it's a cut, and if you spend the same, it's a freeze. And we think that is a very important change in the way we do business up here.

MR. MAC NEIL: You're going to do that up in the Senate too, Senator?

SEN. DOMENICI: Yes. Actually, we hope to put in place new caps which represent the cuts imposed last year, and when you do that, you have a so-called base line that is real. And essentially, it is coming down each year, which means that the idea of it increasing by a certain amount attributable to inflation will not be built into the budget on the Senate side, and essentially, we're going to do things the same way. This is historic that we have a Republican chairman in the House and the Senate. It's never happened before. And I'm so glad that we get a shot at it. I think we're going to --

MR. MAC NEIL: Just so I understand on this base line business, it doesn't mean that all programs like entitlements, which tend to increase because built into them are increases for cost of living and so on, it doesn't mean that those increases won't happen, does it? It means that you will label them as increases, not as cuts, if they don't increase as rapidly as they might have done, is that right?

SEN. DOMENICI: I think that's right. Actually, most of the base line issue that John and I have been discussing has to do with the $500 billion that is appropriated and not so much the entitlements.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay.

REP. KASICH: Let me just say that I would intend to try to move to make sure that any, any federal spending program, if it goes up above the spending level the year before, is labeled an increase. We've had people accuse both sides of having cut entitlements, for example, when we have not cut entitlements, that the rate of increase has been somewhat slowed, and I don't think it is wise to talk in language that people in the country don't understand. If something goes up, it ought to be called an increase. If it goes down, it ought to be called a cut. And I think the entire federal budget ought to essentially -- ought to be pursued that way.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Domenici, starting with you, are you -- I know you've had some talks together -- are you both agreed to change the forecasting method from what's called static to dynamic scoring to predict the revenue consequences of tax cuts? Are you agreed on that?

SEN. DOMENICI: No. I think we're going to let John explain and express his views, but essentially what I've agreed to is that there are shortcomings in the current system, and we never tried the dynamic system, but we understand there are very major flaws in it. And so what John and I have talked about is having a joint Budget Committee hearing or a set of hearings very early, at which time we will bring the experts in and ask them about these two systems with the idea of the next budget director, CBO director, makingsome changes. But what we want to do is we want to learn the ramifications because our real goal is to be accurate. That's what we want.

REP. KASICH: That's --

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman, in giving your answer, would you also explain what the change means, would mean from static to dynamic scoring.

REP. KASICH: Well, the way it works right now, first of all, we have not even really seen the model that the economists use inside the capital to try to make estimates. I understand that Mr. Feldstein, a very respected economist, has argued that it is impossible to know how they even do estimates up here because it's, it's hidden away apparently in some vault somewhere, no one gets a chance to see the formula. Here's where you have problems. The current system does not take into account human behavior. I mean, it does to some degree but not to the degree that we would hope. For example, we put a tax on boats. And that tax on boats was designed to produce revenue. And what happened with the boat industry? Well, what happened was the boat industry went right into the gutter because raising taxes on the boats killed the boat building industry, and we ended up repealing the taxes because the cost of administering the boat tax was more than what we were collecting. Let me give you another example. Capital gains. Chairman Greenspan came before the Budget Committee and said if in, in the 80's we had, in fact, just indexed capital gains to protect people's investments against inflation, that we would have a stronger economy. Under the current system, it's scored as a 50 plus billion dollar loss in revenue. I do not believe that the current model takes into account human behavior, and what the Senator and I have agreed to do is to have some hearings. Clearly the new head of the Congressional Budget Office is going to be operating with a whole different view of this static versus dynamic model. Clearly, the current system has been inaccurate. It does not take into account human behavior, and we need changes.

MR. MAC NEIL: But the, the sort of essential point behind this is that those of you who are arguing for tax cuts are also arguing, are you not, that some of those tax cuts will produce revenue, additional revenue through increased economic activity, rather than just a drop in revenue --

REP. KASICH: Well, Robin --

MR. MAC NEIL: -- and that you hope that the dynamic forecasting will demonstrate that, is that correct?

REP. KASICH: Well, clearly, we believe that reducing and then indexing capital gains will provide for a stronger economy and more revenue. When it comes to the family tax credit, no one has argued that that is growth-oriented. We would be prepared to pay for that dollar for dollar. But we will work with the new director of the Congressional Budget Office, and we will, we will meet whatever scoring requirements we must meet. And as we did last year, remember, the budget Republicans in the House produced a budget that had a family tax credit and capital gains and a variety of programs. We paid for each and every one of them, but we now believe that that model -- look, I asked Chairman Sabo to have a hearing on this two months ago. I think we need to upgrade something that was created twenty or thirty years ago, and we need to get into the modern times.

