The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, three reporters covering the White House summit on the Middle East, reports from Wisconsin, New York, and California on opening day of welfare reform, an explanation of the new immigration, and a David Gergen dialogue about science on trial. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The emergency Middle East summit began today at the White House. President Clinton met separately with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Arafat. He then gathered the participants, including King Hussein of Jordan, for an Oval Office photo opportunity where he publicly thanked them for their efforts. Mr. Clinton gave the leaders a tour of the White House grounds, guided then to a luncheon, and then arranged for Netanyahu and Arafat to talk in private for nearly three hours. The President said the summit would conclude tomorrow with a joint statement. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. About 5,000 U.S. troops will move into Bosnia soon to cover the withdrawal of peacekeeping forces later this year. A Pentagon spokesman made that announcement today. He said he expected the troops would stay until March. The mission of the NATO peace implementation force is scheduled to end December 20th. Ross Perot lost the first round today in his legal fight to be in the presidential debates with President Clinton and Bob Dole. A federal judge in Washington said he did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the election debate process. Perot is challenging the Commission on Presidential Debates' decision to exclude him on grounds he did not have a realistic chance of winning the election. Perot's running mate, Pat Choate, had this to say after the ruling.

PAT CHOATE, Reform Party. V.P. Candidate: We call upon Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, who can give the American people an open debate by simply agreeing that we should be in the debate. We call upon the American people--82 percent of which want an open debate and want Ross Perot and me in this debate to contact President Clinton and Bob Dole and insist that they permit us in. If this ruling stands, we will immediately move in our campaign to our plan B. We are not deterred. We have sufficient resources. We have sufficient means, and we will aggressively be making our case to the American public over the next month.

MR. LEHRER: The first presidential debate is scheduled for next Sunday in Hartford, Connecticut. The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to take up the issue of doctor-assisted suicide in the term which begins Monday. The Justices said they will review recent federal appeals court rulings in Washington and New York state. Those courts struck down laws preventing doctors from helping terminally ill patients die. The minimum wage went up by 50 cents today to $4.75 an hour. It is the first of two increases next September 1st. It goes up another 40 cents. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the pay raise in August. The last increase in the minimum wage was five years ago. Major reform of the nation's welfare system also went into effect today. Two states-- Wisconsin and Michigan--began implementing their own welfare plans. All states have until July 1st of next year to replace the federal program which the states will get federal block grants to fund. We'll have more on this story later in the program. The baseball playoffs began today as scheduled. Major League umpires reported to work despite threatening a boycott unless a five-game suspension of Baltimore Oriole player Roberto Alimar took effect immediately. He drew the penalty Saturday for spitting in an umpire's face but under an appeals process would not have served it until next season. The umpires agreed to drop their boycott at least through tomorrow. Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski was indicted again today by a federal grand jury in Newark. He was charged with a mail bomb attack that killed a New Jersey man two years ago. Kacyznski was indicted in other unabomber cases in Sacramento, California, last June. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the White House summit on the Middle East, welfare reform day one, the new immigration law, and a Gergen dialogue. FOCUS - CRISIS SUMMIT

MR. LEHRER: The emergency Middle East Peace Conference is our lead story tonight. Elizabeth Farnsworth is in charge.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Gathered for the Washington summit are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and Jordan's King Hussein. Their first joint meeting in the Oval Office was briefly open to reporters.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say first that I am delighted to have King Hussein, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Chairman Arafat here. I thank them for coming. We have had some good conversations already. This is our first meeting, all four of us together. But I think that their presence here clearly symbolizes our commitment to the end of violence and to get the peace process going again. And we've come a long way in the last three years. No one wants to turn back, and I'm personally quite gratified by this opportunity to have the chance to visit with you, and I thank you for coming.

HELEN THOMAS, UPI: Mr. Prime Minister, are you ready to abide by these agreements already made by Israel.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israel: Absolutely. And our commitment to peace is also evident in the presence. We took up the President's kind offer, important offer to come here and to try to put the peace process back on track. This is what we're doing.

REPORTER: Mr. Prime Minister, is there any prospect at all of your accepting some sort of international commissioners--commission of experts, archaeologists, religious leaders, take a look at what you've done by opening up this tunnel to simply reassure everyone that there is no potential violence in the Moslem holy places?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Well, you know our position, and I don't think it would be wise to open up a discussion here.

