The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MUDD: Good evening. I'm Roger Mudd in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary we look at the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement with the President's trade representative, a critic, and two Congressmen. Then Kwame Holman reports on how voters are treating members of Congress who supported President Clinton's budget package. Finally, Time Magazine religion writer Richard Ostling hears what Catholic youth thinks of the Pope. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MUDD: Negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement known as NAFTA are now completed. The U.S., Mexico, and Canada reached side agreements today involving workers' rights and wages and environmental standards. NAFTA is designed to remove trade barriers between the three countries. The original agreement was drafted by the Bush administration and candidate Bill Clinton endorsed it reluctantly and only if those side agreements could be nailed down. President Clinton talked about the final deal today during a visit to Oakland, California.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In our trade history, this is the first agreement that ever really got any teeth in environmental standards, any teeth in what another country had to do with its own workers and its own labor standards. There's never been anything like this before. It's a remarkable advance, and I think it clearly will give the American people more jobs than it will cost. It'll be a big job gainer for us, and it'll be good for our economy over the long run. It will open up all of Latin America to trade with the United States in ways that we don't have access to now. It means a huge amount of economic opportunity for us, and I feel good about it.

MR. MUDD: Some environmental and labor groups were quick to voice their opposition. AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland said the side agreements had no teeth. The Sierra Club said the Clinton administration had failed to fix NAFTA's environmental deficiencies. And this administration a coalition of labor, environment, and consumer groups held a news conference in Washington.

JIM JONTZ, Citizens Trade Campaign: NAFTA is fundamentally an agreement to protect investors, to encourage them to go to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and lax environmental standards and enforcement, and nothing in the side agreements announced this morning will fundamentally change that. NAFTA is still a bad agreement for workers. It's still a bad agreement for the environment. It's still a bad agreement for family farms. It's still a bad agreement for consumers.

MR. MUDD: The Clinton administration is expected to send the treaty to Congress this fall for ratification. If approved, it would take effect January 1st of next year. We'll have more on the trade agreement right after the News Summary. The Labor Department reported today the Consumer Price Index rose just .1 percent in July. That followed a similarly small rise in May and no rise in June, adding up to the best three month inflation report in seven years. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Pope John Paul continued his visit to Denver today, celebrating Mass for cardinals and bishops in a Gothic Cathedral. He told about 300 U.S. bishops that they must do more to attract and keep young people in the Church. Many American Catholics have expressed discomfort with Vatican positions on abortion, birth control, and premarital sex. The Pope is in Denver for World Youth Day, a gathering of Catholic young people from 70 nations. And we'll have more on the Pope's visit and reaction to it later in the program.

MR. MUDD: U.N. officials in Bosnia reported another tentative agreement today on the Serbian withdrawal from positions overlooking Sarajevo. A dispute over the Serbian pullback from two strategic mountains outside the capital have stalled peace talks in Geneva for more than a week. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

MS. BATES: These Serb troops leaving Mt. Igman weren't taking this as defeat. Their mood was one of a victorious force which it had achieved its objective, in NATO's words, the strangulation of Sarajevo. As NATO aircraft monitored the withdrawal from above, United Nations personnel checked on the ground. But still confusion, was the pullout complete or not? The Serbs said yes. The view in Geneva, where the talks were still on hold, was, we'll wait and see. For a week, peace mediators have strived to maintain the momentum. It's an exhausting and thankless task to keep the tempo in Geneva upbeat, while both sides in the conflict continue to stall.

LORD DAVID OWEN, European Community Mediator: There's just a general feeling that people, I think, want to get on with talking now.

MS. BATES: Everyone in Geneva was waiting for news from Sarajevo and most crucially reports from U.N. commanders that the Serbs' claims were true. U.N. Brig. Vere Hayes was charged with that role. He pressed Serb commanders to continue withdrawing their forces from Igman to previously agreed lines. Hayes apparently extracted an agreement.

BRIGADIER VERE HAYES, UNPROFOR: I'm very hopeful that what we have achieved here today and with the quite clear and obvious withdrawal of the Serbian forces, that the peace talks at Geneva will be able to start again.

MS. BATES: This weekend could see Sarajevo's siege finally lifted.

MR. MUDD: A team of 40 British medical personnel flew to Italy today on its way to evacuate sick and wounded children from Sarajevo. The trip on a chartered hospital plane was ordered by British Prime Minister John Major after an outpouring of public concern for the five-year-old Bosnian girl named Irma. The critically wounded girl was evacuated from Sarajevo on Monday after a six-day delay which was blamed on U.N. bureaucracy. Irma remains in critical but stable condition in London.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S., Britain, and France today gave Libya until October 1st to hand over suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing or face new, tougher sanctions. The ultimatum came shortly after the United Nations extended the current economic and arms sanctions imposed 16 months ago. Two Libyans have been indicted for the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground. Libya has so far refused to surrender the men. At least 39 people were killed today in the collapse of a hotel in Thailand. More than 300 were injured and dozens remained trapped in the rubble hours after the collapse. There were reports that ten Americans had been staying at the hotel which is in a provincial capital north of Bangkok. The hotel was undergoing renovation, but there was no official word on what caused it to collapse. That's our summary of the day's top stories. Now it's on to North American free trade, pro-budget Congresswomen, and youth and the Pope. FOCUS - BREAKTHROUGH

MR. MUDD: Our top story is today's trade news. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have wrapped up negotiations to create the world's largest free trade zone. Today in the three capital cities, the three governments released details of the side agreements in the form of joint commissions and arbitration panels to protect the environment and workers' rights. The new measures were negotiated by the Clinton administration to strengthen the existing North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush administration. The treaty, called by its initials, NAFTA, must now be ratified by all three national legislatures. In the United States, where NAFTA is opposed by some important Democrats, the treaty's prospects in Congress are uncertain. Earlier this afternoon, we talked with the United States top negotiator, Trade Rep. Mickey Kantor. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Ambassador. I know that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, creates this enormous free trade zone. But what do the side agreements do?