MR. MAC NEIL: Senator, the answer -- could I just ask you this? Does it dismay you that the President's budget chairman, Alice Rivlin, calls this dynamics scoring nonsense, a license to bust the budget?

SEN. DOMENICI: Yeah, it does. I've had a conversation with her today. And frankly, I don't believe either of us or our committees or our leadership are interested in nonsense. Frankly, what we're interested in, because, after all, whatever you estimate will show up in the reality in a year, so you know, if the estimating is wrong, we're going to be off one year later. So there's a reality check every year. So what we want to do is to make the system of estimating the cost of the -- to the government of increased -- of programs and of tax reductions, we want to make that as accurate and authentic as possible. And there's room for improvement. We're going to find out from experts -- never been done before -- we think the public ought to try to understand this, and we're going to try to help do that.

REP. KASICH: You know, one of the things that's bothersome, Robin, is you have a guy like Alan Greenspan who comes in and says, had we indexed capital gains, Americans would have been better off for having done it. One of the reasons why it didn't get done was because people said, well, how are we going to pay for it? And this is not an opinion of a Republican Congressman on Capitol Hill. This is the opinion of the Chairman who says that we would have a stronger economy and, therefore, more revenue, and that's why we need to upgrade and update this whole system.

MR. MAC NEIL: I see. Let me ask you both, Sen. Domenici, starting with you, are you both as, as incoming budget chairmen, enthusiastically, personally re-embracing the supply side economics of the Reagan years?

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, actually, you know, I think -- I think that word is used, and a lot of times it's used without, without meaning. Most people understand that certain aspects of tax cutting create activity and cause growth. If that's supply side, it's reality. If one is suggesting that because I believe in supply side economics that it means I'm going to change everything in the budget and that deficits are not going to matter, well, then obviously that's not me. I believe deficits matter, and I want everybody to know that from the standpoint of this chairman, we do not intend to increase the deficit as we build change into the policies of our government. We're not about increasing deficits; we're about decreasing deficits, but creating a different set of policies, one of which is less taxes over time, not more. If that's supply side, so be it.

MR. MAC NEIL: And what's your answer, Congressman? Are you an enthusiastic supply sider?

REP. KASICH: Sure I am.

MR. MAC NEIL: A reborn supply sider?

REP. KASICH: Well, I believe that providing incentives for people to invest is something that really works positively for the country in the 1980's. I think what the Senator and I are going to do -- we're going to complete what happened -- we're going to work to complete with our committees what happened in the 1980's. What happened in the 1980's is that by providing incentives to people, we brought in hundreds of billions of dollars more in revenue by greater economic activity. Where we fell down is we didn't cut spending.

SEN. DOMENICI: That's right.

REP. KASICH: Here in the 1990's, we are going to cut spending. We are going to have a smaller government. And that's not just theoretical. We have laid our proposals down on the table, specifically hundreds of pages of documents of where we want to downsize the government. What was missing in the 80's is that we cut the taxes, but we never cut the spending. What we're going to do in the 90's is we're going to finish the job.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, how do you respond, Congressman, to LeonaPanetta, the President's chief of staff, who said today, "I'll tell you what will happen is everybody will say everybody let's take cover in a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but when it comes to the specific cuts, they'll duck and run?"

REP. KASICH: Well, you know, Leon is a friend of mine, and I appreciate his comment on there, but we're now in a position -- we're in a position now of driving the car, and let me suggest to you two years ago when the President said if you don't like our taxes, give us your alternative, we did. We had the same level of deficit reduction as the President had without one dime of tax increases, and guess what? We were more specific than the President was in his budget. Last year, we had all these incentives in the budget, plus we had more spending on defense, and we had lower deficits every single year, and over five years than the President had by laying the specifics on the table. I think that's a false argument. I think the White House ought to stop advancing the argument that we haven't been specific, because we have been. We need to get them in the ball game of wanting to downsize government.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well --

SEN. DOMENICI: I hope they will help us because here's the theory, we want to put into practice. We pass a Constitutional Amendment, which I think we're going to do. That doesn't go to the President.

MR. MAC NEIL: On the balanced budget, you mean?

