The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I`m Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is away.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Tuesday; then, Iran`s nuclear ambitions clash with Western demands; what the U.N. wants and what Iran won`t do; the state of the nation`s welfare program, 10 years after officials promised to reform it; the story of a Wyoming town transformed by a gas boom; and another installment of our immigration series, a conversation with an attorney who handles legal newcomers.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: Iran presented its long-awaited answer today to a package of Western nuclear incentives. The top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, hand-delivered the response and indicated Iran would enter "serious negotiations" starting tomorrow. Ambassadors from six nations were on hand for the meeting but did not say if Iran had agreed to stop enriching uranium, a key demand.

At the U.N. today, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the U.S. would study their answer, but he wouldn`t rule out sanctions.

JOHN BOLTON, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: Iran has a choice. They can either take up the very generous offer that the five permanent members and Germany have extended to them. And if they do, there`s a possibility of a different relationship with the United States and others.

But if they don`t, we`ve also made it clear that their unwillingness to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons will result in our efforts in the Security Council to obtain economic sanctions against them.

GWEN IFILL: We`ll have more on Iran right after this news summary.

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert laid down conditions today for the lifting of a sea and air blockade in Lebanon. He said ships in the Mediterranean and planes flying into Beirut will be given unfettered access once an international peacekeeping force is in place.

Earlier, a Hezbollah cabinet minister in Lebanon said he`d pressure the government to instruct ships and planes to travel to Lebanese ports without Israeli approval.

The U.S. military announced today violence levels in Baghdad have fallen sharply in the last two weeks. Major General William Caldwell presented the statistics today. They showed a 16 percent drop in the daily average of attacks since August 7th.

A British deputy to the top U.S. commander, briefing reporters from Baghdad today, said Iraq is not in a civil war.

LT. GEN. ROBERT FRY, British Royal Marines: What I think we have is something which is, at the very best, civil war in miniature, at the very best. But I don`t think it actually even meets that definition. I think we have something which is localized, relatively difficult to deal with, but we`re now beginning to take measures which are generally eating into the sectarian violence which has been operating up until now.

GWEN IFILL: Also today, the U.S. Marine Corps announced it`s been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty. It`s primarily because of a shortfall in volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan. The current shortfall is about 1,200. Call-ups are set to begin in the next few months.

In Britain today, 11 suspects charged with plotting to blow up airliners bound for the United States made their first court appearance. They were brought to the central London court in a convoy of vans under heavy security.

Eight of the suspects, charged with conspiracy to commit murder, were ordered held until next month; three others, charged with lesser offenses, will stay in custody until another court date next week.

A Russian jet carrying at least 170 people crashed today in Ukraine, killing all onboard. It went down about 400 miles east of Kiev, after sending out a distress signal. The cause of the crash was still unclear. A Russian news agency reported officials had ruled out terrorism, but cited turbulence, lightning, and a fire onboard as possibilities.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost five points to close below 11,340. The Nasdaq rose two points to close at 2,150.

That`s it for the news summary tonight. Now, talking to Iran about nuclear issues; assessing welfare reform; changing a Wyoming town; and helping immigrants get legal status.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: Next, the latest step in the Iran nuclear story. Margaret Warner has that.

MARGARET WARNER: Iran`s chief nuclear negotiator delivered his government`s response at an afternoon meeting in Tehran with diplomats from Europe, China and Russia.

According to Iranian news agencies, Ali Larijani said his country is willing to enter serious negotiations on its nuclear program. But he didn`t say publicly whether Iran had agreed to freeze uranium enrichment during the talks.

Today was Iran`s self-imposed deadline to respond to a package of incentives offered two months ago by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. That proposal marked the first time that the U.S. had offered to join the on-again, off-again negotiations between Tehran and the Europeans, but on one condition: Tehran had to suspend all enrichment activities.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton spoke to reporters this morning.

JOHN BOLTON, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully and -- but we are also prepared, if it does not meet the terms set by the Perm 5 foreign ministers, to proceed here in the Security Council, as the ministers have agreed, with economic sanctions.

MARGARET WARNER: Late last month, the U.N. Security Council added a stick to the offer: a unanimous resolution telling Iran to suspend all uranium- enrichment activities by August 31st or face the threat of stronger U.N. action, including possible sanctions. Iran promptly dismissed the threat as illegal.

Yesterday, President Bush urged the council to respond forcefully if Iran didn`t agree.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: In order for the U.N. to be effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective.

MARGARET WARNER: Iran has sent tough signals in public in recent days. Monday, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to continue the pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology, saying, "The Islamic Republic of Iran has made up its mind to forcefully pursue its nuclear program."

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Iran had turned away International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors at a nuclear facility near Natanz. Iran denies the story.

Last weekend, Iran test-fired surface-to-surface missiles during military exercises, saying it demonstrated how Iran could defend its airspace against attack.

MARGARET WARNER: And for more on Iran`s response, we go to Trita Parsi, author of the forthcoming book, "Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." A citizen of both Iran and Sweden, he formerly served in the Swedish mission to the United Nations.