AMB. KANTOR: What the side agreements do is address, No. 1, a problem we've had at the border in terms of the environment being spoiled because of great growth of businesses and trade at the border as a result of what is called the Maquila Doro program. Because the NAFTA gets rid of that program by opening up tariff and non-tariff barriers, we now have a chance to clean up that border by putting money into infrastructure, working with the Mexicans. No. 2, what the side agreements do is begin to close disparity between both the standards and the enforcement of laws in labor and environmental areas to put us on a level playing field with businesses in Mexico. Businesses in Mexico and the United States will have to adhere to their laws in carrying out their business. So it makes a great deal of difference.

MR. MUDD: So does that mean that Mexico is going to have to start paying wages that are comparable to those in the U.S.?

AMB. KANTOR: Well, No. 1, under this agreement, minimum wage laws have to be enforced.

MR. MUDD: Whose minimum wage laws?

AMB. KANTOR: Minimum wage laws in Mexico, as well as in the United States, as well as in Canada. And of course, we do enforce our laws, and we would hope Mexico enforces their laws as well. If they don't, there are, as you know, sanctions in this agreement which would force them to do so. No. 2, we hope because the agreement commits all three countries to raise average wages and to review it every year, although we can't force them to do it, we hope they're encouraged to do it, because of this agreement. No. 3, because this agreement opens up trade and builds our economies, we believe wages will grow naturally. Let me also indicate that President Salinas this afternoon announced they were going to pass a law in Mexico or go through the National Wage Commission and tie real minimum wages to productivity. A change in policy in Mexico will raise the minimum wage, therefore, raise all wages in Mexico. This is, this is not only a new policy with Mexico, but is a very important one.

MR. MUDD: So what's it do to the sovereignty of Mexico for the United States to be overseeing Mexico's enforcements of its own minimum wage laws?

AMB. KANTOR: Well, we're not. We have a tri-national commission which is saying to each of our countries enforce your own laws. That doesn't invade your sovereignty. We were very careful not to invade anyone's sovereignty. What we're saying is Mexico has very high standards in their labor laws, environmental laws, and in other laws. Sometimes they're not enforced as rigorously as we might like or as even the Mexican government might like. What we're doing is saying that in situations where they're not enforced, and it's consistent and systematic, and that can go to dispute settlement and even sanctions in order to make sure those laws are enforced, as I said, to level the playing field between businesses operating in Mexico and businesses operating in the United States.

MR. MUDD: So suppose you had a Mexican steel company polluting the air, refusing to pay minimum wages. How do you correct those violations?

AMB. KANTOR: You've got to assume the Mexican government is not enforcing all its laws with regard to that company or other companies similarly situated. If that were the case, then someone could go to the secretariat it's called.

MR. MUDD: Who's someone?

AMB. KANTOR: Anyone, any individual.

MR. MUDD: Any corporation?

AMB. KANTOR: Any corporation, anyone could go to this. It's totally open. This is brand new in trade agreement. We've opened it up to the public and say we believe this law is not being enforced, or laws in the case you just gave me.

MR. MUDD: All right.

AMB. KANTOR: The secretariat then has a set of both mandatory and discretionary criteria to determine where they will take this situation and look at it. If they do, they then ask -- in this case you've posited Mexico as your example -- they would ask Mexico to explain why they're not enforcing a law or whether they are or they aren't. Mexico has a chance to respond. If the response is not adequate, then it goes to the -- and I'm going to truncate the process for you -- to the ministers. The ministers of the three countries would meet. If they believe after consultation that Mexico is not enforcing its laws and is systematic in persisting, they then can convene what is called a panel or an arbitral panel or a quasi-judicial panel, if you want to call it that, which it then could determine that Mexico is not enforcing their laws, has violated these agreements, therefore has to pay what we call monetary enforcement assessment damages and must enforce their laws. If they continue to persist in not enforcing their laws, then trade sanctions can be invoked and will stay in place until they do enforce their law.

MR. MUDD: Now, the system that you've set up for Mexico doesn't work the same way in Canada. Tell me about that.

AMB. KANTOR: Mexico and the United States have not the ability on today's facts to take an international order, put it in the court, a complete jurisdiction, not allow it to be reviewed, not allow it to be appealed, and automatically enforce it. We can't do that. Canada can under these facts. They have courts who will take international orders. They have competent jurisdiction. They will automatically enforce those orders, and won't allow it to be appealed. That means that we're assured in Canada, because the courts, of course, have injunctive and other powers, as well as the powers to find themselves. They can carry out the orders of these panels if a country doesn't enforce its law or pay the damages under the case that we were just talking about. So Canada's in a little different position, but Canada has one more obligation. If the court doesn't work properly, they're in violation of this entire agreement. And, of course, then that is very serious business.

MR. MUDD: Why did you have to give that exception to Canada?