SEN. DOMENICI: Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. I believe we're going to adopt policy once that's done jointly, both Houses, we're going to say let's put ourselves on the glide path to that Constitutional Amendment, assuming it's going to become law, and if it didn't, I think it's good policy anyway, so we'll prove to Leon that we'll put ourselves on that path with whatever changes are necessary in the budgeting practices of this country.

MR. MAC NEIL: Can you hear me, or do you need to put the little thing back in your ear there? Yeah. One major change, Senator, on welfare, it appears that you're not for as drastic an overturn as - - of the system -- as some of the new House leaders, the Gingrich Republicans in the House. Is that so?

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, frankly, I'm not sure that's so. Let me suggest to you, though, that when numbers are used about saving money on welfare reform, you have to really ask what are we talking about?

MR. MAC NEIL: I think 40 billion is the figure that's used over five years in the contract, is it?

SEN. DOMENICI: Okay. Some others have said that there's $300 billion worth of welfare. Well, that's so if you include education, if you include everything the cities and states do. But I believe now is the time to do major surgery to welfare. And I'll tell you why, because the big impediment to it was in the past there weren't jobs for the welfare -- for us to say, well, let's have work fare, train, and go to work. This economy is almost, almost at full employment. Now is the time to reform it and build in job requirements for the continuation of benefits.

MR. MAC NEIL: What is your take on the welfare situation? Do you see yourself as more radical than the Senator, Congressman?

REP. KASICH: Well, I've never really discussed in detail what the Senator's position is on welfare, but if I was to bet, I would say that he believes welfare reform means we should spend less money in this next year than what we've been spending. The administration wants us -- they call something welfare reform, and they spend more money. We're going to have significant change in welfare, and hopefully, the administration will get in to discussions with us, but I think between Newt Gingrich and a whole variety of people, and over in the Senate now with Rick Santorum taking a seat, very involved in welfare reform, we are going to see, we're going to give people what they want. And you know what that is? Essentially, this should be a weigh station, not a permanent station, and secondly, people should work when they're on public assistance or get trained. This should not be a system of where they get on, and we get generation after generation. It's bad for the taxpayers, and it's bad for the people who get entrapped in this system. We're going to see significant welfare reform.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Well, gentlemen both, thank you for joining us.

REP. KASICH: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the bishops, Proposition 187, and Richard Rodriguez. FOCUS - CATHOLIC CONCERNS

MR. LEHRER: Now some thoughts from America's Catholic bishops who are having their semiannual meeting in Washington right now. Today they adopted statements on women and on sexual abuse by the clergy. Yesterday, they issued a call to replace attack politics and bumper sticker solutions with concern for the common good. It came in a pastoral message titled "Confronting a Culture of Violence" which spoke to Catholic Americans about social policies ranging from abortion to hunger and homelessness. Here to talk about that and other messages to come from the meeting are Thomas J. Costello, auxiliary bishop of Syracuse, New York, and John J. Snyder, bishop of St. Augustine, Florida. Bishop Costello, define the culture of violence in the United States of America right now.

BISHOP COSTELLO: Well, I think we find violence, Jim, in all of our society, in our streets. It's on our television. It's in our homes. It almost seems that whatever our problem, we turn to violence to resolve it. If it's an unwanted pregnancy, we do the violence of abortion. If it's the crime problem, our solution seems to be the violence solution of capital punishment. If it's aging or illness, now we're hearing about the violence of assisted-suicide and euthanasia. It seems to us that as a society, as a culture, we're turning to violence in response to all of our challenges and all of our difficulties.

MR. LEHRER: Does our political system encourage violence? Do we have a violent political system?

BISHOP SNYDER: Well, I think we're living in a culture that just seems to be hesitant about taking the time to resolve conflict, and I think are we see in various ways, sometimes in the political system, it's in relationships. We've seen it in terms of the increase of spouse abuse by a partner that women have experienced, and we're very concerned about that. And that's escalating, so these are aspects, Jim, that we would be very much concerned about.

MR. LEHRER: I read where one of your colleagues here at the Washington meeting said that the politics was encouraging, that all the talk about war rooms and attack ads and all of that and everything political is couched in terms of fight and conflict. Would you agree with that?