REPORTER: Have you had a chance to consider the king's suggestion of an independent commission to look at this problem and possibly cool tempers that way and come up with a--some sort of a bridging proposal?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say this again this is our first opportunity to all meet together, and one of the things that I have learned over the last several years is that anything any of us say publicly can undermine our ability to make progress, which is the ultimate objective of this meeting, so I don't want to make any premature comments here until we have a chance to visit with each other and do some work. We're going to work yet today; we're going to work tomorrow; and then I'll be glad to answer the questions that you may have.

MS. FARNSWORTH: White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry later told reporters what happened after reporters left the Oval Office. McCurry said the President summarized his separate conversations with Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat, describing their differences and how they might be bridged. Then King Hussein spoke.

MIKE McCURRY, White House Press Secretary: The king gave what everyone described as a very emotional appeal to these parties to honor the commitments both have made to peace and to try to do everything possible to erase the, the anger and the frustration of recent days and to move into a more constructive relationship that would allow them to deal with some of the differences that exist. He, he said he considered this in some ways almost a religious obligation and talked about he, himself, prays five times a day for peace and how all of the people in that room have that fundamental obligation. It was very impressive and some said very emotional moment in that meeting. Prime Minister Netanyahu then made the presentation speaking alternatively to the group but sometimes directly addressing Chairman Arafat, sometimes directly addressing the king, and then Chairman Arafat spoke, addressing many of his remarks directly to the prime minister but sometimes to the larger group. I would describe all of these conversations as being sober but very constructive and very helpful. You'll recall that our own assessment of the situation and the President's rationale for bringing these leaders here is that we're at a moment in this process in which a great deal of trust has been lost and a great deal of anger, frustration, suspicion had been begun to permeate the environment for the dialogue that must occur if the Middle East peace process is to deepen and to nurture the contacts that the parties have in the region. Certainly the discussions so far today have gone a long way towards reestablishing that notion of trust that must exist between the parties as they have their discussions.

MS. FARNSWORTH: After the Oval Office meeting came an unscheduled White House lunch. Mid-way through that meal the President and King Hussein withdrew to give Netanyahu and Arafat and opportunity for a face-to-face one-on-one session. It lasted nearly three hours. For more, we go to three reporters covering the summit from three perspectives. David Makovsky is the Jerusalem-based diplomatic correspondent for the "Jerusalem Post" and author of a book about the 1993's Israeli-Palestinian accords. Mohammed Wahby is the Washington bureau chief and columnist for the Egyptian magazine "Al-Mussawar," and Susan Page is White House correspondent for "USA Today." Thank you all for being with us. Susan Page, is a three- hour lunch meeting in this context a breakthrough?

SUSAN PAGE, USA Today: I think it is. The White House had arranged for this lunch, but they hadn't been at all sure that it would come off, that the two leaders would be willing to meet face- to-face, one-on-one, and the fact that that meeting took place means that the White House thinks they can already claim this summit has been a success, although the serious substantive issues that have made this such a divisive and bitter dispute remain, and I don't think we'll know until tomorrow how much progress they've made toward substantive progress on this, this bitter dispute.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Oka. Mr. Wahby, just briefly now to get your ideas on how it looks generally. A three-hour lunch, is that--

MOHAMMED WAHBY, Al-Mussawar, Egypt: I think it's good because, first of all, they were not on talking terms. That's No. 1. No. 2, Mr. Netanyahu used to deal with Mr. Arafat in a very condescending way, that is to say the least as a matter of fact. So this time they are meeting on neutral grounds and in a much more positive atmosphere, and, therefore, they have now started talking as equals, perhaps for the first time, and that's a very good beginning.

MS. FARNSWORTH: David Makovsky, what do you think?

DAVID MAKOVSKY, Jerusalem Post: Oh, I think it's a good beginning. It should be recalled that Arafat and Netanyahu only met for the first time only a couple of weeks ago. During Netanyahu's campaign, he said he would never want to meet Mr. Arafat. So it's not like there's a long history here of meetings. It's a relatively new experiment, and also I think it's important to understand a little bit the mind set Netanyahu was coming to Washington with. For the viewer, we should understand he feels a little bit like a young John Kennedy who's been tested by Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev. And it's not just Arafat who has a lot more experience in the international arena but, but this violence is unprecedented for the first time in three years that Palestinians are using guns. He feels they're testing me, and the Syrian troop movements, until a week or two ago, Israelis thought there would be a war in the Golan Heights, and there's been a barrage of really tough rhetoric coming out of Egypt. Netanyahu sees all three fronts lighting up at once. He says they're testing me, I'm Kennedy, and the Kruschevs of the Arab world are testing me. And he feels somewhat cornered.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Now I want to ask all three of you some specific questions about what happened. Do you know anything about what happened in the meeting between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Clinton?