AMB. KANTOR: Well, there are really two reasons. No. 1, they have a different court system, and it was sanctions in and of itself that had the courts enforce it. But No. 2, they have a political problem. Let's just be honest. They've said it publicly. Trade sanctions are, are volatile in Canada. They're controversial. Canada didn't want to go to that. They wanted to be part of this agreement. They are very much in support of it. And we believe this took care of the problem, ensured that Canada would adhere to the law. So there's no reason to put them in that political position.

MR. MUDD: Next, Mr. Ambassador, is getting this whole thing through the Congress, and I know the Congress is fairly evenly divided on the issue, and just before we started, you got a call from the majority leader of the House, Mr. Gephardt, and I think he's sort of lukewarm on this, isn't he?

AMB. KANTOR: Well, I think he's skeptical of any agreement that was based upon an agreement that was first negotiated by the previous administration. He had, he was very concerned about that. I think he likes the fact, and I think he can speak for himself, that there are supplemental agreements. I think he's not sure that this takes care of all of the problems that he sees. Obviously, we'll try to work together in implementing legislation to address the problems he thinks are left untouched by these historic agreements, path breakingagreements, in order to reach the concerns the majority leader has.

MR. MUDD: You know, the health care people on the Hill are worried that NAFTA is going to get on the legislative track ahead of health care. What's your legislative strategy to be?

AMB. KANTOR: Well, NAFTA will go up this fall, and health care will be obviously introduced. While health care is the most important, the most important item on the country's agenda, we must have it, that doesn't mean you can't have health care going through the Congress at the same time the NAFTA's going through. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

MR. MUDD: Thank you, Ambassador Kantor, for being with us.

AMB. KANTOR: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

MR. MacNeil: After that interview was recorded, the Majority Leader Gephardt said definitively that he could not support the agreement as it stood at present. Opposing the original NAFTA has been the Citizens Trade Committee, a coalition of 70 environmental, labor, consumer, family farm, religious, and civil rights groups in 42 states. Lori Wallach is on the executive committee. She's director of Ralph Nader's Public Citizens trade group. Ms. Wallach, thank you for joining us.

MS. WALLACH: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Do these side agreements satisfy your concerns?

MS. WALLACH: They don't. As you mentioned before, President Clinton, himself, made a long list of the additional corrections to NAFTA he thought would be necessary to make the deal a good one for most Americans. He didn't say he wanted commission. He said, for instance, that he wanted rules that would keep U.S. investment in jobs from flowing to Mexico. He wanted to make sure that U.S. food would remain safe, and he wanted to make sure that U.S. environmental laws wouldn't be challenged, as legal trade barriers under NAFTA, and eliminated. Unfortunately, what we found out today is that these so-called "supplemental agreements" don't deal with these issues. These most important issues never even made it to the negotiating table. Instead, what came out was commissions, commissions, commissions. It looks basically to us as if what's been -- what is the totality of the so-called supplemental agreements is commissions are to basically study and try and help countries enforce their own domestic laws. The real NAFTA problems weren't dealt with, and as a result, we face the same, I think, unacceptable Bush NAFTA.

MR. MacNeil: Let me ask you -- give me an example of something that could happen regarding the environment that the commission established won't be able to fix or protect America from.

MS. WALLACH: Well, one issue that has been of great concern to us and one that's not got much attention is that NAFTA sets up a whole system of rules, and then a court system that's basically placed on top of U.S. law. So under NAFTA, here's an example. A country sends a food product to the United States, but it doesn't meet our standards. Let's say it has DDT on it. It doesn't mean a pesticide standards. Under the status quo, that's the end of the story. That food's not coming into our country. Under NAFTA, the NAFTA establishes a new right for Mexico or Canada, their food let's say, to sue in NAFTA court, but it's just a secret tribunal of trade officials, to say that that U.S. law doesn't meet the rules that the U.S. signed onto in NAFTA. If that tribunal of trade officials says that our law doesn't meet the NAFTA rules, then they declare it an illegal trade barrier, and then the U.S. has the option. They have to get rid of the law, or they have to start paying damages basically and trade sanctions to keep our law. The commissions don't deal with that, and there a lot of U.S. laws beyond just food laws that are up at risk. Commissions never discuss that. That issue was on President Clinton's list, but most of his list never got addressed.

MR. MacNeil: Let me ask you in the case of a labor practice that despite the side agreement would, in your view, leave American workers vulnerable.

MS. WALLACH: Well, the side agreement doesn't deal with the wage issue. That's a pretty big starter. Mexico -- a U.S. company has a great incentive to relocate to Mexico, and in NAFTA, a lot of new areas for U.S. investment are open that aren't available under the status quo. The investor knows they can leave their U.S. location, go to Mexico, pay the average wage, which is about $5 a day, and that's assuming that Mexico enforces this minimum standard that, as Amb. Kantor said, is all of those commissions would look at any way, so it's $5 a day, a very lax environment for enforcement, no worker, other costs of pensions, insurance, and that company could then sell back into the United States. At the same price, as if it were manufacturing here, as a result, obviously, it's a huge increase in profit, so if you're a CEO or major stockholder, this sounds like a good deal to you. If you're a worker in Mexico or in Canada, or in the United States, this is not a good thing. And there is nothing in the commissions that deals with that wage disparity, as Amb. Kantor said, there's nothing binding, there's a lot of happy language in both the labor and the environmental commissions that talks about what it'd be nice to have in the future. It doesn't mean anything, and it's not even directly addressing the problems with NAFTA.