BISHOP COSTELLO: Well, we've just come away from an election, and I think as we review it, where we used to consider politics, the art of compromise, trying to find solutions that serve the common good. It seemed to me in the past election at least there was an awful lot of self-aggrandizement, turfdom, and it seems to me that that language perhaps is being generated right here in Washington.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. You mean, you don't think it's being generated from out in the country and Washington as reflecting it, you believe it starts here, and it's --

BISHOP COSTELLO: It's probably more universal. I like to blame Washington. We in Syracuse have problems.

MR. LEHRER: Take a free shot. Right. What is your, your bishops have looked at all of these problems. You deal with them all of the time, and within the Church and within your communities. What's the root of it all, Bishop? Where does it all come from? What has made us the way we are?

BISHOP SNYDER: I wish I had the solution to that, Jim, but I think a good deal of it comes from a lack of values being brought out in our schools and I think some of the difficulties within the family where we don't seem to support good family life to the degree that we used to, and so often it's economic conditions that forces both parents to work, that there isn't the kind of supervision that I experience, the kind of love and presence of mother and father all the time. I think there's a lot of these issues that are part of the weakening of structures.

MR. LEHRER: Your message on this issue used the term it's time for a moral revolution. All right, now, who -- revolutions have to be led by somebody -- who should lead this one?

BISHOP COSTELLO: Remember the grandmother in Chicago whose little grandson was one that was turned out the window by his two playmates because he wouldn't steal for them? As he was being buried, she made a very, very plaintive cry, "When is somebody, somewhere, somehow, going to do something about this killing of our children?" And I guess we're trying to suggest in that, in our letter that the somebody is all of us. There's a lot of violence in our own personal lives I think. The document made me think about violence in my life. I'm never more violence than when I'm behind the wheel of my automobile. [laughing]

MR. LEHRER: There's a little of that in all of us.

BISHOP COSTELLO: Isn't that the truth?

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

BISHOP COSTELLO: But I think this document is calling for a conversion process within ourselves. I think there is violence, anger, impatience, impetuosity in all of us, and the document I think is calling each of us to be that somebody that starts the process. And then we have to do it collectively as somebodies too, and not just me as an individual but my community, my neighborhood.

MR. LEHRER: This term "common good" was also in the letter, and you just heard the interview that Robin did with Sen. Domenici and Congressman Kasich, and they were talking about reforming welfare, and Sen. Domenici said, this was the time for major surgery in the welfare system. And it's been suggested by, by others in the new, in the new incoming Republican leadership that more of the welfare burden should be shifted to folks like you, to the Church, to private things. What's your reaction to what's going on when you hear these kinds of statements?

BISHOP SNYDER: Well, I think that we have to recognize our Church and many churches are doing enormous amount for the poor and those who are hurting. I think there may be limits to what we can do, but we've got to keep stretching ourself because these are our brothers and sisters who are out there. They're alienated. They're disenfranchised. They're so often without hope. And I think it's going to take a coalition of all the forces, government and private and church-related organizations, to be able to make a dent in the problems that we face.

MR. LEHRER: But specifically, when they talk about -- they and others -- and these are not new ideas, obviously.

BISHOP COSTELLO: We've heard it before.

MR. LEHRER: Right. And that, that every welfare system should be work-oriented, nobody should have public assistance unless they're working. Another suggestion is that, that unwed mothers who have more children, if they have, they should be taken off -- they're are a lot of specific programs. What -- is that the answer?

BISHOP COSTELLO: No, I don't think so. I think those are bumper sticker kinds of answers, solutions. It seems to me that the principles that we represent are good today and tomorrow and yesterday. And administrations change and political climates change, but it seems to me those principles endure. I think we need to, as we've been called upon before, in the voluntary sector, the private sector, to do all we can, and our dollars are becoming stretched too, but I think there's a challenge there for us to do more. At the same time, I think we have to be involved as advocates in the public policy process, pointing out to our elected leaders the responsibility of government to care for the weak and the widow and the orphan, the needy among us. So I think it's an ongoing kind of, kind of dialogue. The tides change and shift I think from time to time.

MR. LEHRER: But you believe, you believe too, do you not -- or I'm just asking you -- do you believe the government has a major - - the major responsibility to take care of the folks that, that Bishop Costello is talking about, the people you were talking about too, people that can't take care of themselves?

BISHOP SNYDER: I would say, Jim, they have definitely a major responsibility. I think we as Church also, if we're going to reflect the spirit of the gospel, if we're going to be faithful to our convictions and to what we've committed our life to, I think we have a major role, and I think there are independent sources. I often wonder if business couldn't be more involved in these efforts, because it's for the welfare of the common, the country and the common good, and it would also be to the benefit of business if they could help to address these problems.

