The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert Mac Neil in New York.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After the News Summary, Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports from Haiti, Charles Krause talks with the foreign minister of Cuba, Barbara Jordan, who heads the Federal Commission on Immigration, gives her perspective on the problem, and Mark Shields and Paul Gigot weigh in with our Friday political analysis. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: The American military tightened its grip in Haiti today but it wasn't enough to stop another outbreak of deadly violence. With more than 20,000 GI's already deployed, the U.S. stepped up patrols in Port-au-Prince this morning. The purpose was to control massive demonstrations marking the third anniversary of the coup that toppled President Aristide. But as the marchers started, more than 2,000 looters broke into a warehouse belonging to a Haitian military leader. U.S. troops tried to stop the rampage but failed. Later, Aristide supporters and those from Haiti's main paramilitary group fought running street battles using machetes and rifles. At least three people were killed and about a dozen wounded. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported that Americans' personal income rose 4/10 of a percent last month. Consumer spending jumped at more than twice that rate, up .9 of a percent. U.S. and Japanese negotiators in Washington are making a last ditch effort to reach a trade agreement before tonight's midnight deadline. The administration has said it will impose sanctions on Tokyo if no agreement is reached by then. The U.S. wants Japan to open its markets to more American goods. General Motors and the United Auto Workers reached a tentative agreement today to end a three-day strike at a Buick plant in Flint, Michigan. Workers had complained they were forced to work excessive amounts of overtime. A vote on the pact is expected tomorrow.

MR. MAC NEIL: In Washington today, Senate Democrats failed to stop a Republican filibuster of the campaign finance reform bill, effectively killing the measure for this year. President Clinton had supported the legislation as part of his reform agenda. It would have given federal funds to candidates who limited campaign spending. Republicans say they oppose using more federal money to finance campaigns. The partisan debate continued on the Senate floor after the vote.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL, [R] Kentucky: A Democrats only conference has produced a deal that only Common Cause could love, chock full of PACS, taxpayer financing for congressional campaigns, carefully concealed incumbent protection devices, separate rules for the House and the Senate, and obscenely unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. This is the kind of bill that gives gridlock a good name.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: It is a huge and spectacular irony that those who are opposed to changing this system in a way that will restore public trust are themselves seeking to become the beneficiaries of that public mistrust.

MR. MAC NEIL: Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a separate reform bill banning nearly all gifts from lobbyists. The Senate is also expected to pass that bill next week.

MS. WARNER: The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform today recommended setting up a computerized national registry of all citizens and immigrants authorized to work in this country. Employers would be expected to check the registry to be sure they were not hiring illegal aliens. The Commission also suggested using the registry to deny illegal immigrants tax-funded services other than education or emergency medical care. Former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan headed the Commission. She talked about the computer registry at the National Press Club in Washington.

BARBARA JORDAN, Chairwoman, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reforms: We believe the most promising option for alleviating fraud and discrimination found in the workplace and in the current verification procedure is a computerized registry based on the Social Security number. All employees would be asked that tell us the number, then employer, you call the computer registry to verify that the number is valid and was issued to someone authorized to work in the United States.

MS. WARNER: We'll have an interview with former Congresswoman Jordan later in the program. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was formally welcomed to the High Court today. President Clinton attended the private investiture ceremony in the Supreme Court Chamber. Afterwards, Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined Breyer outside for a traditional picture-taking walk. The Court's 1994-95 term begins on Monday.

MR. MAC NEIL: The space shuttle Endeavor lifted off at dawn this morning from the Cape Canaveral Space Center in Florida. The 10-day mission will survey the Earth's environment with the most advanced civilian radar system ever sent into space. It will map habitats of several endangered species and attempt to identify oil slicks in the oceans. If successful, the radar system could be flown permanently to detect oil spills more promptly.

MS. WARNER: Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf states today agreed to stop blacklisting foreign companies that do business with Israel. The lifting of the so-called secondary boycott was announced at the United Nations after a meeting between the Saudi foreign minister and Sec. of State Christopher. Christopher said the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council also promised to try to persuade other Arab countries to drop their restrictions against direct trade with Israel. Defense Sec. Perry said today he believes the Bosnian Serbs are still being supplied with weapons from Serbia. Perry spoke after a meeting of NATO ministers in Spain. Last month, Serbia said it was cutting off all the humanitarian aid to its allies in Bosnia after they rejected a peace plan. The UN partially eased sanctions against Belgrade in return.