MR. MacNeil: Is there anything that came out today that your citizens trade campaign applauds? I mean, are you happy, for instance, about the pegging Mexican minimum wage to productivity?

MS. WALLACH: Well, I want to make a point about how you characterize this. Our groups -- and we're 70 national citizens groups -- we put all our members together, 45 million people, we were opponents of Bush's agreements, we agree with President Clinton that it was fundamentally flawed. But when President Clinton made his speech, he pulled back, and we became opponents, we became critics, instead of opponents, and we worked with the administration on President Clinton's list. So now basically we've waited and we've waited. We'd like this President to succeed. We wish he had done his list of fixes. The bottom line is he never touched it. In fact, even these commissions, the one point I would agree with Amb. Kantor on is his description of how convoluted the process is, even to the extent that there are any so-called teeth at the end, some sort of a sanction, getting to them could take years and years, and Amb. Kantor was trying to explain in a simple way how complicated they are. It's much worse.

MR. MacNeil: Okay.

MS. WALLACH: I don't think actually if there are meaningful sanctions, they're accessible. So we're not, we're not pleased. And we're disappointed. We'd like this President to have done better.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Ms. Wallach, thank you very much for joining us.

MS. WALLACH: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: The fate of NAFTA now probably lies with Democrats in Congress since it's assumed most Republicans are for it. Congressman Bill Richardson, Democrat from New Mexico, joins us from Albuquerque. He's a deputy whip in the House of Representatives. It'll be his job to help line up Democratic votes, a tough job with some top Democrats like House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt against NAFTA. Another is Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan. He joins us from public station WTVS-Detroit. Congressman Levin, do the side agreements convince you now to support NAFTA?

REP. LEVIN: No. I'm very disappointed. The ambassador talked about a level playing field, but unfortunately, these agreements won't bring us anywhere near that kind of a level playing field. You know, people in the factories and the shops, and their owners say to me, how can we compete in the Mexican way, which is $1.25 for the same work, and they're very productive? This agreement really doesn't help that. It ties the minimum wage to productivity in one sense, but that isn't the issue. The issue is tying wages to productivity. The $1.25 paid in factories I saw in Mexico, that's above the minimum wage. But it's 1/10 the wage here in the United States. So I'm disappointed that this administration inherited from the Bush administration a very, very defective agreement. I'm afraid that it hasn't met the test or come close to it in the side agreements of bringing about a level playing field that our workers and businesses want.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Richardson, what do you think of the side agreements?

REP. RICHARDSON: Well, I think that the Clinton administration has succeeded beyond expectations. I couldn't believe that the Canadians and the Mexicans agreed to some of the initiatives in the side agreements. For instance, what you have is the greenest, the greenest trade agreement in history. You have trade sanctions and NAFTA benefits withdrawn if there are environmental and labor law violations. That's unprecedented. I never thought that those countries would agree to that, and these were some of the very strong conditions imposed by President Clinton. Most importantly though, Robin, this has not come out, 200,000 export-related jobs will be created for America in the next two years. Immigration will be stemmed at the Mexican border because you're creating more jobs. That's a big problem in the United States. I really feel that these side agreements are substantive, they are serious, they are enforceable, they have a lot of teeth, and I believe that many in the Congress -- although the Democrats, we probably will be split, will end up supporting this. I, I --

REP. LEVIN: Robin, can I give you an example of why I think there aren't real teeth?

MR. MacNeil: Yes.

REP. LEVIN: Take the labor field. There was a little progress in the environmental side though it takes two votes, including Canada's, if we act against Mexico on environmental issues, and Canada opted out of the whole system in terms of enforcement, so you can guess what they'll say. But look, the supplemental agreements say that there will be trade sanctions in the so-called labor area where there's a violation by Mexico of the minimum wages, but not if there's a violation by Mexico of the right to associate, the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and, if necessary, the right to strike. That's left out of the sanctions area, and it's --

MR. MacNeil: Let's ask Congressman Richardson about that.

REP. RICHARDSON: This is a trade agreement. We cannot go into another nation's laws and change 'em completely. What we have created is commissions in labor, in environment, in worker rights, in import surges that allow the three countries to deal with these problems but with teeth, with enforceable mechanisms, with --

REP. LEVIN: But, Bill, there's no sanctions though. But, Bill, if it comes -- I'm not talking about changing the Mexican law and the right to organize, but even if there are violations of their own laws, there are no trade sanctions applicable.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Richardson. Let him answer, Congressman Levin.

REP. LEVIN: Why is that?

REP. RICHARDSON: Well, Sandy, I don't think you've read the agreement.

REP. LEVIN: I have. I have.

REP. RICHARDSON: What we have for the first time is sanctions in the areas of worker rights, labor law, and the environment. If there's a violation, these commissions can impose country by country sanctions or withdrawals of trade benefits. That has never happened in any agreement that we've had, a trade agreement with Israel, in the GATT, in any international forums with the Asians. This is unprecedented. We ought to --

MR. MacNeil: Congressman -- Congressman Levin.

REP. RICHARDSON: We ought to take advantage of this enormous precedent that has been set.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Levin, so we can bring this to a level that probably everybody could understand, what worries -- you come from a heavy industrial state -- what worries you most that could happen if NAFTA became law? What are you most worried about?

REP. LEVIN: For example, in the motor vehicle sector, the light truck tariff is reduced, cut in half from 25 percent right away, and then it's phased out completely over eight years.

MR. MacNeil: That's the Mexican tariff on light trucks coming into the U.S.