MR. LEHRER: What have you all picked up within the body politic of American Catholicism about the public attitudes toward welfare, towards taking care of these folks? This election was apparently a lot about that. Is that -- are you hearing these same kinds of sentiments expressed?

BISHOP COSTELLO: Rush Limbaugh is the most popular person in Central New York, where I come from right now, so we're hearing a lot of those kinds of sentiments.

MR. LEHRER: What do you say to people when they say, hey, come on, let's get these people off welfare and get 'em back to work?

BISHOP COSTELLO: Well, I think work is a terribly important reality in this whole equation. John Paul, II has said that work is the answer to the social question, so I think we have to be very concerned about job development and not just jobs but jobs that will support a family. In my particular part of the country, our unemployment rate is very, very low currently. We've lost thousands, literally thousands of manufacturing jobs, and people are being employed in retail industry and service industry, so the differential in the pay levels is just, is striking. But I think job development is a terribly important thing, and, again, I believe that has to be done in a partnership. I think government has a role, but I think, you know, the vast majority of the jobs are in the private sector. So I think we have some responsibility. I think we have to be in this together. I don't think any one of us, any group of us alone can resolve this problem. I think it's a common challenge.

MR. LEHRER: Bishop Snyder, you were involved in the message today, the letter today --

BISHOP SNYDER: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: -- on, on the role of women in the Church. Characterize that for me.

BISHOP SNYDER: We're calling for the role of women to be recognized more fully in the Church, to recognize their fully equality, their dignity, to come out against the evils of sexism which kind of permeates a lot of our society. You know, we know that we're a patriarchal society, not just a patriarchal Church, and so there is an in-built prejudice that's not even necessarily a conscious thing. And so we're trying to say the Church would be enriched the more we can use the gifts and talents of our women. We know that the Holy Father's decision, ordination, certainly guides us in that direction.

MR. LEHRER: There are no options there?

BISHOP SNYDER: No. We feel there are many more opportunities, Jim, that there are wonderful gifts that the women have that can be brought to bear in healing, I don't mean just in a hospital, I mean healing of relationships, of spiritual direction. Our people are spiritually hungry. You sense that. You see it more and more. And a number of our women increasingly are being trained to be spiritual directors. It's not just a role for priests anymore.

MR. LEHRER: What would you say, though, to a woman who would say, wait a minute, it doesn't mean anything as long as women cannot be priests in this Church?

BISHOP COSTELLO: There's no question that there are women who say that, that that represents a very real segment of the population. I have to say I understand. I sympathize. I feel. But right now, my hands are tied. We've been told that this isn't possible at the present time at least.

MR. LEHRER: Is that how you feel about it too, your hands are tied, so it's not even an issue that you can talk about?

BISHOP SNYDER: Well, what we're trying to deal with, Jim, is what's possible now. And we don't feel that is possible, but we feel there's much more possible and that we don't want to tie the question of power and decision making just to priesthood, because we feel if we really call upon the gifts of both our women and our laymen, and participate in the decision making process, whether it's in terms of the parish, it might be finance counsel, it might be pastoral counsel on a diocesan level, we too must incorporate the gifts of women on these committees and these boards. They play a large part in the eventual decisions that are made.

MR. LEHRER: So there's work that can be done below the level of ordination is what you're saying?

BISHOP SNYDER: Very much so. And we've got to continue to search that out. We don't think we have all the answers, and we're calling upon those who are professionals, whether it be canonists, or theologian, to help us open up and understand more fully what is possible at this time.

BISHOP COSTELLO: We felt we had to say something to our women. The response to the Holy Father's letter was some rejoiced in it, and others were distressed by it. As you know well, we tried for nine years to put together a statement to, for, and about women, and we didn't succeed very well. The fascinating thing is that this document, which is a much briefer document and a much humbler document in terms of its objectives, received only 10 negative votes.

MR. LEHRER: Out of how many?

BISHOP COSTELLO: Well, there were 248 or so.

MR. LEHRER: Two hundred and forty-eight.

BISHOP SNYDER: Two hundred and twenty-eight positive votes.

BISHOP COSTELLO: Two hundred and thirty.

MR. LEHRER: And you consider that progress?

BISHOP COSTELLO: Brother, that's --

BISHOP SNYDER: Well, it sends a message out, and we only consider it a step, but if we don't take steps, we won't move.

MR. LEHRER: I hear you.