And Aaron Friedberg, former deputy assistant for national security for Vice President Cheney, he`s now a professor of politics and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Trita Parsi, how do you read this response from Tehran, from what we know of it?

TRITA PARSI, Swedish Mission to the United Nations: Well, the Iranians are, on the one hand, offering talks, but they want to make sure that any potential suspension of enrichment may be the outcome, at least temporarily, of a negotiation, but will not be the pre-condition for it.

Because, from their perspective, I believe, they see their ability to be able to enrich and pursue what they think is their right under the non- proliferation treaty as their main leverage, the key thing that will compel the Western countries to come to the negotiating table. If they give it up from the very outset, I think they fear that they will not have many other cards to play within the negotiations.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Friedberg, do you read this -- I mean, we don`t know for sure what they said on uranium enrichment, though there are some blind quotes from some European diplomats late today saying they apparently have declined to accept that. How do you read the answer?

AARON FRIEDBERG, Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University: Well, as you say, we don`t know the details yet, but from what we`ve heard in these news reports today it doesn`t sound very promising. It sounds as if they are going to refuse to suspend enrichment, which means that they will be in direct defiance of this U.N. Security Council resolution that you mentioned earlier. So it doesn`t sound promising, but we have to wait and see the details.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, explain to us, Professor, why, when Condoleezza Rice announced the new U.S. position earlier and said, OK, the U.S. would join the talks on this pre-condition, why was Iran freezing the enrichment so important to the U.S. as a pre-condition for going to talks?

AARON FRIEDBERG: Because, if they don`t agree to do that, they`re essentially holding a gun to our heads and to the heads of all the others in the Security Council because they`re proceeding, making progress in mastering the technology which would eventually allow them to enrich fuel, not only for reactors, which is what they claim they want to do, but also potentially to make nuclear weapons.

So our position has been -- and, again, it`s now not only our position, but the other members of the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany -- have taken the position that they must suspend this activity as a pre-condition for further negotiations.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Trita Parsi, what Professor Friedberg is saying essentially, I think, is that the U.S. thinks, if the freezing doesn`t occur before the talks, that Iran will just use the talks as a way of gaining more time to continue its program. And what you`re saying is, what, that Iran thinks, if they do freeze, that, what, then the West will just fritter away the time?

TRITA PARSI: Exactly. I think what the Iranians drew, the conclusion they drew from the negotiations they had with the Europeans was that, in the Paris agreement from 2003, they agreed to suspend their program, their enrichment activities, as long as talks were taking place. Initially their demand was that they would suspend it as long as the talks made progress.

But since the decision was to just have it as long as talks take place, there wasn`t really any pressure on the Europeans to make any progress, because the end goal is to make sure that Iran doesn`t enrich uranium. So as long as talks were taking place, they wouldn`t be able to advance their program.

MARGARET WARNER: So did Iran feel that the Europeans were dragging their feet?

TRITA PARSI: They did so. They believed that the Europeans knew that, as long as there were talks taking place, even though there was no progress, they wouldn`t be able to do anything. So their hands were tied; that`s the perspective from people in Tehran.

That`s why they wanted to have the language that talks needed to make progress. So there are room for wiggling in between here. Instead of having a categorical suspension, perhaps there`s way to perhaps put a time limit on it or to make sure that there needs to be some progress.

And at the end of the day, we have to remember, according to Negroponte, the U.S. intelligence director, Iran is still eight years away from being able to have the capability to make them that dangerous. So it`s not as if we really have to rush and think that, you know, this needs to be resolved ASAP otherwise they will have a nuclear bomb. It`s not that simple.

MARGARET WARNER: Which, Professor, the administration disagrees with, no?

AARON FRIEDBERG: Yes. I think there`s a strong feeling that, once the Iranians have reached a certain point, once they`ve mastered the technologies that are involved in enriching uranium, they are at a point of what is sometimes referred to as a point of no return. They`ve reached a point where, at any moment, they can choose to go forward and enrich uranium to the point where they could use it to make a bomb.

So as far as we know, they haven`t yet mastered the technology; they haven`t yet reached that point. Time is now working in their favor. They can continue to do research and do experiments, as they`ve claimed that they were doing, and get closer and closer to this point where they have the knowledge, the technology, the expertise necessary to go forward and manufacture a weapon.

So the position of the United States has been: They`ve got to stop that before there can be any discussion of inducements or other agreements.

MARGARET WARNER: Trita Parsi, you mentioned something about wiggle room. And some of the language used by Iranian officials today, apparently, were -- you know, they were ready for serious negotiations. And another official said, well, Iran was ready for a new -- or had presented a new formula to try to resolve the issue.

Do you think Iran is interested in getting back to talks? Or was this reasonable-sounding proposal really an attempt, maybe, to just split the U.S. from the Europeans, and the Russians, and Chinese?

TRITA PARSI: Well, the Iranians offered talks. I think they are interested in talks, and I think the Iranians do also understand that, unless there are some negotiations taking place with the United States as a full partner at the table, it`s going to be extremely difficult to find a peaceful solution to this dilemma right now.

However, they`re not going to enter the talks, it seems, particularly from their statements today, by giving up what they think is their key leverage, by basically, from their perspective, capitulating even before any negotiations start.