REP. LEVIN: Right. Now what happens if the big three move light truck production to Mexico? And the administration hasn't received any insurances from the big three, and I've asked that they be given. But secondly, the workers down there, they don't have -- they have on paper the right to organize, the right to associate. But Bill Richardson, I think, is wrong. There are no trade sanctions if Mexico doesn't follow its own laws in terms of the right to organize. Having trade sanctions as to the minimum wage doesn't help this situation, because you have a disparity of $1.25 versus $15.00.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Richardson, what do you say about the - - it opening the way for the big three, if they choose to move light truck production to Mexico from where they could be imported into the United States with no tariff?

REP. RICHARDSON: The fact is, Robin, there is already movement of companies to Mexico without NAFTA. My point is this. What we have in Mexico is a huge market for American goods. 15 cents of every dollar that they spend, a Mexican spends, is on an American product. And unless we in our own hemisphere combine with Latin America, Canada, and Mexico, we're not going to be competitive against the Europeans, with their 17-nation European Community, and the Asians that are forming free trade markets. I think we're putting our head in the sand if we don't recognize the reality of freer trade.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman --

REP. LEVIN: I'm in favor --

REP. RICHARDSON: Products moving duty free are going to create more export jobs for Americans. At the border --

REP. LEVIN: I'm in favor.

REP. RICHARDSON: At the border --

MR. MacNeil: Let him finish, Congressman Levin, then I'll come to you.

REP. RICHARDSON: I think every border state in the United States is going to do very well, and I think that ultimately within 10 years states like Sandy will get more jobs. You simply are putting your head in the sand if, if you reject any kind of international economic reality that involves free trade and involves us becoming part of trading blocs.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Levin.

REP. RICHARDSON: You must do that to compete.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Levin.

REP. LEVIN: Look, I don't want to put my head in the sand. It isn't there. I want more trade. But I want trade with a level playing field. And we don't have it from this agreement. The border states may be helped by this, but the industrial sector throughout this country, and I think the agricultural sector, isn't going to be helped if we don't have supplemental agreements that make it clear that we're going to look after this problem of the disparity in wages of ten to one. And these supplemental agreements simply don't do that I'm afraid.

MR. MacNeil: Let's turn for a moment, Congressman Richardson, to the prospects in Congress. With colleagues like Majority Leader Gephardt against this as it stands, what do you think of the chances in the House?

REP. RICHARDSON: Well, it's going to be a very tight battle but I think ultimately will prevail because President Clinton will support this plan. And the Majority Leader didn't close off his total opposition. He remains open. He did so when we had the fast track vote. He has some serious concerns. We have to deal with those. So does Sandy Levin. But I believe that with Republican support, ninety members of the House supported the NAFTA fast track last year, that a coalition will be built that will be a very, very narrow victory. But I think these issues are legitimate. They should be debated, but these side agreements should be icing on the cake to convince those Americans concerned about whether the agreement would degrade the environment and hurt American jobs and American workers. These are excellent side agreements with teeth. I still can't believe they got those concessions. So I'm delighted. I'm optimistic, but it's going to be a very, very tough battle.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Levin, are you taking the stance you are right now because you think you could get even tougher side agreements or more conditions imposed on this bill before it's put to a vote in the House?

REP. LEVIN: I'm taking this stand because the people that I meet on the street, and not only in Michigan, are really worried about jobs, Robin. We've lost 2 million manufacturing jobs the last decade. And these side agreements don't meet head on the issue of what's going to happen to jobs in America --

MR. MacNeil: Okay.

REP. LEVIN: -- and to businesses that supply the large corporations.

MR. MacNeil: I'm afraid that's the end of our time, Congressman. Thank you both for joining us.

REP. LEVIN: Thank you.

MR. MUDD: Still ahead, members of the Congress try to explain their budget vote, and young Americans discuss the Pope. FOCUS - FACING THE MUSIC

MR. MUDD: Next tonight, the political fallout from the President's budget reduction package. Opinion polls this week show most Americans don't like the plan, and those members who voted for it are hearing about. Correspondent Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Morning in Manhattan, and along First Avenue on the upper east side freshman Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is engaged in some after-the-vote damage control.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY, [D] New York: [talking to people on street] What do you think of the budget package?

MAN: It's terrible.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Terrible?

MR. HOLMAN: Maloney is a ten-year veteran of the New York City Council, but for better or worse, her vote last week in favor of the President's deficit reduction plan is so far the benchmark of her short Washington career.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Hi. I'm Congresswoman Maloney. How are you?

MAN ON STREET: I'mvery well.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: What do you think of the budget?

MAN ON STREET: Uh [pause] -- I'm just stumped by it. You know - -

MR. HOLMAN: Maloney voted against the President's plan when it first came through the House of Representatives in May, but just days before the final crucial vote last week, Maloney and three other House Democrats stood on the same stage with President Clinton to announce they now supported his bill.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: [August 4] The negotiations are over. The plan before us is a substantially improved plan, and now it's time for all Americans to rally behind our President and to pass this plan.

MR. HOLMAN: Immediately after the vote, Maloney came home to New York's 14th Congressional District. There she spent much of the week gaging the reactions of those who elected her.

YOUNG MAN ON STREET: I'm glad that it passed, but I'm sorry that he had to compromise so much. At the same time, I guess a lot of how it ends up depends upon further cuts that he's promised to make later on.