BISHOP COSTELLO: Well, like the violence statement, neither one of them is the end all and the be all, hardly the last word but hopefully a first word.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you very much. FOCUS - COURT CHALLENGE - PROPOSITION 187

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, a legal challenge to California's new immigration law. Proposition 187 would deny illegal immigrants access to education, health care, and social services. It was perhaps the single most controversial ballot measure of last week's election, and it passed overwhelmingly. But will it go into effect? This afternoon a federal judge in Los Angeles heard a request to temporarily block its implementation. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles has more.

JEFFREY KAYE: The legal battle over Proposition 187 is expected to be a lengthy one. We get a taste of the arguments now from two people involved in the debate. Antonia Hernandez is president and general counsel for MALDEF. That stands for the Mexican-American Legal Defense & Educational Fund. And Dan Lungren, who is the attorney general of the state of California, he joins us from Sacramento. Thank you both for joining us. Let me start with you, if I may, Ms. Hernandez. Since voters voted for Proposition 187 decisively, 59 percent, 41 percent, why shouldn't it take effect?

ANTONIA HERNANDEZ: Well, not everything that the electorate votes on is constitutional, you know. We had slavery, and that was the will of the people, and it didn't happen. There was objection to civil rights movement and, and we had to change that, so that just because the electorate votes for it doesn't mean that it's constitutional and acceptable.

MR. KAYE: Mr. Lungren, how do you feel about that? Should it take effect just because the voters voted for it?

DAN LUNGREN: Well, I must say that's the first time I ever heard it compared to slavery. I think that's a far reach here. The voters voted for it, 4.8 million people, 4.6 million people in the state of California voted for it. That's almost four times the number of people who voted for Ted Kennedy to be in the United States Senate. I don't see anybody trying to stop him from being in the Senate. It is a strong vote of the people. Obviously, there are some who feel that it's gone too far, and they are making a constitutional challenge. If I didn't think we could make a defensible argument. If I didn't think we had a prospect for success, we would not be defending it in the courts right now. We do think those things are possible. We do think that specifically with respect to law enforcement measures in here that that does not contradict the Constitution, either state or federal, does not have anything that contradicts current law. That ought to be able to go into effect immediately. There are --

MR. KAYE: We'll come to all the provisions, but before -- we'll go through them -- most of them step by step, so it gets some flavor of, of where you think the issues are, but the proponents expect it is to be challenged from the beginning. You were a late supporter of Proposition 187. What were the legal issues that must have been given you some pause?

DAN LUNGREN: Well, one of the things I wanted to be satisfied on was that we could make a reasonable defense of it with respect to the educational aspect.It obviously was intended to be a challenge to the 1982 United States Supreme Court case of Plyler, the Texas case that was by a five-four decision decided by the United States Supreme Court, four members of the majority are no longer on the court. I wanted to satisfy myself that it was framed in such a way that that question would most likely be brought directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for determination as to what the limits are on action that may be taken to restrict educational benefits to those who are not here legally. I believe that, in fact, it does give us a basis for making that argument.

MR. KAYE: Now, the Plyler case that you referred to, and we'll start with education, that is an important component of this, was an '82 Texas case that said essentially that children who are illegal aliens have a constitutional right to a free public education. How important is that decision, let me ask you, Ms. Hernandez, to your case, that 1982 Texas case?

ANTONIA HERNANDEZ: Well, I mean, I think that it's important because the Supreme Court has spoken on it and, as Dan has indicated, that that was one of the major objections of the proponents of Proposition 187. But it's not just the United States Constitution, the state constitution, the constitution of the State of California also deals with the issue of what benefits that residents of the state of California, people who pay into the tax system, are eligible to receive. So it's not just the U.S. Constitution. And as to the composition of the court, as we all know, the court likes to stay with precedent. Hopefully that, you know, the Supreme Court is a much more stable arbiter of these issues, as has been in the past, and that we don't rely on who sits on the Supreme Court. But we rely on the principle that has been articulated.

MR. KAYE: Mr. Lungren, what about the principle?