And at the end of the day, if the fear is that they will advance and get the know-how, well, they`re doing that right now. And if that is a critical thing that we need to stop them from gaining, then it doesn`t really make a lot of sense not to negotiate without any pre-conditions.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Professor, let me turn it around to you. Do you think that the U.S. is interested enough in talks to explore wiggle room or, if Iran doesn`t meet the pre-condition, that`s it?

AARON FRIEDBERG: I think the pre-conditions are extremely important for the reasons that I`ve suggested. I think the United States has demonstrated its interest now in participating in negotiations with the various parties. And surely there is a desire to make this work.

But I think, on the U.S. side, there`s a lot of concern and suspicion about what the Iranians are up to, that they`re playing for time, that they`re looking for ways to divide us from the Europeans, and that ultimately they`re looking also for ways to split off China and/or Russia, to try to block any kinds of sanctions that might be brought against them in the U.N. And all as, again, as they continue to make progress, continue to go forward in developing the technology that will allow them eventually to build a weapon.

I think it`s also possible now that the Iranian regime may be looking at the calendar and thinking that perhaps they can drag this process on until past 2008, presidential election, a new administration. Maybe they think they can get a better deal.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think that`s the case?

TRITA PARSI: I think the Iranians actually think the other way around, that right now is their best time to be able to negotiate because they`re in a better position because of what just recently happened in Lebanon, because the United States is bogged down in Iraq.

Two years from now, some of these problems may not exist, at least not to the same extent. Oil prices may not be as high as they are now. So I think the Iranians are rather interested in getting the negotiations now while they are relatively in a better position.

MARGARET WARNER: And briefly explain to us why in the recent days and, in fact, the last two months the public rhetoric has been very tough and uncompromising, whether it`s from the supreme leader or President Ahmadinejad, saying, "We`ll never give up this, we`ll never give up this"? Yet when they went and presented this proposal, they did it in a very kind of business-like, diplomatic way. They haven`t been leaking, apparently, what they did. How do you explain that?

TRITA PARSI: I think it`s typical of their strategy. On the one hand, they want to show how bad things can be if they don`t get cooperation from the West and how pleasant things can be if there is a cooperative attitude on the other side.

What I think is also important to remember: There`s been many, many missed opportunities to be able to initiate negotiations. Some of those faults have been on the U.S. side, some on the Iranian side. Had negotiations taken place two or three years ago, many of the problems that we`re seeing today would probably not be existing.

MARGARET WARNER: But, Professor Friedberg, in our remaining few moments, let`s pitch forward. Do you think that, if it becomes clear that Iran has said no, that the United States does have the tacit agreement or is going to be able to get agreement from the other members of the Security Council and Germany, but particularly the other members of the Security Council, to impose some kind of sanctions?

AARON FRIEDBERG: Well, I`m concerned about what the others have agreed to. They have clearly agreed to this declaration and to this requirement to the Iranians. Whether they`re willing to follow through is another question.

And I have to say, I`m concerned and skeptical about whether the Europeans will. I think some may and others may not. But more so, beyond that, China and Russia have not played a helpful role in this. And I think they would prefer not to be put in a position of having to veto sanctions or block any move towards greater pressure on Iran.

But in the end, they may be willing to do that. And if so, it will be very difficult to reach a negotiated settlement.

MARGARET WARNER: So you don`t think that President Bush got a deal, say, from Vladimir Putin, if we agree to go to talks, you`ll agree to stand by the tougher action, if the Iranians don`t accept?

AARON FRIEDBERG: I don`t know. I don`t know for sure. But I think that both the Russians and the Chinese, speaking of wiggle room, have left themselves wiggle room. I don`t think that they`ve committed themselves to go ahead with sanctions at this point. It will be very interesting to see.

I think what the Iranians are going to do, when we find out the full response, it`s going to be a mix. They`re not going to say a flat no. They may say no to the suspension of enrichment, yes to some things, and let`s talk about others. I think that`s part of their continuing game of dragging out this process.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. We have to leave it there. Aaron Friedberg, Trita Parsi, thank you.

TRITA PARSI: Thank you so much.

AARON FRIEDBERG: Thank you.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: Still ahead tonight, change comes to a Wyoming town, and another installment of our immigration conversations.

But first, a look at welfare, 10 years after a landmark overhaul became law. NewsHour correspondent Betty Ann Bowser narrates our background report.

BILL CLINTON, Former President of the United States: Today, we are ending welfare as we know it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER, NewsHour Correspondent: The sweeping Welfare Reform Act of 1996 ended cash assistance as an entitlement. It was intended to move people off welfare, and it did.

Since 1996, the number on assistance has plunged from 12 million down to 4 million. Nearly a million lost benefits when they hit time limits or didn`t follow rules, and millions more left from low-paying jobs. But in recent years, the decline of caseloads has slowed.