MR. MAKOVSKY: I think we have to be very cautious before we say anything definitively but more ideas that are under consideration. The term we're hearing is the notion of a soft deadline forcompletion of Hebron, redeployment talks. The Hebron--

MS. FARNSWORTH: So this could be something that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be willing to offer.

MR. MAKOVSKY: That is I think a way of being--

MS. FARNSWORTH: A deadline but only soft--

MR. MAKOVSKY: I used the word--

MS. FARNSWORTH: --for withdrawal from most of Hebron.

MR. MAKOVSKY: Right. The reason I called it soft is because Netanyahu always says I cannot negotiate with a gun to my head. If I say that talks will end in six weeks, then the other side could kind of play out the clock and not take into account security considerations. He said look what happened last week with the violence, how if 400 people who are at, very much at odds with 85,000 Palestinians in Hebron, how are they going to make it if just last week Palestinians used guns, so that, that I think makes him feel--if my security considerations are being taken seriously, Netanyahu said, we can conclude this but it has to be seen as kind of a good faith effort, nothing hard and fast, but at least some sort of goal so the Palestinians will walk away feeling that they have achieved something. And when he says continuous talks until there's white smoke, uh, to use the papal phrase, it's with some light at the end of the tunnel.

MS. FARNSWORTH: By that you're referring, he had said that he would also come offering the possibility of continuous talks, the two delegations, until they resolved several--

MR. MAKOVSKY: Right.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --different issues. One other thing, did they discuss--the press had reported today that he had wanted a fire wall against renewed threat of, of violence.

MR. MAKOVSKY: The second, that was the second issue. We were told there were two baskets, the first one being Hebron and the second basket being a reaffirmation that violence will not be used as a lever to achieve political results, that a red line had been crossed, and if Israel's going to face these next three years before all the tough issues are supposed to be resolved, uh, if these next three years are going to be marked with violence, there's no way Israel will be able to negotiate. If anything, as we saw what happened to Shimon Peres, when there was violence in March, the public went to the right and left the peace process. So this--

MS. FARNSWORTH: So Prime Minister Netanyahu is willing to give something in return for this sort of fire wall?

MR. MAKOVSKY: I think that's the quid--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Is that it?

MR. MAKOVSKY: --the quid pro quo. Violence is off the table. There's only going to be resolving problems by peaceful means. He feels Arafat certainly incited the people, he wouldn't go on Palestinian TV, and radio for two full days telling people not to go the streets, he told them go to the streets on the state-run radio, and he feels that now there has to be a new, new approach.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Wahby, do you have anything to add to that before we get into--

MR. WAHBY: A lot to add.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay.

MR. WAHBY: I have completely different angle for what has happened. I am surprised actually that David went in these great details about Mr. Netanyahu being besieged. Who is being besieged?

MS. FARNSWORTH: But just about the meetings first. Do you have anything to add about what happened in the meetings? And also I'd like to get into your view of what Mr. Arafat's strategy was here and anything you might know about what happened in his meetings.

MR. WAHBY: Yes. I think Mr. Arafat's main point of departure was Mr. Netanyahu who had made an agreement with Israel--had not made an agreement with one man coming in his own personal capacity--we have made an agreement with two prime ministers of Israel, and, therefore, you should abide by these agreements, and at the same time, I was a partner with Mr. Rabin, I was a partner with Mr. Peres. You have not been dealing with me as a partner, you have been dealing with me as a pariah all the time. The, you're talking about violence. The violence you are talking about has been incited by you, by, by the fact that you have actually violated every agreement. You have withdrawn. You have indulged in so many provocative acts, so, I mean--and therefore--

MS. FARNSWORTH: So his strategy is to deal with the whole peace process.

MR. WAHBY: The violence has been incited by you, not by us. I mean, the question of guns that David has referred to, the Palestinians have been exposed to guns for so many years. I mean, they are also human beings. I mean, you should not only protest about guns being used against the Israelis. The Palestinians also have been suffering from guns for so many years. So I mean it was good, and I'm just saying these things because it's good that each one of them would air his grievances. Each of them will try and reach out to the other. And I think the lunch and the gesture that the President, President Clinton has made was very, very good, leaving them together to air their grievances to each other and listen to each other.

