The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. An important civil rights decision by the Supreme Court leads the day's news.The high Court said that seniority comes before affirmative action when people are being fired. The International Trade Commission said American steel needs protection from imports. Lebanon's Parliament passed a strong vote of confidence in the new coalition government. India's government said the mutiny by Sikh troops has been quelled. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: A busy news day makes for a busy NewsHour tonight as we go to pro and con reactions to the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision to an industry analyst for an explanation of what the big decision on steel means, to California for a look at how the violence in India is affecting a small community of Sikhs north of Sacramento, and to California, Florida and Washington for a look at day two in the great House debate over immigration, and our own debate over a move to formalize English as the official language of the United States.Seniority Wins

MacNEIL: The Supreme Court today handed what's being called a major affirmative action decision and a defeat for civil rights and feminist organizations.By a six-to-three vote the justices ruled that last-hired, first-fired seniority plans may not be scrapped to protect affirmative action programs giving blacks and women special preferences. The ruling came in a case involving the Memphis fire department. The justices said that when the city was hit by economic crisis and layoffs were necessary, the fire department wrongly insulated blacks from possible layoffs or demotions. Todays rulings represented a victory for the Reagan administration. Justice Department lawyers had joined the Memphis firefighters union in arguing that innocent whites were being discriminated against. The white firemen cheered the ruling. The president of the Memphis firefighters association, Kuhron Huddleston, said, "It was a victory for all firefighters, regardless of race." He added, "The union does not deal in black and white. It was not a black and white issue. It was a matter of principle and our contract." But Ulysses Jones, president of the Pioneer Black Firefighters, said, "The ruling set minorities back at least 50 years.This ruling is not only affecting blacks, but all minorities, including women," he said. Jim?

LEHRER: We look further at today's decision with two lawyers on opposite sides in the Memphis case, Paul Kamenar, director of litigation for the Washington Legal Foundation, which supported the white firemen's position, and Barry Goldstein of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which opposed it. Both were involved in the case before the Supreme Court. Is it a great blow against civil rights, Mr. Goldstein? In what way?

BARRY GOLDSTEIN: Well, I don't think we can say thatnow. I think the one thing we can say for certain is that the case is going to lead to confusion and more litigation. It is not unexpected that the Supreme Court would rule that in the layoff situation, which was the only situation before the Court, that in that situation, where there is a substantial burden on whites if affirmative action requires senior whites to be laid off or blacks to be retained in order to overcome past discrimination. In that --

LEHRER: Isn't that the whole principal of first-fired -- I mean, isn't that the whole principal of affirmative action, though, is to protect blacks and other minorities from that sort of thing?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: That's certainly true, but all I'm saying is that the case dealt specifically with layoffs. If it's limited to layoffs and the protection of seniority in the last-hired, first-fired scenario, it is certainly a blow to civil rights, but it is not an enormous blow. I mean, we still have affirmative action in hiring, training, promotion, which has led to very substantial gains. I would hope that employers would seek other plans than to lay off on a last-hired, first-fired system.

LEHRER: Mr. Kamenar, how do you read today's decision?

PAUL KAMENAR: I think today's decision is a victory for civil rights. It is not a blow to civil rights, but the Court simply said was that you cannot impose a remedy in a class action situation such as this where, number one, there is no proven acts of discrimination, and, number two, where the relief applied by the lower courts was done at the expense of non-minorities who, of course, were the victims of this so-called reverse discrimination. And, indeed, the whole bona fide seniority system was designed under civil rights law to be protected and not attacked by court orders such as the lower courts in this situation, and indeed the Supreme Court cited legislative history, including that of Senator Hubert Humphrey, who stated very expressly that the bona fide seniority systems will not be affected in any way.

LEHRER: Bona fide seniority system, meaning just any seniority system, right?

Mr. KAMENAR: A seniority system which is not set up to intentionally discriminate against minorities. If it was done on a fair basis the Court has said that we're not going to allow lower courts to interfere with the bona fide seniority system. And they also said that you may get relief for actual, proven instances of discrimination, and that's what the Reagan administration has been saying all along. The Washington Legal Foundation has supported that position. We think it's a very reasonable one and one that advances civil rights.

LEHRER: So in the Memphis case, discrimination was not proved? That's what Mr. Kamenar is saying, that's what the Court held today, Mr. Goldstein, correct?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I think we need to step back a little bit and to look at this decision in the entire context. I think we should remember that Martin Luther King was murdered when he was leading demonstrations in Memphis on behalf of city workers who were discriminated against. The discrimination against blacks in Memphis was overt and comprehensive. Blacks were excluded from the fire department, were excluded from the police department, were limited to low-paying sanitation jobs. The fire department union was no where to be found to be the champion of blacks when they were excluded. The difficulty becomes when blacks file a lawsuit seeking an end to discrimination. What happened in Memphis is something that's happened across the country, which is that groupssay, enough of fighting, let's settle the case. And you enter into a consent decree. Any consent decree always provides that there's no admission of guilt. The city of Memphis was not going to admit that they had discriminated against blacks. They were going to say, let's get beyond a determination of guilt and finger-pointing; let's get on with the remedy. And they went into a remedy that provided for affirmative action for hiring and promotion. That is something that's happened in hundreds of cases across the country. It is in the interest of all Americans that we work together to work these things out without having to point fingers and say so-and-so was an actual victim of discrimination. If we have to do that, then these cases will be litigated endlessly.