This summer, the Bush administration announced new rules it hopes will push much larger numbers of welfare recipients into jobs. The changes are a response to the Deficit Reduction Act President Bush signed into law last winter and are intended to further reduce costs of the federal program.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: The message of the bill I signed today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and responsible at the same time.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The administration says states will now face stiff financial penalties if they don`t prove that half of their welfare recipients are working. That 50 percent work requirement was in the original 1996 law. But Michael Leavitt, secretary of health and human services, says until now states were able to get around it.

MIKE LEAVITT, Health and Human Services Secretary: We`ve essentially gone back and said, "Let`s reboot, start again. Let`s put in the 50 percent work requirement that was originally intended so that people can not only get back on their feet, but have some way to sustain themselves over a long period of time."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Currently only five states meet the 50 percent work requirement. In fact, the majority of states fall below 36 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office estimates that states may have to spend $12 billion in expanded programs to implement the new rules.

The administration also challenged the definition of "work," saying many states have been too lenient.

MIKE LEAVITT: In some states, they were allowing motivational reading to be work. In some cases, it was shopping for clothes. In a couple of cases, it was bed rest. I mean, I know that sounds crazy, but you can see it just needed to be redefined and tightened up to where it was what we all know to be work.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Welfare advocates, like Chris Hastedt, say the flexibility which has made welfare programs successful is now being taken away. Hastedt works with welfare families in Maine.

CHRIS HASTEDT, Maine Equal Justice: I think that tightening up on the definitions of the work activities already in there, a set of work activities, are going to make it more difficult for states to design programs like Maine has that really respond to the needs of families.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: She points to Maine`s parents of scholars program which gives benefits to welfare recipients seeking a college degree.

ROCHELLE RIORDAN, Welfare Participant: We have an exam this week. So Mommy needs all the help she can get.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Rochelle Riordan is one of the 1,000 participants enrolled in the program. After discovering her former husband had put the family deep into debt, Riordan was forced to seek financial assistance. She says it was the most humbling experience of her life.

ROCHELLE RIORDAN: I swore, growing up on welfare as I had, that I would never, never be in that situation. Never say never. And there I was, and I needed help. And I didn`t want to do it. I vehemently did not want to do it, but I had no choice. I have a child to support, and she comes first.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Determined to get off government assistance for good, Riordan is now on her way to a four-year degree. While Riordan gets no government money for tuition, she does get help for child care, school supplies and transportation. And the state of Maine gets to count her as one of their work participants.

ROCHELLE RIORDAN: I`ll be completely self-sufficient. With the jobs that I would be eligible for, I would have medical insurance. I would have dental. I would not need food stamps. I would be self-sufficient, and I would be paying back tenfold. What I`ve taken out in the last -- well, it`ll be a year and a half that I will have collected when I graduate, I`m going to pay that back tenfold in taxes. You can`t say that about the people who are on minimum wage.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But with the new rules, postsecondary education cannot be considered work.

MIKE LEAVITT: It ought to be clear that it isn`t intended to be a scholarship program. It was intended to help people sustain themselves during a period of transition and to have a plan to get back on their feet.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Welfare recipient Emily Wood says she was unable to get back on her feet. With a limited education, she says she was going nowhere in low-wage jobs.

EMILY WOOD, Welfare Participant: I was trying to make it on just whatever job I could find. And I happened to be working in a Laundromat, couldn`t find child care, lost my job there, and basically was kind of running out of options.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Now enrolled in the parents of scholars program, Wood will receive her bachelor`s degree with high honors this summer. The new rules take effect this October, and states like Maine are quickly assessing what they must do to save programs and avoid penalties.

Meanwhile, the debate continues over how best to get people off of government assistance and out of poverty for good.

GWEN IFILL: Jeffrey Brown has more.

JEFFREY BROWN: And with me for a look at the impact of welfare reform, Ron Haskins, who helped draft the law as staff director of the Republican-led House Ways and Means Committee in 1996. He`s now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of a new book, "Work over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Reform Law."

And Sharon Parrott, director of the Welfare Reform and Income Support Division at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, welcome to both of you.

SHARON PARROTT, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Thank you.

RON HASKINS, Brookings Institution: Thank you.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let`s start with an overall assessment of welfare reform 10 years later -- Ron Haskins?

RON HASKINS: It`s been a triumph. It`s the most successful social policy of our time. The result has been that the rolls have plummeted for the first time since the program was established in 1935. Mothers went to work in droves. It`s unprecedented in Bureau of Labor Statistics records that any demographic group would have such a rapid increase in employment.

And as a result of that, of course, their earnings increased every year and their income from welfare declined every year. That`s the very definition of lowering welfare dependency. And at the end of the period in 2000, they were about 25 percent better off.

And child poverty declined very substantially. Black child poverty reached its lowest level ever, and poverty among children in female-headed families also reached the lowest level ever. And now, even after increases in poverty rates because of the 2001 recession, the poverty rate still is 20 percent lower than it was when it started to decline, so it`s been a triumph.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right.

Sharon Parrott, a triumph?

SHARON PARROTT: I think there have been strengths and weaknesses, but I think the story is little more mixed, in my view. It`s unquestionably the case that employment rates among single mothers improved in the 1990s and poverty fell.