MR. MAC NEIL: Swedish and Finnish maritime officials today speculated on what may have caused the ferry Estonia to sink in the Baltic Sea earlier this week. Based on accounts from survivors, officials said the ship's bow doors were either left open or ripped open by stormy seas. More than 900 people perished in the disaster. Only 140 people were rescued. Thousands in Indiana are now being quarantined after a deadly plague spread to the country's capital city, New Delhi. Several suspected cases were reported in Britain as European health officials met in Brussels to decide what action to take. Lawrence McGinty of Independent Television News has this report.

LAWRENCE McGINTY, ITN: Today the health department called a press conference to announce details of the suspected cases of plague and of the counter measures it is now taking to screen people arriving from the Indian subcontinent.

DR. KENNETH CALMAN, Health Department: There is no cause for alarm. This illustrates that our surveillance measures are working, and, indeed, it is likely that further suspected cases will, in fact, be identified.

LAWRENCE McGINTY: The new precautions -- and they are only precautions -- are now enforced at all UK ports of entry from India. Aircraft and cargoes are being sprayed to kill insects and rodents that could carry the infection. Doctors and nurses are now boarding planes from India looking for people with symptoms that just might be plague. In India, despite measures to control the plague, the number of suspected cases in quarantine is now almost 2,500.

MS. WARNER: That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Ahead on the NewsHour, Charlayne Hunter-Gault in Haiti, Cuba's foreign minister, immigration commission chairwoman Barbara Jordan, and political analysts Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. FOCUS - DAY OF VIOLENCE

MR. MAC NEIL: We begin tonight with a report on today's events in Haiti. Exactly three years ago a military coup forced President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to flee the country. His supporters wanted to use the anniversary to celebrate his impending return, but Haiti's military rulers, who've agreed to step down by October 15th, warned that demonstrations could lead to violence. It turns out they were right. Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports from Port-au- Prince.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Today was supposed to be a day of non-violence and joyous celebration in Haiti, beginning with the Mass in the cathedral in Port-au-Prince delivered by pro-Aristide priests. After the Mass, parishioners joined thousands of other Aristide supporters marching through the streets of Port-au-Prince. Some were carrying American flags. Others carried pro-Aristide signs. As the marchers neared the headquarters of FRAPH, the paramilitary group aligned with the military Junta, violence broke out. Shots were fired, and rocks flew as Aristide supporters and members of FRAPH came face to face. Among those injured in the melee were two American news photographers. Despite the growing U.S. military presence in Haiti, no American troops were around to stop the violent confrontation. As the day wore on, there were numerous other skirmishes between pro and anti Aristide forces, resulting in at least three deaths and many injuries. Earlier in the day 2,000 looters emptied a food supply warehouse rumored to belong to one of the members of the military Junta. U.S. troops at first tried to prevent the looting but soon gave up on their policing efforts. With violence and disorder growing by the day, the U.S. military is greatly increasing its profile and presence. Currently, the military number more than 20,000. The growing U.S. presence is readily discernible, from the helicopter flights which drone on day and night to the presence of armed soldiers in Humvees and American tanks. Besides seeking to maintain order, U.S. forces also took over the Haitian radio and television stations earlier this morning, quelling the voice of the Haitian military which has been both anti-Aristide and anti-American in broadcasts. Meanwhile, as a precaution against the violence, the Haitian parliament did not meet today. Also, everything is closed due to a three-day mourning period for the Haitian soldiers killed in Cap-Haitien by the U.S. military over the weekend. But at an undisclosed location under heavy U.S. military guard we spoke with two of the parliamentarians today about the violence and their fears.

GARRY GUITEAU, Pro-Aristide Deputy: [speaking through interpreter] I am devoted to my position, and to me this still won't stop me working. We've been intimidated. We have all kinds of turmoil. They shoot on us. We were very close to death, but we have something to do. We are not going to let ourselves be intimidated and stopped. We'll keep on going.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Deputy St. Paul.

FRITZ ROBERT ST. PAUL, Pro-Aristide Deputy: [speaking through interpreter] Security has been reinforced around the parliament, and also we have the support of the Haitian population, so, therefore, I feel that nothing will happen to us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Outside of the chamber there has been tremendous security. What's it been like inside the chamber?

FRITZ ROBERT ST. PAUL: [speaking through interpreter] Besides our relation as a parliamentary, we have a human relation. We are colleagues, and then there was no friction inside. We were talking to each other.

GARRY GUITEAU: [speaking through interpreter] If you don't go outside and question people, you will never know what is happening inside of the chambers. Inside we talk, our differences we discuss, and then we are back friends again. There is no hard feeling. We work together.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Given that there are some senators and deputies who are supporting a general amnesty for the military, how much of a fight is there going to be? How much of a fight has there already been?