MS. FARNSWORTH: How great a problem is it that President Mubarak did not come?

MR. WAHBY: It is not a problem, and as a matter of fact, I must emphasize one thing here. President Mubarak's stand is not an Egyptian stand. President Mubarak's stand is also equally an Arab stand. It's an Arab stand which shows protest, anger, frustration with what Mr. Netanyahu has been doing since he came to office. It has--yet, it has serious devastation. They almost devastated the process. They almost--even his own--his own status as a statesman- -

MS. FARNSWORTH: But you don't think it's a problem to the reaching of some kind of an agreement, or at least lessening tensions in this week?

MR. WAHBY: I'll tell you, President Mubarak is also there in the presence of Mr. Moser on the--

MS. FARNSWORTH: The foreign minister.

MR. WAHBY: --on the outer fringe of the conference in order to make himself available for consultation, and to give also the experience that Egypt had with the Israelis. Egypt has a very important fount of experience of negotiating with Israel.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Susan Page, do you--what was the administration's strategy here, and do you think they've met it so far?

MS. PAGE: Well, the administration before the talks took place tried to make it clear to Mr. Netanyahu that they expected some kind of concrete gesture from him that would get the peace progress--peace talks back on track, whether it's the withdrawal or redeployment of Israel troops in Hebron, or perhaps setting a date for final status talks on Jerusalem. But it was clear that Netanyahu needs to do something concrete if this is going to work. And they say they made that clear to him before he came, so we'll assume that he's prepared to do something. Now, the United States does, I think, think that they have to finesse the issue of the tunnel, the thing that provoked this round of violence, and that perhaps the tunnel's going to stay open. Maybe that's something Mr. Netanyahu feels he just can't back off on. But something else needs to happen to finesse it. It was interesting in the tape that you showed Mr. Netanyahu basically refusing to engage on the question of this commission, that King Hussein has proposed, that would examine these architectural sites and archaeological sites and what can be done about them.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This was--

MS. PAGE: So maybe this is one possible way to kind of back away from the precipice. It is true that the White House thinks it is possible that all the progress has been made in the past three years since these accords were signed with such ceremony and such high hopes on the South lawn of the White House were at risk of being swept away. There is some sense tonight that that brink has been avoided, and everyone has moved back a step.

MS. FARNSWORTH: How much leverage is the President willing to exert here? There's this sense that he doesn't want to have to exert leverage. Press Sec. McCurry said that several times. We're just letting this happen; we're providing the opportunity for it to happen.

MS. PAGE: Well, there are always limits to the influence the United States really has, although it has a lot of influence in the region, and it's a delicate time for the President. It's just five weeks out from a presidential election. Yesterday we saw the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, try to put President Clinton on the spot by saying he shouldn't ask Israel to make concessions, although that's of course what really has to happen if there's going to be progress made. But I think the, the White House feels that they've got some leverage to exert. We're going to see how much and how well that worked tomorrow when the leaders meet again.

MS. FARNSWORTH: David Makovsky, speaking of politics, what are the political considerations for Prime Minister Netanyahu at this point? What is he dealing with at home that he has to--does he have to make an agreement, or should he not make an agreement, given his politics--his political situation?

MR. MAKOVSKY: He's in a very rough position. In the cabinet meeting, a seven-hour meeting that went on Thursday night, uh, until then he had like fifteen to two in support of him. He found out all of a sudden he was in the minority of like sixteen to one, saying that he's not being tough enough in this crisis, and that Yasser Arafat has manufactured this tunnel issue. It's basically two and a half football fields away from any Moslem holy site. He knows it's a fake issue, and he's trying to transform a political issue into a religious issue. And once you do that, you're playing with fire because that gets into the whole absolutes. So how canMNEIL we go through this three-year period, or until the Jerusalem issue was supposed to be resolved--

MS. FARNSWORTH: This is the argument you're saying, the cabinet- -

MR. MAKOVSKY: Right. Of the cabinet--

MS. FARNSWORTH: --minister--

MR. MAKOVSKY: And he is just going to inflame people, send them to the streets. Israel can't negotiate under such a condition. I think it's worth recalling that the Oslo Accord was based not on- -everyone talks about land for peace, of land for security. If Israelis are feeling that they're all of a sudden, their--violence is being used to win in negotiations, then I think basically the security side is out the window, and then the political will for making the territorial concessions is going to be--is going to dissolve too, and, therefore, Netanyahu feels if he gives too much, uh, he's going to have very hard problems at home.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. We have very little time left, but what are the considerations, political considerations for Mr. Arafat?