Many of those mothers that went to work worked in low-wage jobs. Many remained poor or near poor, but they were working, and that was a clear goal of the `96 law and a broadly shared American value. But I think we have to look at some other statistics that are often overlooked when we talk about the history of welfare reform.

We know that there is a group of single mothers and their children that are decidedly worse off than they were under the previous system. The previous system was not positive, but this is a group that`s been made worse off.

JEFFREY BROWN: Who`s that?

SHARON PARROTT: Those are the groups of the families where people have very serious problems. They have physical health problems, mental health problems, substance abuse problems, very low educational levels. In many cases, those mothers are still on welfare, unable to make the transition.

But more troubling, a very large number of those families and a growing number of those families are now what are termed "no work, no welfare" families, families that aren`t working and aren`t getting help. And when I say they`re not getting help, they`re not getting help making ends meet, and they`re not getting help moving forward towards employment.

JEFFREY BROWN: Would you agree, Ron Haskins, that there is a part of the population that has not done well?

RON HASKINS: Yes. That definitely is the case. It`s undeniable, because we can see it very clearly, again in Census Bureau data, and there have been a number of very, very good studies.

But this is not a reason to say that welfare reform did not succeed. There is no such thing as a policy that succeeds for everybody; there never has been, and there never will be. This is the downside of the policy, and it`s something we should do something about.

Frankly, I think we should do more than we`re doing, but it`s not a reason to say that welfare was not successful because, for the overwhelming majority, it was successful. But we have this group at the bottom that is probably worse off because they`ve not been able to maintain themselves in the labor market.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let me try to establish something else that I`ve wondered about in looking at this. How much of this, how much of the change was due to the economy? A lot of the decline in the rolls, as I understand it, happened in the late `90s, strong economy at that time -- Sharon Parrott?

SHARON PARROTT: I think most researchers that have looked at this have concluded that there was really a synergy among three factors that led to the decline in poverty and the rise in employment. Welfare reform was one of those things. It was very work-focused.

But there was also a very strong economy which, unlike some of the strong economies we`ve had, this one actually reached down into the low- wage labor market, which made a very big difference. And we did a set of things outside of welfare that really helped families that were working but still remained poor.

And that made work pay; that increased work incentives. When a mother has child care help, when she goes to work, it`s much easier for her to make that decision to go to work.

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you think was the right mix here?

RON HASKINS: I think all three are important. What she referred to as the work support system, the welfare reform that pushed people into the economy, and a healthy economy. But a healthy economy, a rapidly expanding economy is not necessary. It makes it better, but there`s still a lot of mothers that were not working before who are working now when the economy is not as hot, and even in 2001, the actual year we had the recession.

And let me emphasize this point, because I think this is one of the most important points, and that is that, over a period of more than a decade, Congress, which is not usually accused of having vision, changed a whole series of programs, and they changed these programs and even created some new programs specifically to help low-income working families.

In the old days, if you were on welfare and you took a job, you lost almost all your benefits. It was an economically rational decision to stay on welfare. But because Congress changed these programs, especially Medicaid and, above all, the earned income tax credit, which provides a wage subsidy to low-income working families, mothers could take a job at $7.50 or $8 an hour and have the equivalent of a total income of $16,000 or $17,000 a year, which many of them did.

So this work support system is really a crucial part of the picture, and it`s something that separates American social policy from social policy in the rest of the world, that we expect people to work, and we support them if they do work.

JEFFREY BROWN: What about the question of, not only getting people jobs, getting people to work, but getting them out of poverty? Is there still an issue of now people have moved into the status of the working poor, even if they have jobs?

SHARON PARROTT: Yes, it`s absolutely the case that people found work. They typically worked at $7 or $8 an hour. And while Ron is right they got some added help from their earned income tax credit, sometimes from child care subsidies, although most families that need child care help don`t get it because the program is so underfunded, but they`re still living at the poverty line, just below it or just above it, and really struggling to make ends meet.

So I do think an important next step is: How do we help mothers and, in fact, fathers and people without children that are in the low-wage jobs to get skills so that they can progress, so that they can move forward in the labor market, get better jobs that can better support their families?

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you think about the working poor question?

RON HASKINS: Yes, I agree with that, but I think we should make this point. Let`s think of three levels. One level is dependent on welfare. That is bad. The country feels it`s bad. Opinion polls have shown for 20 years now that the American public expects people to work.

So the second stage is they leave welfare, they go to work, and most of them did escape poverty because of the combination of the welfare benefits and the work benefits from the work support system.

But then the third stage, which we don`t know how to do, is to help those mothers move from $7 or $8 an hour to $15, or $18, or $20 an hour. Having met a lot of these mothers, having watched the programs at the state level, I know a number of these mothers are capable of it. But they`re school dropouts. They`re working in jobs that do not necessarily lead to $15 or $18 an hour.

They need training, and we`ve been trying this for years, we as a nation. We`ve spent billions of dollars. And the programs have been very unsuccessful. So we need a whole new set of programs to figure out how to help these low-income mothers get better jobs -- and fathers, as well -- and move up the job ladder, which is the way Americans would like it to be.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, you both started to talk about things looking forward. Of course, Betty Ann Bowser`s piece talked about the new laws that will be starting in October, trying to get states to cut it down to 50 percent of those off of welfare. What do you think will be the impact?