MR. HOLMAN: Maloney's district stretches all along Manhattan's east side from just south of Harlem down to Greenwich Village, and spilling across the East River to include Astoria Queens and Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Her constituents are some of the richest in the city and some of the poorest. 70 percent of the people have better than a high school education, but a third of her constituents also make less than $20,000 a year. Her vote to raise taxes on the rich, to tax more Social Security benefits, and to provide tax relief to low wage earners pleased some of her constituents and angered others.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: What do you think of her budget?

JACK McGRATH: [constituent walking on street] I think it's terrible. I think it raised the taxes on many, many small businesses. I just came out of the cleaning shop -- he has a sub S -- he says it's a nightmare for him. He has a sub S shop, and he said it's hard enough to get on in the city with the city taxes and the federal taxes, and now they've been increased on 'em, Korean fellow who bought this place about three years ago, and I don't see the cuts. They look to me to be four years in the future, and the tax raise is now. I feel sorry for someone who died and left a widow or somebody or a family. Now, they have to pay taxes after January.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Well, the paper --

JACK McGRATH: I don't think it's --

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Well, the paper says today that the Dow had a record day, interest rates are down, and --

JACK McGRATH: Well, it settled some problems. That may be. I think you did a wonderful job though fighting to get more spending cuts and less tax increases, but you can't fight city hall, Carolyn. You know, when the President sits on your desk, it's tough.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Well, we're trying. We're trying.

JACK McGRATH: You did a wonderful job. Bye.

MR. HOLMAN: Inside the Green Kitchen Restaurant at 77th and First Avenue, no one criticized Maloney directly for her vote, but she got an earful about shortcomings of the economic plan.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Well, the gas tax is far less onerous for us than for the country.

LEO SHEER: Well, it's not onerous enough, the gas tax. New York City would benefit proportionately more if the gas tax was 50 cents a gallon, which it should have been, instead of the preposterous 4.3 cents, which is just a pittance and is not meaningful. New York is probably hurt by the tax package because, for example, it's still -- I guess they've kept in the further reductions on business expensedeductions. The restaurant industry will be clobbered by that, so it's really -- there are a number of things --

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Oh, no. We worked very --

LEO SHEER: -- in it that hurt New York.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: We worked very hard for the business deductibility.

LEO SHEER: Was it reduced from 80 to 50 percent?

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: 85 to 50 percent.

LEO SHEER: Yeah. So you didn't work hard enough.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: In any event, I hope I'm not giving you indigestion.

LEO SHEER: No.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: I didn't know if you were going to throw coffee in my face or what?

MAN AT TABLE: No. Thank you for sharing.

MR. HOLMAN: Maloney fared better at the local chapter of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America.

DEBORAH KAPLAN: We're delighted that you've given us the opportunity to react, because some of us have some very serious questions. Some of us noted -- well -- I'm going to let the ladies and gentlemen speak for themselves.

LADY AT TABLE: I do have some concerns, although I personally support it, although I will have to be paying more taxes. But I think it's a fair plan.

OTHER LADY AT TABLE: Some of the taxes will be retroactive, and some won't be retroactive, and I don't understand that difference and which and what. I hope you do, so you can explain it to me.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: The Senate version took out the retroactive provision. It was put back in the conference committee, and quite frankly, I don't like it, even though it applies only to the upper 1 percent. In my opinion, it's sort of like changing the rules in the middle of the game.

MR. HOLMAN: During last year's campaign, this group endorsed Maloney's opponent, incumbent Bill Green. But Maloney eked out a 4,000 vote victory. These women of Hadassah now seem willing to work with their new representative.

WOMAN AT TABLE: You may want our help.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: We need your help.

WOMAN AT TABLE: And I believe you have to only ask us for your help, and we will see that, that our constituency also is involved in this, because it's for us, the American people.

MR. HOLMAN: Unlike New York's ethnically and economically diverse 14th Congressional District, the 13th District here in Pennsylvania is for the most part white, well-to-do, and Republican. Not surprisingly, many of the people who live here and vote here are not good fans of the President's economic plan nor of their member of Congress whose vote was so key to passing it.

MAN: The recent vote is a little bit of a shock, because she changed her original position.

YOUNG LADY: She made a lot of promises that she would stand for her constituents in the area, and she's really not. I think it was a dangerous move for her. She said she was going to vote against it. At the last minute changed her mind. It's a Republican district, and I think it was risky.

MR. HOLMAN: The subject of all that negative feeling is another freshman Democrat, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky.

REP. MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, [D] Pennsylvania: I looked at it. I said, what do I have to do? I mean, is it -- it's not about being popular. It's about trying -- doing the right thing.

MR. HOLMAN: Margolies-Mezvinsky is a former television news reporter and mother of 11 who last year was elected by only a 1300 vote margin in an area that hadn't sent a Democrat to Congress since 1916. Pennsylvania's 13th District encompasses such old money communities as Gladwin and Ardmore that run west from Philadelphia along its fabled main line. Here Republicans outnumber Democrats two toone. But Margolies-Mezvinsky benefitted from the so-called "year of the woman" as well as a reputation as a centrist Democrat. Now she is at the center of press and public attention for casting the 218th and winning vote for the President's economic plan. On Tuesday, she went to the Green Acres Nursing Home to explain herself.