MR. WAHBY: Mr. Arafat's whole career as a leader of his people over the last so many decades is, is really at stake. I mean, he's under pressure from his own people all the time that he has given so much to Mr. Netanyahu, that he has yielded so much, and that he is getting nothing. And the way also has been treated to undermine him terribly with his own people, so as a matter of fact, at one stage people thought that if an intifada takes place again, it will only--it will not only be against the Israelis, it will be also against Arafat. It was a miracle that, that this sort of new uprising did not lash out at Arafat at the same time as the Israelis. So he has a lot more at stake than Mr. Netanyahu. May I add something also? We should not underestimate the tunnel. The tunnel is very close to the most--one of the most holiest shrines of Islam, and it was really an insult not only directed to the Arabs but to the entire one--more than one billion Muslims in the world.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. That's all the time we have. Thank you all very much for being with us. UPDATE - WELFARE REFORM - NEW RULES

MR. LEHRER: Now day one of the new welfare system. The welfare law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton begins to take effect today. With the end of a federal welfare guarantee, individual states must now devise their own plans. We have three reports from around the country: Elizabeth Brackett in Wisconsin, Paul Solman in New York, and Jeffrey Kaye in California. Wisconsin is first. ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Welfare as an entitlement ended here today. Fashawn Brown found that applying for welfare is now a lot more like looking for a job than looking for a check. SPOKESPERSON: And what are your plans to become economically independent, in other words, what are your plans to support yourself that's currently right now for the future or--

MS. BRACKETT: Wisconsin began moving mothers from welfare to work six years ago with pilot programs like the one here in Kenosha County. SPOKESPERSON: It will be mandatory to participate in our jobs program.

MS. BRACKETT: So when federal welfare reform legislation was signed in August, Wisconsin was ready. The state's plan was approved by the Clinton administration yesterday, and today the clock started ticking on the five-year, lifetime benefit limit for recipients. Larry Jankowski has the contract in Kenosha County to run the jobs program that is at the core of the Wisconsin plan, a plan that requires every adult welfare recipient to work. LARRY JANKOWSKI, Jobs Program Manager: Some say it's great because most people by and large when they come to apply for public welfare don't want to do that. They really would much rather be employed and self-sufficient. Um, they're surprised, however, when the check doesn't--isn't automatic, when there are some participatory requirements.

MS. BRACKETT: Brown thinks those requirements are fair. FASHAWN BROWN, Welfare Applicant: I think so because I really don't see a person, you wouldn't be able to do it, if you know they help you with child care or, you know, and, um, you know, I, I just don't see where's really--it really shouldn't be a problem if you really want to work.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The federal law calls for getting 25 percent of caseloads into jobs a year from today. Wisconsin is already way ahead of that. Caseloads have been cut in half since Gov. Tommy Thompson began reforming welfare in 1987. And the state will take it even further when the plan approved today, called Wisconsin Works, begins in September. LARRY JANKOWSKI: The Wisconsin Works program basically cuts out the entitlement to public, public aid, and it substitutes participation activities. It makes work a requirement, the only way any payments flow from the government to the individual is based upon actual productive labor. You're in a community service job or in a subsidized private sector job, or in something we call transitional job.

MS. BRACKETT: The new plan requires women to begin work when their children are 12 weeks old. Those who can't find work must take non-paying community service jobs in return for a flat grant of about $500. The grant will not be increased if another child is born and a portion of child care must be paid from the grant. Welfare mother Joy Mane worries about having to leave her children. JOY MANE, Welfare Recipient: Well, the children just need to be home with their mom at that time. They're--they just need to be. There's no question about it. Mothers, single parents are the only thing these children have. Okay. I'm a single mom. My boys have only me. There's no one else.

MS. BRACKETT: Mane has turned to welfare rights activist Pat Gowens for help. PAT GOWENS, Welfare Warriors: Requiring a mother to work for that check, first of all, completely disregards the fact that she is already involved in mother work. If they don't find a job on their own, they're sent in to free work, where they become actually enslaved by an employer who has no obligation to either pay a salary, take out Social Security, or pay Social Security to the government, cover them for workers' comp. JUDITH WESEMAN, Wisconsin Human Services Dept.: I view community service jobs not as slave jobs but as a way for people to participate to the best of their ability to participate.