GARRY GUITEAU: [speaking through interpreter] Our position is to have a political amnesty, not a general amnesty. And the coup affected both sides of the parliament. Some people are for the return of Aristide, and some of us are against his return. And it is going to be a democratical fight in the chambers.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Haitians on the street have said in demonstrations that they won't feel safe until Gen. Cedras and the other military leaders have left the country. How do you feel about that?

FRITZ ROBERT ST. PAUL: [speaking through interpreter] According to the constitution, no one can ask these people to leave the country, but if they are good citizens and for the welfare of Haiti, they should leave. That will allow the democracy to go ahead.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Haitians on both sides are hopeful that the parliament can resolve its disagreement and arrive at a joint resolution on amnesty. This will allow the military Junta to leave before the deadline of October 15th. And it will also allow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to return.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Cuba's foreign minister, Barbara Jordan on immigration, and Shields and Gigot. FOCUS - HAVANA VIEW

MS. WARNER: We turn now to another Caribbean island that has had a stormy history with the United States, Cuba. The Clinton administration recently reached an accord with Fidel Castro's government to control the flow of immigrants from Cuba to the United States. But during those negotiations, the United States refused to discuss the issue that the Cubans insisted was causing the refugee flow, America's 35-year economic embargo against Cuba. Earlier this week, Charles Krause interviewed Cuba's foreign minister, Roberto Robaina, who was in New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Robaina, thank you very much for joining us. You're here in the United States, I believe, to try to convince Americans and the United Nations that the time has come for the United States to lift the trade embargo against your country. What's changed? Why would it be in the interest of this country now to lift the embargo?

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] I believe that my own country, the international community, and even the American society, which are convincing the U.S. government that the embargo should be lifted, they should be concerned that they are getting isolated with this policy in relation to my country. Cuba has a privileged geographic situation. Cuba has the intellectual, scientific, and technical level which is privileged. Cuba has a privileged infrastructure. And I believe that these are opportunities that the U.S. is missing. But together with this, it is missing the most important of the opportunities, which is not to be isolated with one policy.

MR. KRAUSE: I understand what you're saying but, as you know, for most of the past 35 years, the United States government has said that it will lift the embargo or begin to make changes in the embargo when your government is prepared to make political changes inside Cuba. Is there anything happening now? Is there anything about to happen that would provide some quid pro quo for the United States to begin to lift the embargo?

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] I believe that there is no justification for these policies, and, therefore, Cuba is not supposed to do anything for this policy to be changed. My country, like any other country in the world, will not accept external pressures. Cuba just would like to show that it's willing to select a path will enable it to live with dignity, with respect, and with its own voice. We have carried out several changes because there are different circumstances. But I don't think that we should make any change that will divert us from the path that has already been selected by Cubans.

MR. KRAUSE: In other words, you seem to be saying that you're not prepared to negotiate anything with the United States government in terms of the internal political situation in Cuba in return for a decision by the United States to lift all or part of the embargo.

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] It is impossible to request a country to work and run when it is not even allowed to breathe. And in order to breathe, we do not give anything in exchange. We have the right to breathe like any other country in the world. And I believe that that is what the American society should understand. And I believe she understands it. Not always so the U.S. government.

MR. KRAUSE: Let me try to be a little bit more specific. Before coming here this afternoon, I spoke with a fairly high level official in the United States government, and I have the following question: Would your government be willing to legalize opposition political parties? Would your government be willing to allow those opposition political leaders who are now under arrest or under house arrest to operate freely to open some political space if the United States government were prepared to lift the most recent parts of the sanctions which would mean remittances and allow a resumption of the flights from Miami to Cuba?

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] In relation to our political and democratic participation in the process in Cuba I would say that is total difference because we are talking about different processes. I am not saying that our process is perfect. I believe that it will be still be improved but I don't have any reason to accept that whatever is said to me from outside is the perfect one. If we want to really speak about a purer world, we should accept each other the way we are. I ask for Cuba what we - - the way we do for the world, the way we act for the world, understanding and respect, dialogue and communication, and we see whatever will come out.

MR. KRAUSE: I understand what you're saying. Now let me ask you this. I was in Cuba. I've been in Cuba five times over the last ten years, and most recently about four months ago. It seems to me that the situation there has changed dramatically over the past several years, and, in fact, there is growing opposition to your government inside Cuba, in the population as a whole. Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their views openly in Cuba in a more competitive political situation?

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] All those people you mentioned could have their political space. The world thinks that our parliament is a parliament of members of the party and half of all parliament members are not members of the party. They have other affiliations, or they don't have an affiliation. I believe that the country should be known first, even have conversations like the one you've had, but realities are very different. Even in our own Latin America, everybody speaks today about a democratic opening in Latin America. But none of those countries have come to that opening are under the pressure that my country is facing.