SHARON PARROTT: I think what`s really unfortunate is that, instead of building on some of our successes and recognizing where we have weaknesses in our system, the new rules are very rigid.

And they say to states: Look, you need to have more people in work activities, these programs that are designed to help people get jobs, but they tell them they have to be very narrow. Everyone has to sort of fit in the same box. It`s a very rigid approach.

And the problem is that many of the families, particularly those that are left on the rolls, have very diverse needs and capacities. One study in Minnesota found that long-term recipients, a very large proportion of them, had very low basic cognitive abilities.

Others have shown high degrees of mental illness. Those people need more nuanced help. They need to move towards employment. I think no one is arguing that they don`t, but they need specialized help to get them there.

And the new rules are very, very rigid. They don`t give states the flexibility to really tailor welfare-to-work programs in ways that can address those complicated problems.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, it strikes me that we keep talking about broad, national reform here. But, of course, all this happens at the state level. So would the new laws -- what do you think about this suggestion that they would straitjacket the states?

RON HASKINS: I`m not sure exactly what the term "very, very narrow" means. This is the deal that was made in `96 when the bill passed, a 50 percent work requirement. That has not changed. The categories that qualify as jobs or work have not changed.

What happened is that the HHS wrote a regulation that is more specific about how you define those categories of jobs. And they also required the states to report a lot of information to make sure they were actually living up to the work requirement.

So how it`s going to work out, I don`t think anybody knows. There are a lot of people worked up about it. If I were in Congress, I would be watching this very carefully, and I`d start having hearings right away. And I`d find out what the states are actually doing.

But this is the point: The states should have half their caseload in work activity. You could make an argument it ought to even be higher. And it makes sense that the states would report to the federal level. So maybe it`s overdone, I don`t know, but we need to look and see what actually happens in the states.

JEFFREY BROWN: Final response?

SHARON PARROTT: I do think there are actually some pretty big differences from the deal that was, quote, unquote, "struck 10 years ago." And in particular, states had explicit authority to do things much more flexibly 10 years ago if they were doing it with their own dollars. And that flexibility has been taken away.

And I would also say that a number of states use their flexibility to interpret these terms broadly not to scam, as I think many officials at HHS have really suggested, but instead to say, "You know what? This family doesn`t need to be in job training. This family needs to get a mental health -- their mental health in order so that they can succeed in job training." And it`s that kind of flexibility that`s really been constrained.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK, we`ll have to leave it there. Sharon Parrott, Ron Haskins, thank you both very much.

RON HASKINS: Thank you.

SHARON PARROTT: Thank you.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: Now, how a natural gas boom is transforming one Western town. Again, NewsHour correspondent Betty Ann Bowser. She reports from Pinedale, Wyoming.

BETTY ANN BOWSER, NewsHour Correspondent: Every summer, the 1,600 residents of Pinedale, Wyoming, stage a three-day event called the Rendezvous. One of the highlights is a rodeo that celebrates the rich Western cow town heritage that residents, like Chopper and Lyn Grassell, say is changing too fast.

LYN GRASSELL, Pinedale Resident: When we moved here, it was ranching. It was small. You knew everybody on the street. And now it`s oil and gas. It`s a lot of oil and gas.

We were talking earlier. I think that there`s a big push from the agricultural side to keep that, keep the kids knowing how to ride horses, and come to the rodeo, and experience all that. But then you have oil and gas that`s coming in. It`s just a whole new group of people.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Green River Valley of Wyoming is in the middle of a natural gas boom. Pinedale, in rural Sublette County, is ground zero. It`s where companies, like EnCana USA, have rushed to take advantage of the current energy crisis and have started a massive drilling operation in the Jonah Field, considered the richest natural gas deposit in the country.

Paul Ulrich is EnCana`s spokesman.

PAUL ULRICH, EnCana Oil and Gas: We think we`ve got about 13.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas here in the Jonah Field. That`s enough to heat America for about two-thirds of a year, you know, give or take a little bit, a lot of natural gas.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Tax revenues from gas have made Sublette County the second-richest per capita in the country and its teachers the highest paid in the state. Gas money is also building an $18 million pool and recreation center.

But as the rigs move closer and closer to the edge of town, lighting up the Western Sky at night, some residents say the price they`re paying for the good things is too high.

LYN GRASSELL: Our school districts -- I sit on the school board, and we have an annual budget of $7 million. Well, we had an extra $25, $30 million to spend this year. So it`s great for the community financially. We`ve never had more wealth.

But I came here when you knew everybody, and it was quiet, and it was always safe. I`d give back all the money to have it the way it was.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Once the least-populated area in the least- populated state, Sublette County has mushroomed sevenfold in just six years. Oil field workers called roughnecks have come in droves, along with support personnel, to take advantage of salaries ranging from $60,000 to $80,000 a year. That`s the reason roughneck Stephen Trosclair returned to his native Wyoming.

STEPHEN TROSCLAIR, EnCana Oil and Gas: The other jobs that I worked, I always hit that ceiling of 40 hours a week. Out here, nobody is really concerned about overtime, at least during a boom. And so it`s not unusual for guys to get 100 hours-plus in seven days.