DAN LUNGREN: Well, one of the principles they articulated was the fact that the state of Texas did not make a showing of a compelling state interest. They said that as you judge this kind of decision, you have to see whether there's a compelling state interest. They said the state of Texas did not show to the satisfaction of the court that there was a negative fiscal impact on the state as a result of the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens there. That is not the case in California now. We have three separate lawsuits against the federal government where we plead in part that we do have a negative fiscal impact. Also, the United States Supreme Court indicated that the primary level of government responsible for immigration is the federal government and then looked at what was happening in Washington at that time. They quoted the then attorney general, William French Smith, and others to suggest that the United States government was not going to make an attempt to send people back to the countries from whence they came. In fact, I was involved in that as was Antonia. We created what was supposed to be a one-time legalization program. That is not the state of the politics or the government in Washington, D.C., right now. Everybody admits it's a serious problem. California is suing. The Congress is trying to decide what they are going to do. So on both counts major, major things that the United States Supreme Court relied on in coming to their decision. We have a very different fact scenario today. But we think we, in fact, can present that to the court, and that will require them to take a fresh look, and it does improve our chances of them finding this to be constitutional.

MR. KAYE: Ms. Hernandez, are different facts in California going to sway this court? Should they sway this report?

ANTONIA HERNANDEZ: I don't believe so, because you're dealing with some very fundamental issues. The issue of immigration, as you know, is a federal issue. Moreover, the recognition that these people, the majority of the people come for work, they don't come for an education, and therefore, you know, you have to deal with the reason why these people come. Secondly, if you look at the decision of the Supreme Court, you are dealing with children, and now we're speaking specifically about education, and that these children, as in most cases, don't have control of their own destiny, and that is that we are imposing punishment on individuals who have no control. Moreover, the issue of cost, which seems to be coming up, people just easily brush away the issue that these people pay taxes, and, and although they are poor, by and large, and don't pay as much taxes as wealthy people, they don't ask you for a visa when you're buying a house or paying your rent or buying goods. These people are paying into the tax system and should be entitled to some of those benefits that those tax dollars pay.

MR. KAYE: Let's broaden this out to another issue. The big issue, as I understand it, for you is the issue of the supremacy where you believe that the state should not set immigration policy. Does Proposition 187 usurp the federal role in setting immigration policy, in your opinion?

ANTONIA HERNANDEZ: Well, there's no question about it. I mean, the centerpiece to Proposition 187 is deputizing state and local governmental entities and mandating that they report anyone that they suspect of being a non-documented individual. And therefore, and for the exclusive purpose of submitting information to INS for deportation of these individuals. So it is central to the whole issue in 187.

MR. KAYE: Mr. Lungren.

DAN LUNGREN: Well, we have a very different position on that. No one suggests that employers in the state of California and anywhere else are deputized INS agents because they have to fulfill the obligation under the federal law to check someone's documentation when they attempt to work. In fact, they do that under penalty of receiving fines if they don't do that. The people in California are not becoming INS agents. They are merely turning information over to the INS. And to suggest that we can't do that flies in the face of even the language contained in the Plyler case. The Plyler case, in the majority opinion specifically said that laws which mirror the federal law, although imposed at the state level, are not preempted by the federal entry into the area of immigration law. That is absolutely consistent. There have been decisions in California which have rules that, in fact, law enforcement agencies can give information that they obtain once they've arrested somebody to the INS. And to suggest otherwise I think throws this thing into a cocked hat. Under federal law today, AFDC payments, Medicaid payments are restricted to only those people who are here legally. The states are obligated to basically implement that, and we, therefore, as state employees are required to make determinations as to eligibility. So that flies in the face of any argument that somehow this violates the idea of the supremacy clause or the fact that this entire area has been preempted by the federal government. It just hasn't been the case.

MR. KAYE: How about that?

ANTONIA HERNANDEZ: Well, it's true. And, in fact, I'm glad that you have highlighted the fact that undocumented individuals right now are not eligible to get a majority of federal and state benefits and that in order to receive those you have to prove eligibility. Having said that, the purpose of 187 is the purpose of identifying individuals through governmental entities, whether you are a schoolteacher, whether you are a nurse, or a doctor, for the exclusive purpose of deporting that individual, not for the purpose of granting a benefit. And what is happening in this legislation that I don't think people truly understand and was brought out by the judge is that under the way Proposition 187 is written that when a police officer stops you for a ticket or for a vehicle violation, they are mandated to ask for your legal status. This is an entirely different issue, where the status of an individual is central to the ability to function in the state of California.

DAN LUNGREN: That last statement is absolutely incorrect. The law specifically says 187 is upon arrest, not when you stop somebody for a check. And the other thing I would say is that -- and Antonia's organization is suing on the position that we in the state of California cannot deny those benefits that we pay for a hundred percent in the fashion that the federal benefits are not allowed, so Antonia, you go beyond the question of what the federal authorities restrict to the point of the prenatal care program that we have on our own established under this governor, and we have said that that money ought to go to those people who are here legally. That's beyond what you're suggesting here.