MR. KRAUSE: You've talked about some things that you say that democratic governments may be doing in your country that are not exactly democratic. Are you suggesting that the United States is still attempting to covertly destabilize your government?

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] I don't have the elements to assess that the U.S. policy maintained all through these years has changed at this time. I could say that in relation to other administrations it has not been so aggressive. But a tightened blockade of the one that exists nowadays there is no doubt that they are following the path to strangle the country economically. I wouldn't dare to say that that is a feeling of the whole administration and of the whole of the United States. I believe that the policy that we have condemned for many years is more present than ever. So if the policy is more present than ever, we don't have elements to say that the policy has changed.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you very much.

ROBERTO ROBAINA: [speaking through interpreter] Thank you very much. FOCUS - BORDER WATCH

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, a new look at immigration in America. The issue has risen to the top of the political agenda this year in many parts of the country. And today the government-appointed commission on immigration reform issued its first report. In a moment, a conversation I had with the chairwoman of that commission, Barbara Jordan, but first, this background from Correspondent Tom Bearden.

MR. BEARDEN: It is deadly dull duty for the border patrol agents assigned to Operation Hold the Line. Park the truck under a convenient shade tree and for eight hours watch the mostly deserted Mexican side of the Rio Grande. It's a far cry from what it was like in 1986. Back then, agents only sporadically cruised the levee road. Thousands of people crossed almost at will. Young entrepreneurs made a dollar a head towing rafts literally in the shadow of the international bridge where U.S. Customs was inspecting the documents of those who chose to cross legally. The Border Patrol arrested thousands of people after they crossed but tens of thousands more escaped into the city, dashing across the freeways. Not many people run across the road today, and the river is empty of rafts, because the Border Patrol changed its tactics last September. What Operation Hold the Line did was to put most of the district's agents directly on the border in sight of one another. They used to be five hundred to a thousand yards back. Their mere presence today deters people from crossing in the first place. Chief Border Patrol Agent Sylvestre Reyes began the operation two months after taking office.

SYLVESTRE REYES, Chief Border Patrol Agent: We have proven that we can control and manage a very active border. Our apprehensions are down somewhere between 73 to 80 percent.

MR. BEARDEN: Reyes concedes that the operation has probably just shifted some illegal entries to other parts of the border, but the Border Patrol is so happy with the tactic that a similar operation will go into effect in San Diego this weekend. Hold the Line's success also impressed the nine-member U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The commission spent the last year and a half holding hearings like this one in Miami at various places around the country examining immigration policy. The commission's preliminary report advocates similar strategies to prevent illegal immigration instead of arresting people after they arrive. According to the local press, the vast majority of El Paso residents also supports the idea even though it's not been without consequences. When illegal crossings from Juarez dropped, so did retail business. Tanny Berg heads a local business association with more than a hundred members. He says he supports the operation, despite the downturn.

TANNY BERG, Businessman: In the downturn area, to some businesses as high as 60 percent decline in business for previous years, but in almost every business a minor decline of 5 to 10 percent. Virtually no businesses have seen an increase in business, but there are a lot of factors that play into that. It's not fair to lay all of that onto the Border Patrols Hold-the-Line effort.

MR. BEARDEN: The commission is considering imposing user fees for legal border crossings. The money would be used for additional facilities to ease congestion. That was a big problem in El Paso last year. People were used to just walking across the river to their day jobs, even though many had documents that allowed them to cross legally. The bridges backed up temporarily when Hold-the- Line cut off casual border crossings. But businessmen vehemently oppose any such fees. They think it'll hurt commerce even more. During the hearings, the commission learned that some of Congress's past efforts to control the border were never fully implemented. Employer sanctions were supposed to be the answer in the 1986 immigration reform law. It required employers to verify an applicant's right to work in this country or face stiff fines. The theory was that removing the jobs would remove the economic magnet that drew people to the U.S.. The Border Patrol was supposed to get a 50 percent increase in staff to better control the border and to prosecute employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. The money was never appropriated.

SYLVESTRE REYES: Initially, after the passage of the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986, we saw a tremendous downturn in the illegal entries of undocumented people all across the border. The reason for that was because of all the publicity that for the first time in the history of this country it was going to be illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented worker. So they decided, well, if you can't get a job, there's no use going, so we're going to stay home. In reality, what happened, once the funding and the positions did not materialize, then, as you know, there's a tremendous grape vine in the underground economy of this country so the word got back very quickly and said, you know, the law is on the books, but it doesn't appear to be enforced in, in either Dallas or Denver or wherever. And so we saw -- we experienced what we've seen the last few years, is we've got another problem of ever increasing increase of undocumented people.