REP. MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY: I just wanted to tell you a little bit about why all these people are here, and what, what happened last week. The President called, and he basically said to me, "What would it take?" And I said that what it would take for me would be an honest conversation about something that is so politically unpopular that we've simply never had it, and that is talking about Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and Social Security, and I told him that I would like to have a conference. It doesn't necessarily have to be in this district, but a conference where he would be there, where a member of the cabinet would come, where leaders in Congress would come, and then we discussed it at length, and he said he would come into our community and talk about it, and because of that -- and I thought it was fundamentally the right thing to do -- I voted for the, the President's package.

WOMAN: It has taken an enormous amount of courage to do what Marjorie did, and she did it not only for us but for the country. I think that she's going to go down in history, and I'm very proud of her.

OLDER MAN: It's a pleasure to have somebody who represents us to come down and talk to us about the various things that go on in Washington and how things develop and also what our representatives are doing for us. After all, we elected you.

MR. HOLMAN: But not everyone who heard the Congresswoman was persuaded.

TOM KULP: She ran on the program that she would not raise or help us out with taxes, that she wasn't go to vote for tax increases, and I think she has a lot of explaining to do now. This isn't campaigning. She's in deep.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Would you all please stand.

MR. HOLMAN: Following her morning in Manhattan, Maloney was back in Washington, where she and other Democrats received praise for voting for the deficit reduction bill.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If you go home and look your people in the eye and tell 'em you were willing to put your job on the line so that they can keep their jobs, I think they will understand and reward you with reelection.

MR. HOLMAN: Congresswoman Maloney, herself, admitted her vote for the President's plan was playing to mixed reviews.

REP. CAROL MALONEY: One thing that's interesting is the depth of feeling. There's no in-between. They're either for it or against it.

MR. HOLMAN: But despite the fact that she cast the winning vote, Congresswoman Margolies-Mezvinsky did not attend the bill signing ceremony.

MR. HOLMAN: Could it be construed as your needing to be here to control the damage of your vote?

REP. MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY: Well, if the question is, are there questions that need to be answered here, absolutely.

MR. HOLMAN: But for now, both Congresswomen hope to escape the public eye for a few days during this congressional recess before resuming the time consuming task of explaining their vote. FOCUS - IDENTITY CRISIS

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, as Pope John Paul II celebrated World Youth Day in Denver, Time Magazine religion writer Richard Ostling asked four of the estimated one hundred seventy thousand participants to share their views on the Pope and the church he heads.

[SINGING AT MASS BACKGROUND]

MR. OSTLING: After 30 hours on the road, a 16-bus convoy from Ohio arrived at the Church of Good Shepherd in Denver. Among the hundreds of passengers was Celeste Gregory. She and her friends came to participate in World Youth Day, the most spectacular gathering of young Catholics ever held in America. It was time for summer fun, combined with worship and contemplation on what it means to be Catholic. Gregory, who just graduated from Franciscan University, is deeply committed to the authority of Pope John Paul and the Church's traditional teachings at a time when both are under attack.

CELESTE GREGORY: He gets a lot of flak from the Catholic Church in America, and I'd like to be one more number saying, I love you, Holy Father, keep it up. We love you. We support you. We want to encourage you.

[POPE RIDING THROUGH PARADE]

MR. OSTLING: Papal authority has always defined what it means to be Catholic, and it was the person of John Paul II that attracted the throng to Denver from around the world, however, large numbers of the American participants have mixed feelings, loving and respecting the Pope while at the same time asserting the right to differ with him. Manny Lim, a lay campus minister from Missouri, was part of the youth delegation that officially greeted the Pope.

MANNY LIM: I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do certainly place his authority in the highest respect.

MR. OSTLING: What would be some -- several of the important things on which you would disagree with him?

MANNY LIM: Boy, there, there are a lot.

MR. OSTLING: Denver was the second World Youth Day for Kristina Kersher, a theology student at a university in Ohio. At her first, two years ago in Poland, she felt reverence for the Pope.

KRISTINA KERSHER: You really understood what it means to say that the Pope is Christ's representative on earth. There was a such a sense of holiness and love emanating from him.

MR. OSTLING: But the same event also confirmed her opposition to Church tradition and the Pope's views on the role of women.

KRISTINA KERSHER: When you look up on the altar where they were celebrating the Papal liturgies, there had to be over a hundred Bishops and priests and cardinals on stage, all male, primarily white, and then when you looked out into the crowd, it was people of every color and ethnicity, both genders represented, and there was such a gulf between the people on the stage and the people in the crowd. And something clicked in my mind, said this is not right. All of us in the crowd should be able to see ourselves mirrored upon that stage.

MR. OSTLING: Committed Catholics asking such questions lie at the heart of a fundamental change that's happening in the American Church, especially among its younger members who feel free to decide which teachings they'll follow. For traditional Catholics, there can be no such questions.

CELESTE GREGORY: The Pope teaches what Christ taught and what has been transmitted through tradition, through Scripture, and so forth, so it's not his teaching. It's Christ teaching. He's been faithful to Christ's teaching. So when people have trouble with that, they're not having trouble with John Paul II, they're having trouble with everything he represents, which is ultimately Christ and what he's taught.

MR. OSTLING: But Catholics like Kristina Kersher and Manny Lim believe questions must be asked and that the new generation must define anew what it means to be Catholic in the future American Church.

RUTH FITZPATRICK, Women's Ordination Conference: What would Jesus do? He would show hospitality and welcome the full participation of married men, of gay men, of lesbian women, of divorced and remarried people, of youth, of refugees. He would welcome all of us.

MR. OSTLING: Kersher and a small number of others skipped the official opening Mass of World Youth Day to attend a rally featuring feminist Ruth Fitzpatrick and other Catholic critics of the hierarchy. Kersher thinks equality to women is vital to the future.