Prior to that, there have been times during my marriage I`ve worked three, at times I think four jobs. And my wife was working from the house. And so for us, it means -- at the end of the day, it means more time with my family.

LINDA BAKER, Upper Green Valley Coalition: This place stops my heart every time I look at it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Environmentalist Linda Baker, who has lived in Pinedale for 25 years, says the onslaught of the new workers is causing problems.

LINDA BAKER: This year alone, we anticipate an additional 11,000 workers coming into Pinedale to work on the gas rigs. We`re a town of 1,600 people. We don`t have the infrastructure to accommodate all those folks, so they`re having to go out and live in man camps and in really uncomfortable conditions, and they come into town and raise hell.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sheriff Wayne Bardin says crime is up. And for the first time, Pinedale has a drug problem: methamphetamines, a well-known stimulant.

WAYNE BARDIN, Sheriff, Sublette County: You find it everywhere. Naturally, the workforce out in the gas fields use it because they can work more hours, but then it finds its way into our schools. It`s in the community, and it doesn`t discriminate against anybody.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And do you have enough police officers to go after the problem?

WAYNE BARDIN: Right now, no. Just to give you a little idea of how hard it is to keep people, since 2005, January of 2005, we`ve gone through 35 people. And we only have a police force of 32 people.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And with a shortage of police officers, even weeknights can be a problem, when the town`s four bars are crowded and more disturbances are reported.

"Help Wanted" signs are all over town, not just for police officers, but for all kinds of workers.

MAYOR STEVE SMITH, Pinedale, Wyoming: There`s a fine line between having enough slack in the line, if the fly`s not dragging...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Fly fishing guide and newly elected mayor Steve Smith says jobs are hard to fill because there is a shortage of affordable housing.

MAYOR STEVE SMITH: The prices of homes and housing and land have gone up significantly, especially in the last five or six years. That does affect people that are trying to come to this community to make a living as a school teacher, or as a deputy sheriff, or a child care specialist, or washing dishes at a local restaurant.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What used to be a quiet street where ranchers drove their cattle through town is now a busy, noisy highway.

A mile off the main road, Bruce and Mary Wolford are so fed up they`ve sold their log cabin on an acre and a half and are leaving.

BRUCE WOLFORD, Pinedale Resident: We`ve really, really liked this place. It was just perfect. A car would go by. And 20 minutes later, another car would go by. Sundays, it was absolute quiet; now, it`s just pandemonium. You get motorcycles going by with the radios turned up. You get the boom, boom, boom cars going by, radio, and just one after another.

MARY WOLFORD, Pinedale Resident: And because of the gas and everything, prices have gone so high, we can hardly afford anything around here anymore.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And emissions from the gas fields have put smog into the air, some days covering the valley with a cloud, according to conservationist Bruce Gordon.

BRUCE GORDON, Conservationist: The skies are different. The haze and pollutions are getting exponentially magnified year after year, especially as we see this happening.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Rapid development has also created problems for wildlife. The Bureau of Land Management, which is responsible for protecting and developing public lands and which issues drilling permits, says its own surveys show thousands of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse no longer roam here.

Dennis Stenger is the Pinedale area field director for the BLM.

DENNIS STENGER, Bureau of Land Management: There are some negative impacts, and we do know that. I mean, we have displaced some of the animals on the mesa. We`ve got ongoing studies out there right now, and we`re looking at these issues.

DESSA DALE, Biologist, EnCana Oil and Gas: We`re trying to get between 400 and 500 acres.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Biologist Dessa Dale was hired from the BLM to speed up EnCana`s reclamation program. She says the company will soon be returning as much land to its original pristine state as it is drilling.

DESSA DALE: We probably have about 15 different species in here, ranging from Wyoming big sage, rabbit brush, wild onion, penstemon in here. All of these species that we have added are very beneficial to livestock and wildlife.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: EnCana says it will reduce emissions by building more rigs like this one that run on cleaner-burning natural gas and insists there is an environmental advantage to extensive drilling.

PAUL ULRICH: The quicker we can get the field drilled, the better off the wildlife are going to be, because we`re not going to be moving a lot of trucks, we`re not going to be moving a lot of rigs around, we`re not going to have nearly as much activity.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In spite of EnCana`s efforts, a growing chorus of people in Pinedale say there is still too much gas drilling going on, and they blame the rapid pace on the Bureau of Land Management. The agency has issued more than 50,000 permits to drill in Wyoming since 2000; 10,000 of those permits were granted last year alone.

Biologist Steve Belinda was so upset over the BLM`s emphasis on gas development that he quit his job with the bureau earlier this year to go to work for a conservation group.

STEVE BELINDA, Biologist, Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership: I was frustrated at mostly the bureaucratic pace that we were moving on some of the issues and also the fact that we had literally prioritized oil and gas over everything else to the point where programs like wildlife and fisheries management were getting no attention.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Field office manager Stenger says his office spends about 75 percent of its time working on permits because that is the mandate from the White House.