MR. BEARDEN: The commission wants to expand the number of Border Patrol agents assigned to investigate employers who violate the verification laws. And it wants to make verification less of a burden on employers. Today workers can present them with many different kinds of documents, and fraudulent documents are common. Businessmen have complained that they are being forced to do investigative work that ought to properly be done by the government. One of the commission's most controversial recommendations would shift the burden of verification to the government by establishing a new, computerized national registry based on Social Security numbers to verify employment. El Paso businessmen would welcome that, saying they are still confused about what is required of them eight years after the law went into effect.

MS. WARNER: Earlier today, I spoke with the head of the Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan. A former Texas Congresswoman, she's now a professor at the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Policy at the University of Texas. Professor Jordan, thanks for being with us. Tell me, first of all, why did you decide to get involved in this whole immigration debate or maybe I should say furor?

PROF. JORDAN: Margaret, immigration is an important issue for this country because in the main, we are a nation of immigrants. And there seems to be in this year, 1994, a bit of immigrant bashing, a negativism, a hostility setting in vis-a-vis immigrants. And I think the time is now for a rational dialogue about immigration, what the policy means, what it is, what role the immigrants play in our country.

MS. WARNER: Why do you think -- there have been other periods in our history in which there has been immigrant bashing - - why do you think it's so virulent now?

PROF. JORDAN: There seems to be a direct correlation between the efficacy of immigrant bashing as a political issue in a political season in an uncertain economy and immigrant bashing. Yes, our economy is doing well, but there is still that feeling out there unverified that immigrants in this country are taking the benefits, they're taking the jobs, and someone needs to disabuse that kind of a discussion and put calmness and rationality into it.

MS. WARNER: Are you saying then that you think some political figures use immigrants or immigration as a sort of scapegoat for other problems that they're not solving?

PROF. JORDAN: Without a doubt, I think that is the case. Immigrants are being made scapegoats for every social ill you can mention in this country, whether you take crime, drugs, jobs, you name it.

MS. WARNER: So what is the problem, if there is a problem, as you see it, that you would like -- if your commission is going to be successful -- that you would hope you helped address?

PROF. JORDAN: I would like for the Commission on Immigration Reform to reestablish the positive features of immigrants in America. We are a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law. In order to do that, we need a credible immigration policy. The Commission on Immigration Reform has recommended a comprehensive program for immigration reform so that the outcome will be a credible immigration policy.

MS. WARNER: What do you mean by credible?

PROF. JORDAN: What I mean is immigration policies should serve the end of the people authorized to get into America, should be able to get in, but people who are not authorized to get into this country should be kept out. And if you break the law to get in, you should not be entitled to benefits. And if we know you're here in violation of the law, you should be sent home.

MS. WARNER: So what you're saying is you'd like to make a much firmer distinction in both the public law and, in fact, between legal immigration and illegal?

PROF. JORDAN: That is a crucial distinction which should not be confused. Illegal immigrants are entitled to no benefits. Legal immigrants we encourage. We want to foster legal immigration in America, because it is a strength of the country.

MS. WARNER: Illegal immigrants aren't allowed to profit from the system. Then I assume that you feel legal immigrants won't be the subject of immigrant bashing, that it will help correct that problem.

PROF. JORDAN: I believe that is a logical extension of the argument. Any nation should be able to control its borders. And the problem is illegal immigration, people violating the law, never intending to become a part of our social, political community getting in. That is the problem. The country, credible policy would keep the illegals out and enhance the capability for the legal immigrants to get in.

MS. WARNER: But now, do you think most illegal immigrants are illegal because they come here just wanting to rip off the system, or is it because our legal immigration policies are so basically restrictive that they can't get in any other way?

PROF. JORDAN: What we believe is that illegal immigrants are attracted to this country because of the prospects of employment. It is the magnet of the job which attracts people to try to get in here any way they can. We need to reduce that magnet and attractive effect of employment.

MS. WARNER: I mean, that's exactly what attracts legal immigrants as well.

PROF. JORDAN: Well, of course. And the legal immigrant should have no trouble verifying the fact that they are entitled to a job because they are here authorized to be here. It is the illegals who are not authorized to enter nor work in this country. We need to help the employer be able to determine who's entitled and authorized to work and who's not.

MS. WARNER: After studying this for this period through the commission, where do you come down, or what's your assessment of this argument that's raging about whether immigrants take more out of our system in benefits than they put in or vice versa?

PROF. JORDAN: The answer to the question of how much do we benefit from the immigrants, how much do they usurp in public benefits is not answerable with credible data at this time. And that is why in the report we have issued one recommendation is to improve the database so we will know who is here illegal and what is the net cost in fact.