MS. BRACKETT: Judith Weseman heads the Human Services Department for Kenosha County. She says she does worry about the new program's impact on children. But she says welfare recipients must break the cycle of dependency and function in the real world, where a person must work to get a check. JUDITH WESEMAN: And there are people who say things like this free money is just getting harder and harder to get. There are people who don't understand that welfare is, indeed, changing, in spite of being told that a number of times; they aren't understanding that they need to change their behaviors.

MS. BRACKETT: Only Wisconsin and Michigan have approved welfare plans. Other states will have a chance to gauge the results here as they submit their own versions of how to aid the poor. PAUL SOLMAN: New York City. It's probably fair to say that if the so-called welfare reform law can make it here, it can make it anywhere. And New York, like Wisconsin, considers itself a step ahead of the law. Started 18 months ago, its Workfare program already employs nearly 35,000 of the city's 1/4 million eligible recipients in, says mayoral adviser Richard Schwartz, a variety of jobs. RICHARD SCHWARTZ, Senior Adviser to the Mayor: Cleaning city streets, uh, working in public schools in the cafeterias, serving meals to the elderly at senior centers, and working in parks.

MR. SOLMAN: Illness forced Mike Pirone onto welfare. He says he's happy to work for the benefits. MIKE PIRONE, Workfare Recipient: Outdoor work, I'm by myself here, I have no problem with it.

MR. SOLMAN: Pirone's supervisor, Mike Mirra, says that not only are many of his work experience program or WEB crew members as diligent as Mike Pirone, they improve New York's quality of life. MIKE MIRRA, Parks Department Supervisor: What you see in this whole area is all done by WEB workers. This building, for instance, was terribly graffitied.

MR. SOLMAN: The park, he says, overrun with prostitutes and drug dealers, but thanks to Workfare, not anymore. Okay. So far, so good. But, of course, there are problems with the new law. For one thing, important details have yet to be spelled out. More important, says the city's Richard Schwartz, the federal government isn't willing to pay for what it's demanding as of October 1st. RICHARD SCHWARTZ: They're not providing enough money to create the day care slots, for instance, which are very significant and critical to having a successful Workfare or Welfare to Work program of any sort.

MR. SOLMAN: Within just one year, the federal government says New York must have 60,000 recipients at work. That means a lot more jobs of the sort that used to be done by New York's unionized, now downsized municipal work force. And that raises another problem: the Work Experience Program threatens New York's municipal employees. Arthur Cheliotes is president of the New York local of the Communications Workers of America, which represents city administrative employees. ARTHUR CHELIOTES, Communications Workers of America: It's not just a work experience program, it's a worker replacement program. It's taking away jobs that used to be held by city workers and filling them with people at really sub-minimum wage.

MR. SOLMAN: Shawn Whorton says Workfare is also unfair to welfare recipients like her, who get less than a third of what unionized public workers do. SHAWN WHORTON, Welfare Recipient: It's exploitive. We're doing their jobs but not getting their wages.

MR. SOLMAN: Sentiments like this may help explain why many Workfare participants apparently drop out, though there's no accurate data as yet. But says the architect of the program, Richard Schwartz, the city's already saved more than $100 million, while the benefits to recipients are obvious. RICHARD SCHWARTZ: Workfare provides people the op to reciprocate, to discharge a responsibility in exchange for the benefits they receive. Uh, there's also dignity in work. It gives people something to do every day and brings them back into the mainstream so that they have a daily responsibility like everybody else. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, Workfare gives people the basic job skills that employers are really looking for, for entry- level employees.

MR. SOLMAN: In general, most of the people we spoke to agreed with Schwartz. And even the city's main unions are cooperating with Workfare. But what's new in New York, as the new welfare law goes into effect, is that some union leaders claim they're going to organize Workfare recipients, despite legal restrictions against doing so. ARTHUR CHELIOTES: With the realization by the American labor movement that this is a threat to every person's job, I think we can do it.

MR. SOLMAN: Meanwhile, as some union leaders plot their strategy, New York will be trying to put several thousand additional welfare recipients to work every month in public sector jobs throughout the city. JEFFREY KAYE: In Los Angeles, county welfare workers have begun to dismantle welfare as we know it by implementing the food stamp provisions of the new law. Today this Armenian couple, recent immigrants from Iran, were among the first to receive the bad news. Although they are legal immigrants, they are not eligible to receive food stamps under the new law. Official