DENNIS STENGER: The priority is to meet our national energy policy needs in this country, and we are. But in the same vein, we are working very hard to develop mitigation to reclaim the lands quicker, not make as much disturbances.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Meanwhile, an unusual coalition of hunters, ranchers and environmentalists are in federal court trying to stop further development around Pinedale.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: Now, Ray Suarez conducts the next in our series of immigration conversations.

RAY SUAREZ: Priscilla Labovitz has spent 33 years as an immigration attorney, helping immigrants navigate a wide range of legal hurdles. Those include getting green cards and temporary visas, earnings naturalization and seeking asylum here in the U.S.

Priscilla Labovitz, welcome.

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ, Attorney for Legal Immigrants: Thank you.

RAY SUAREZ: Is it difficult to come live in the United States legally?

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: Oh, it is very, very difficult. It is not a question of showing up or putting your name on a list. The law requires either that you are sponsored by an employer who cannot fill a position that you are qualified for and there`s no American in the area to fill; or you have to be of extraordinary ability, whether it`s in the arts or business or science; or you can have a close family member petition for you, but that would have to be a legal permanent resident or U.S. citizen, spouse, parent or adult child, in some cases a brother or sister, but that takes 20, 30 years.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let`s talk about somebody who is trying to stay in the country legally when there`s no complicating factors like political problems or criminal record. They`ve done their paperwork. It seems to be in order. What are some of the bottle necks in the system?

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: Let`s take as an example an American citizen wants to bring his sister to the United States. And let`s say the sister was born in the Philippines.

He would file a petition for his sister, and it would be approved in some months by the immigration service. And then she would languish on a waiting list until they reached the date when her case was filed. They are currently doing cases that were filed in 1994.

So that means, if she`s here, she`s illegal all that time. If she`s not here, she`s remaining in the Philippines unable even to visit -- because after all, she might stay -- until her number is reached.

RAY SUAREZ: So in the current debates about immigration, when somebody on Capitol Hill talks about the legal system, talks about getting in line and doing it the right way, we`re talking about people who filed to come in 12 years ago?

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: Yes, more than 12 years ago in many cases. Yes, and it`s not as if you can just get in line. This is not a situation like a dry cleaner where you just get in the line and they serve the next one.

Compared to the numbers of people who wish to come to the United States, there are a very small number of positions available. And if you don`t know anybody here, if you don`t have a family member or an organization that wants you, either to employ you as a auto mechanic or as a software engineer, then there`s no way you can get in that line.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there people who you`ve consulted with who, at the end of it, you just tell them, "I think you`re going to have to go back home"?

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: I`ve had to tell people that they either would have to go back home, or they can, if they stay, they take their chances of being apprehended and deported, or that they can play the numbers and perhaps not get picked up.

But on the other hand, they won`t be able to work legally. They won`t be able to get a Social Security number. They won`t be able to leave the United States and go home and visit. Even if Mom dies or is dying, if you go, you don`t get back in. With barriers to entry into the United States so high, anybody who gets here is less likely to leave.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there any cases that sort of stick in your mind even after years?

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: Well, a lot of cases stick in my mind after years because it`s been a lot of years. I think some of the most difficult are the people who really don`t have any link to permanent residents in the United States.

Currently, I have a client who is a young woman my own daughter`s age, born in the Caribbean to parents from two different countries, kidnapped by her father, brought to the United States, raised here, father left. She`s left with the father`s common-law wife, is raised by her, and graduates from high school, a star in high school, a wonderful, talented young woman.

And she can`t say in the United States. There`s nobody to petition for her. She has no immediate relatives in the United States. She hasn`t done anything wrong. The immigration service will even say it`s a sympathetic case but that their hands are tied.

RAY SUAREZ: As you watch, as you listen to the debates on Capitol Hill about illegal immigration and how this country should respond, what do you think is missing, both in the content and in the tone? What are you waiting to hear that you haven`t heard yet?

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: Well, I would like to see people think about those who are trying to come into the United States as like their own grandparents.

I know my great-grandparents came to the United States. I have no idea whether they were legal when they came. I know they didn`t speak English. I know they lived within their own little community.

And I`m very grateful that they did, because I know they did what immigrants now do, which is delay gratification, show a lot of initiative, a willingness to sacrifice, and a work ethic that some people think is endangered in the United States.

And I wish that people would look at these as real human beings or imagine them as real human beings as opposed to people of a certain appearance or different language who are "invading" our country, because nobody has invaded this country since immigrants from Europe came and conquered the Indians.

RAY SUAREZ: Priscilla Labovitz, thanks a lot.

PRISCILLA LABOVITZ: My pleasure.

GWEN IFILL: If you missed any of the rest of our immigration insights conversations, you can catch the entire series by visiting the Online NewsHour at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day. Iran formally presented its response to Western nuclear incentives. Details were not disclosed, but Iran indicated it would enter "serious negotiations" starting tomorrow.

Eleven suspects charged with plotting to blow up airliners bound for the United States made their first court appearance in London. And a Russian jet carrying at least 170 people crashed in Ukraine, killing all aboard.

(BREAK)

GWEN IFILL: And, again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are 10 more.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I`m Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and good night.