MS. WARNER: The most controversial recommendation of your commission, of course, is for some kind of a national registry, a way of verifying, employers can verify whether someone applying for a job is here legally. And a lot of people have been surprised that you as a longtime constitutional scholar and civil rights activist have come down in favor of this which, of course, they say is just the first step to a national ID card, raises issues of privacy violation and so on. Explain to me the rationale for this system that you're proposing.

PROF. JORDAN: There needs to be an easy and simple way to verify who is authorized to work in America. The database which we are recommending for verification may yield to us an outcome that will be easy verification. We have recommended that there be five pilot programs in the five states most impacted by immigration. We will find out what works. We are asking to see to it that civil liberties and civil rights are not violated. If we get a clean data system verifying work authorization, and that's all we want to do, we will build in also civil rights and civil liberties protections.

MS. WARNER: So how would it work? What if I came to you looking for a job? How would this system work?

PROF. JORDAN: I'm the employer. What is your Social Security number? You give it to me. I verify it from the data registry. It comes back to me whether you are authorized or not authorized to work.

MS. WARNER: And the test for being authorized to work is simply being a legal citizen.

PROF. JORDAN: The test for being authorized to work is to have a valid Social Security number. There will be two or three other checks in order to make sure that is a credible number which comes out of the base as your mother's maiden name similar to a pin number that you would have to get money withdrawn from a bank. Certainly we can have a credible system to identify authorization to work. The employer now gets very frustrated because he or she cannot under the law discriminate but he or she also cannot under the law hire illegal workers. We ought to simply find the process so that people will not be frightened to say yes or no to a person who seeks a job.

MS. WARNER: And the next step for your commission's recommendation is what?

PROF. JORDAN: We will be a continuing commission for the next three years. If the pilots are run, we will have time to monitor and see what are the consequences of these trial runs.

MS. WARNER: Of course, in some states, events are kind of getting ahead of you. For instance, in California, there's an issue on the ballot for November that would deny basically all services, including education, everything I think with emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. Now what's your opinion of initiatives like that?

PROF. JORDAN: An initiative like that is going just a bit too far, and it is going just a bit too far because some of that that is recommended in Prop 189, whatever the number is, some of that is, on its face illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States has said we've got to educate these kids whether they are legal or illegal. So when we say as a commission illegal immigrants are entitled to no public benefits, we're saying, except such as required by emergent circumstances and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the laws of this country.

MS. WARNER: Finally, you said we have been, as we have been, a nation of immigrants. Do you think that in any way we're reaching our maximum capacity to absorb more immigration?

PROF. JORDAN: That is a decision which is going to be made by the Congress of the United States, the House, and the Senate, because they will be dealing with the numbers of people who may enter the country. We as a commission are not recommending pro or con any numbers of people admitted to the country.

MS. WARNER: That's a political decision, in other words?

PROF. JORDAN: It is a political decision, without a doubt.

MS. WARNER: Thank you, Congresswoman Jordan, thanks for being with us. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MS. WARNER: Finally since this is Friday, we have some political analysis with Shields and Gigot. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Gentlemen, nice to have you with us. Mark, the Democrats finally gave up on health care reform this week, blaming the Republicans. Politically, does that give Democrats an issue in the elections a few weeks away?

MR. SHIELDS: No, the Democrats do not have an issue on health care, my judgment at this point, Robin. I think that it was a marvelous opportunity for Bill Clinton to make it an issue by simply stepping forward in the midst of all these postmortems, stand up there and say, quite simply, it's my responsibility, it went down, it's my defeat, I've learned from this, it's nobody else's, not Hillary, not the Republicans, not the insurance companies, they were formidable, and all the rest of it, but it's shows some broad shoulders, and to say I'm going to continue this fight, it's too important a fight to give up, 37 million, 2 1/2 million more uninsured Americans than there were when we ran in 1992, this is a national crisis, and we're going to address it in 1995, I'm coming right back. He didn't do that, and so I don't think it's become an issue yet, although the Republicans appearing -- some Republicans appearing to tap dance on the grave of national health care certainly doesn't help the GOP and their shortage of compassion as a party as a popular perception.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, let me ask Paul about that. Paul, we had Republican Phil Gramm on this program the other night. I don't know whether he was tap dancing, but he was certainly proud to say that he was willing to campaign on having killed health care reform such as it was presented to the Congress. Should he be proud to do that?