MR. KAYE: All right. This is obviously going to go on for a long time. We've heard that the judge did impose a temporary restraining order, and obviously, this thing could go on for years. Do you think it will go on for years, Ms. Hernandez?

ANTONIA HERNANDEZ: Absolutely. And I think it was contemplated, the fact that this issue will stop when the Supreme Court speaks on it.

MR. KAYE: All right. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Lungren, thank you very much. ESSAY - DEATH WATCH

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Richard Rodriguez, editor of the Pacific News Service in San Francisco, considers our familiarity with death.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, Pacific News Service: Was it so long ago when discretion ruled a TV news room? At a car crash, at a murder scene, the TV camera used to shy away from intimate postures of death. Not anymore. Something is changing in America. We are growing more interested in death, even besotted by death. We Americans used to be famous for ignoring death. People didn't die in America. They passed away. Violence and death were not unknown to us -- the Civil War, the Wild West. Perhaps because there was so much death, we turned away. We determined to make youth our national theme. Today it is precisely the death of the young that amazes us and makes death seem inescapable. The old are living longer, while the young are in jeopardy. Here in East Oakland, in the broken heart of the city, stands a mortuary, a thriving business these days. The undertaker buries the young more often than he buries the old. And he says kids in the neighborhood often come by, hang out. The littlest kids come in to look at the corpses. Throughout this century, young Americans went off to foreign wars. Many returned dazed, shell-shocked. We didn't understand what they were trying to tell us about the horror of the killing and the dying. In today's America, young children live with death as a schoolmate. Death lingers in the high school hallway. Death walks behind you on the way home, death peers out of a passing car. One boy recently told me, "I'm either going to grow up to be a rap artist, or I'll be murdered." It is not only the young in the inner city who are haunted by death. You can hear the siren call in the music of the young.

RAP SEGMENT: This world never gave me a chance! This world is going to have to pay!

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Teen suicide is on the rise in the American suburbs. And to children both in the suburbs and in the inner city who say they are numb, death promises ultimate sensation. Death becomes a trip beyond drugs. The fatalism of the young has changed adult perceptions of death. When I was a kid, Halloween was no big deal. You put on a mask, you went out, and filled a bag full of candy. You came home and got sick of the candy. As a boy, I would never have guessed that Halloween would someday become an adult celebration. Yet, this year, there were bank tellers and typists throughout downtown San Francisco in broad daylight in costume. Homosexuals were the first to make Halloween an adult festival in the 1970's. Gays knew all about costume long before that. What was interesting on Halloween night in the Castro District this year was that death was everywhere in the crowd of masks. At a time of AIDS, death was the invited guest at the street fair. Ancient cultures learned to make their peace with death. Early in November, in Mexico, on the Dia De Les Mortos, the Catholic feast of All Souls, Mexicans visit the graves of their relatives, they bring food for the dead, they clean up the grave site, they linger, and talk to the ghosts, they sing, get drunk. They even poke fun at death by sucking on candy skulls. There is a thin line between morbidity and the acceptance of death. Now that death is everywhere, in the morning paper, on our TV screen, now that the young are dying of gunfire, of AIDS, of drugs, we cannot use the idea of youth to evade death. Death forces its way into our lives. We have turned morbid. We linger over every detail of Nicole Simpson's murder. We want to see the bodies taken away from the bus in Tel Aviv, after the terrorist bomb has exploded. We are like children. Anne Rice, the novelist, has caught the spirit of these times with her romances about death.

ACTOR: [movie segment] You're a vampire who never knew what life was until it ran out in a red gush over your lips.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: This month, Tom Cruise appears on the movie screen as Anne Rice's leading man, a vampire. Here is the ultimate irony. Death has become our erotic lover. It is a decadent fantasy, appropriate to a time when children murder children and young people pass a virus to one another in fevered embrace. You pay seven bucks to see death disguised as Tom Cruise, the boy next door, stealing his way into our bedroom. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the government reported consumer prices up just a tenth of a percent in October, the smallest rise in six months. That follows yesterday's interest rate hike by the Federal Reserve to control inflation. And the Clinton administration rejected a Republican request to delay a vote on the world trade agreement known as GATT. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.