KRISTINA KERSHER: Women have so many unique gifts and talents that are not being utilized by their Church, and they'd like to offer those to the Church. They think the Church needs to start thinking more inclusively, how can you broaden the group of people we select from to be in leadership positions, how can we think outside those who are ordained?

MR. OSTLING: Manny Lim disagrees with official Church policy on women and on such matters as the Church's opposition to all homosexual activity. And like most of these youths, he also questions the Church's stand against all abortions.

MANNY LIM: If a student came to me for counseling, I wouldn't recommend that they have an abortion. I mean, I would certainly recommend all the other options. But I recognize that in some cases it's not viable to, to bring a child to term and to raise it.

MR. OSTLING: There's far more dissent against official teaching on birth control than on abortion.

KRISTINA KERSHER: I think that we need to form our conscience in light of not according to Church teachings, which means taking Church teachings seriously, examining it, and trying to determine what our conscience tells us we should do. And I think that a well formed conscience, a conscience decision to use birth control is not sinful or wrong if it's done responsibly.

MR. OSTLING: Not surprisingly, Celeste Gregory disagrees.

CELESTE GREGORY: I believe that contraception makes a lie out of love. I think that when a man and a woman come together, sexual intercourse, they are saying to each other, I give myself totally to you, entirely, physically, spiritually, everything. And yet, when they contracept, they're holding something back. They're holding back the life that empowers their love. When a man and woman come together that way, the love between them is so strong and so real that nine months later they may have to give it a name. And to contracept is, is to block that.

MR. OSTLING: She also believes that all the disagreements among Catholics are harmful.

CELESTE GREGORY: I think it's, it's had a destructive effect, people saying, well, you don't have to believe what the Church teaches, you can do whatever you want. So instead of embracing the richness and beauty and the joy and the love of being in the Church, they're too busy disagreeing with everything.

[MASS]

MR. OSTLING: Another long running dispute concerns whether the Church should allowed married priests. Manny Lim is considering becoming a brother in the Marianist order under a vow of celibacy. And on this question, he is no critic of tradition.

MANNY LIM: I tend to think that, that even if celibacy were optional, that there wouldn't be a tremendous change in the number of, of people you would see coming in for religious vocations. I think it would still stay around the same number. It's not one issue or another that I think is going to draw people in or send them away. I think it's the model that those who are in religious life are setting for those who are not.

[MASS]

MR. OSTLING: A different outlook comes from Hugo de La Rosa who attended World Youth Day with his girlfriend, Batisia Martinez. Hugo, who's a college senior from San Antonio, would join the priesthood if he could be married at the same time.

HUGO de LA ROSA: I personally feel that having married priests would ease a lot of the problems that we're having. I really do feel it would be an advantage for the Church as a whole.

MR. OSTLING: He's also concerned that so many of his fellow Hispanics are leaving their Catholic heritage to become Protestants. He's been involved with the charismatic or neo Pentecostal movement that's developed within the Catholic Church and thinks its exuberant and evangelical style can have special appeal to Hispanics.

HUGO de LA ROSA: Where the only spiritual nourishment a Hispanic is getting is going to a set, an ordered Mass, now that's very grim, but for a lot of people there's always something lacking, you know, that, I guess, that depth or that warmth or that excitement. Now, a lot of the fundamental or Protestant churches, especially the Pentecostal ones, they offer that to people.

MR. OSTLING: Whatever their disagreements, these young Catholics, like many others who came to Denver, unite on some things. They all believe the Church's message against sex before marriage is vital for youths to hear. They think the Church must do more to reach out and educate its young members, and they're all proud to be Catholic. The faith is built into their very identity and provides an ongoing, personal resource that's available nowhere else.

KRISTINA KERSHER: Catholicism guides me into the community. It guides me closer to God, with the community in which I can celebrate the Eucharist, receive the body and blood of Christ, and be part of a faith commitment, be part of a group of people that's trying to live out the gospel, trying to live out the radical message that Jesus left us, and it's a tradition which defines my history, my family, my community, and who I am and how I think. I can't imagine not being Catholic.

MANNY LIM: When I was 10, my father was, was shot and killed in his office, and, you know, certainly that would be, I think that would be something where someone growing up could say, how could there possibly be a God who would allow something like this to happen, you know, leaving a wife and four children, four young children behind, you know, and in retrospect, I think there, there's always been something, even if I haven't been able to put a name to it or put a finger on it, there's always been something that has kept me, kept me centered to say that there, that there is hope for something better after this, and that there are reasons for why things happen like this. And I may not ever know the reason, but, but I have to trust. And that's part of what I think faith is. It's an ongoing process.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: My speech was long, was too long. [crowd cheering] But now I have finished. [crowd cheering] I have finished. [crowd cheering] With great joy, I look forward to our next meeting. [crowd cheering] Asta La Vista.

MR. OSTLING: On Sunday, 1/2 million worshippers in Denver are expected to attend a Mass with Pope John Paul. RECAP

MR. MUDD: Again, the major stories of this Friday, American, Mexican, and trade negotiators have agreed on side accords to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and U.N. officials in Bosnia said Serb forces have made new commitments to withdraw from the mountains around Sarajevo. Good night, and good-bye, Robin.

MR. MUDD: Good-bye, Roger. As you leave us again to go back to your teaching job at Princeton, I'd like to thank you for helping us out so handsomely these past two months. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you again on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.