MR. GIGOT: I think that he probably should, in particular because he is the Senatorial campaign chairman for the Republicans this go- round, and I think he senses when he goes around the country that the Republicans are, in fact, turning health care into an asset. If you go around the country, the Republicans are using the issue against Democrats. They're running against health care reform. They're running against, at least as President Clinton formulated it, whereas, the Democrats aren't talking about it at all. In fact, some of them, you haven't even heard of it. I mean, they're trying to change the subject to something else altogether, so they're trying to use it against Democrats, and I think Phil Gramm senses that.

MR. MAC NEIL: So, Mark, Paul thinks the Republicans have got an issue.

MR. SHIELDS: I just disagree with him. I think that Phil Gramm, the charge of hypocrisy for any Senator to stand up there and say, boy, I'm really proud of the fact and happy and delighted, and you ought to owe me something for depriving other people of what I have, what the American people provided to me, I think just opens him up to all sorts of charges of hypocrisy, of being out of touch, of being essentially an aristocrat. Paul is right, that that the Clinton plan became a political albatross. I don't think the President really ought to re-establish his commitment to the 1382 page plan, but, I mean, laying down, which was failed to do during the debate, itself, the three principles about which he's fighting. I think if he were to do that, I think it puts him back on the aggressive -- I think it answers questions about Bill Clinton which still nag, and they're hurting Democrats or the core convictions of the man, and I think if he were to do that, Robin, quite straightforwardly, that it would, it would change the political climate because the political climate is the Republicans running against Bill Clinton.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mark -- I'm sorry, Paul. Speaking of electoral politics, how effective do you think is the GOP's contract with America that they launched at that ceremony on the capitol the other day?

MR. GIGOT: Well, it's risky. There's a school of thought out there, and a lot of Republicans believed in it, that if your opponent is jumping off a cliff, you should just let him land, don't give him any ammo to shoot back at you and resuscitate himself, and with the Democrats looking in trouble, don't do anything. But they didn't do that, and they've taken a risk by trying to do the following: Saying to the public this issue is about something more than Bill Clinton. We're not just saying not about obstruction. We are for something, and it's a risk that's probably worth taking because all around the country you have Democrats who are running, about 400 or so Democrats running as if they're running for sheriff. This is not about Washington or issues in Washington. This is about I'm fighting for you local concerns, all politics is local. They're also traveling in a sense intellectually incognito. They've never heard of health care. They've never heard of Bill Clinton, and the Republicans are trying to make this a more national campaign and say this is about things like term limits and taxes and health care. And they hope that helps them.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is it a good tactic, Mark, do you think?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it's a chancy tactic, Robin. The Republicans were going to do well, I think they will still do well in November, on November 8th, not because of what they stood for or who they were, because they weren't. I mean, the same dynamic that propelled and energized the race of 1992, i.e., the dissatisfaction with the status quo, an anxiety in the country, is there in 1994, and the Democrats were going to pay for it this time. So I think they run a risk by taking the position, putting, for example, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, the leaders of the Republican Party, any endorsement of term limits involving men who have been in Congress for 54 years between them is a little bit like Henry VIII endorsing monogamy. It's just a little inconsistent. And you're back on the fault line, the San Andreas Fault, of Republican politics as far as economic policy. They're for a balanced budget amendment, and they're for tax cuts. And, you know, that remains a real problem for the party.

MR. MAC NEIL: And do you think -- the Democrats and the White House immediately, Paul, said hey, this Reaganomics again, this is voodoo economics II. Is -- do Republicans think that the country is so fed up with the Democrats and Clinton that they want to go back to the successes of the Reagan era?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think they're willing to take that risk. I think the Republicans would be really distressed if they started running against Bush economic policies, as after all, President Bush lost the election, Ronald Reagan won twice and helped elect George Bush. One of the ironies of the House Republicans I think right now is that in a way they're more Reaganite than the House Republicans were under Reagan, because you'vehad a generational shift, and a lot of these younger people who came of age politically under Reagan are now into the Congress, and they thought it was a pretty successful era. Now, the Democrats are going to have a hard time, I think, running against Republicans for proposing tax cuts, particularly when Bill Clinton proposed a middle class tax cut in 1992 that he didn't fulfill. So I'm not so sure that that's going to play as his tactic against Republicans.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is the -- Mark, is the country ready for Reaganomics again?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think the country is ready for Reaganomics. I'll tell you, there is nothing more enduring or persistent in American politics than an idea that has once won the White House. I mean, it is something that both parties are guilty of. Gee, we won with that one. Let's hum that tune one more time. After 1968, the Democrats said, oh, boy, we just got to get the New Deal somehow re-polished, refurbished, put a little new shellack on it. The Republicans are saying, let's go back to those salad days where the gipper was there, and, gee, we'll cut taxes, double the defense budget. I mean, I don't know who else is pushing for a defense increase in spending, except some House Republicans. The other mistake they made, and I think it was a visual mistake, was doing it on the steps of the capitol, Robin. I mean, I think it was an interesting event. It does enable the Republicans, if they do well on November 8th, to say we have a retroactive mandate because we did stand for this, but, boy, I think it would have made a lot more sense to do it in Peoria, Illinois, you know, standing there in a towns square, rather than on the capitol steps.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Here's where you have to earn your money as pundits. The election, mid-term election is six weeks and a few days away. What kind of sense do you have of it, Mark? Do the Republicans have a realistic chance of taking control in the Senate, and what chance do they have in the House?

MR. SHIELDS: The Republicans have a realistic chance of taking control of the Senate, and they have a plausible chance of capturing the House. It is that bad. And there's just one great - - every survey you look at has exactly the same thing, and everybody you talk to. They'll list the figures, registered voters on the poll and likely voters. Among registered voters, Bill Clinton does better than he does among likely voters. Among registered voters, Democrats do better than they do, Democratic congressional candidates, than they do among likely voters. That's the problem Democrats face. There's a dispirited, disappointed, and essentially listless Democratic constituency, and they're scared stiff they're not going to show up on election day.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you want to argue with him, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I don't want to hurt his reputation too much by agreeing with him, but I have to agree a little bit. I mean, I think that he's just about right on the Senate. I think that the chances are probably better than 50/50 that the Republicans will take the Senate. They only need seven seats, and they're very -- they're leading in probably eight or night right now that they need. The House is probably I still think about a one in three chance so they can get the forty seats necessary to take control but they're likely, I think, to get the twenty-five seats at least, maybe twenty-five, thirty that would mean ideological control, and really change the whole nature of the way Bill Clinton is governed.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mark, how long ago would it be before there was such a devastating result, or since there was such a devastating result against the party for a first-term President in his first - - mid-term election?

MR. SHIELDS: Oh, boy.

MR. MAC NEIL: This is quite --

MR. SHIELDS: 1930.

MR. MAC NEIL: This is quite a stunning thing, you're --

MR. SHIELDS: 1930. I mean, you're talking, Ronald Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982, which was a big defeat. Lyndon Johnson in 1966 suffered. Now, the difference then was they were building off in both cases -- especially in 1964, the Democratic sweep -- they're building off an artificially high level of support. In other words, they won seats in the Goldwater sweep, House seats, that they really had no reason to expect to keep. That was not the case in 1994. The Democrats did not have, you know, a big sweep election. There weren't 70 Republicans seats they won. So this would really be historic if it reaches the dimensions we are discussing.

MR. MAC NEIL: And, Paul, how much of the tactics of the Republicans in the House and Senate over the last couple of months have been aimed at precisely what we're talking about, on all legislation?

MR. GIGOT: Oh, I'd say about 95 percent. I mean, what -- the Republicans are lucky in one sense, which is that the Democrats by the way they've managed this Congress have done what we didn't think was possible in that they've made gridlock a virtue again. The Republicans are paying almost no price now politically for stopping anything, because the Congress is so unpopular. So anything they stop, the public thinks that's probably a good thing. You saw a crime bill where the Democrats thought they would get a big jump from it, but, instead, people said, well, that's not really going to do much about crime anyway.

MR. MAC NEIL: No price for stopping campaign finance reform today by the filibuster in the Senate?

MR. GIGOT: I don't think at all. In fact, as Republicans are going around and campaigning, they're finding it's really an asset for them to oppose this, because as one Senator put it to me, Mitch McConnell, it is of -- of Kentucky, who's led the Republican effort on this -- it is more popular to vote for a pay raise for Congress than it is to vote for public financing of congressional candidates, which is what this bill would have done. They're using it as an asset in their campaigns.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mark, major dissent?

MR. SHIELDS: No. There was no public financing in this bill as it was drawn, and Mitch McConnell is wrong on that case. It was going to be paid for, quite frankly, by an assessment on PACS and on campaigns, themselves, and on increased voluntary contributions. But that aside, I think what we have is a case of divided government. The legacy of it is that the Republicans have attacked the institutions which they did not, in fact, control for 40 years. And in doing so, they've burned down this village to destroy it. I mean, I really think that has been part of their strategy. It may be successful on November 8th, but they take over a discredited institution made discredited by their own attacks.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, gentlemen, we'll be back with you next week. Thank you both very much. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major story of this Friday continued to be Haiti. U.S. forces stepped up their patrols throughout Port-au- Prince to control massive pro-democracy demonstrations. Despite the tighter security, looting broke out and rival groups exchanged gunfire. At least three people were killed and about a dozen wounded. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Margaret. That's the NewsHourfor tonight. We'll see you again Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.