LEHRER: Well, he's right, is he not, Mr. Kamenar? The city of Memphis did agree to an affirmative action program, which is still in effect and that today's decision doesn't change that?

Mr. KAMENAR: The affirmative action program by the city voluntarily entered into is still intact. However, with respect to this consent decree that was issued with respect to the seniority system, the union was never a party to this consent decree, so here you had the city of Memphis bargaining away the rights of the non-minorities.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, I think we're getting bogged down in the details of the Memphis case. The Supreme Court's resolved that one. We'll leave that one alone. Let's go to what the impact of this is elsewhere. You heard Robin quoting the man from Memphis today, Mr. Goldstein, saying this set back minorities 50 years. That's a strong statement. Do you agree with it?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I agree with it if the Reagan administration gets its way, and that is to apply this affirmative action decision, which is a very narrow one in a situation involving a consent decree and layoffs, which is the most substantial form of seniority deprivations to displace persons, as the Supreme Court said. If it's limited to the facts of this case, as it properly should be, it's a setback, but not a major one because we can go on and depend on affirmative action plans for training and recruitment and hiring and promotion. I suspect the Reagan administration is going to try to push this opinion to an extreme -- way beyond the facts of this case -- and that is something that the civil rights movement will fight hard.

LEHRER: How do you see the extent of it?

Mr. KAMENAR: I think the case is significant in the extent that it does reaffirm basic principles that our laws are to be applied in a color-blind fashion, that we're not going to enforce civil rights for classes at the expense of civil rights for individuals.

LEHRER: Well, what does that mean?

Mr. KAMENAR: It means that I think the Court is going to look at the remedies that are being fashioned either by consent decrees or by actual decisions by courts to say that, although you can may call a victim, an actual victim of past discrimination, that we're not going to wholesale apply a remedy that will in fact impact adversely on the rights of non-minorities.

LEHRER: You think eventually then the Court's going to get to even stronger decisions on affirmative action?

Mr. KAMENAR: I think they will take up broader issues on this, and I think this case -- the Court has indicated, as suggested in its opinion, that the law will be applied in a broader way to advance civil rights for everyone, not just several classes of people.

LEHRER: But down the road you see the Court, this particular Court at least, throwing out the concept of affirmative action?

Mr. KAMENAR: I don't think they will go to that extent. I think they will start looking very closely at the labels being attached. I think affirmative action sounds nice, but when you start getting into issues of quotas, preferential hiring and treatment that are imposed by a court or imposed by the government, city or state, I think the Supreme Court is going to take a harder look at that as opposed to, say, a voluntary agreement between a private employer and the employees.

LEHRER: Do you read the same signs, Mr. Goldstein, from this decision and others?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Well, as I say, with this opinion it is very confusing. The Supreme Court, in a whole series of cases, starting with some school cases in 1968, had recognized what I think is a rather straightforward principal, that to deal with historic, systemic discrimination in which the individual was not the focus of the discrimination but rather a group, you have to look at group remedies. The Supreme Court --

LEHRER: Now, let's translate that into ordinary language. Meaning that a 21-year-old black person may not be discriminated against now in a hiring or a firing situation involving Memphis or any other city; however, his or her predecessors may have been, and that is the whole principal of affirmative action, right? That you help the current person, even though that person was not discriminated against. You would argue that that is not the way to do it; you would argue that is the way to do it, right?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Well, there may be some current persons who are not -- who were not the victims of discrimination, but there are certainly people within the class who were. I mean, you take the Memphis situation. The discrimination covered by that consent decree had been going on for a decade. There were hundreds of blacks affected. Some of those might be benefitted by the affirmative action plan. How are you going to go back and try to identify who were the specific victims of the discrimination?

LEHRER: Okay. Thank you both very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: In another important decision today the Supreme Court made an exception to the 1966 Miranda ruling, that police must always warn suspects of their right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer. Today the justices said police need not advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights when officers are worried about public safety. The Court agreed, in effect, with two New York police officers who asked a suspect where his gun was, and he showed them before they advised him of his rights. Jim? Gains for Domestic Steel

LEHRER: The other big Washington decision today was a form of affirmative action for the U.S. steel industry. The International Trade Commission, in a split three-to-two vote, ruled some imports have seriously damaged American steelmakers, and some kind of trade protection is thereby warranted. The decision affects five different types of steel products, which amount to about 70% of the current imports. One of the two dissenters to today's decision was Commissioner Paula Stern.

PAULA STERN, U.S. International Trade Commissioner: The imports are important, but if -- this industry faces other more critical problem which cannot be ignored. Import relief will not address the most important of these causes, the long-term decline in demand, the unique short-term difficulties, the infra-industry competition from minimills, and an increasingly non-competitive cost structure. But if import relief is going to be the sole focus for solving the steel industry's problems, this industry and this nation are marching down the road to industrial obsolescence.

LEHRER: But within the steel industry, their union and their supporters in Congress, the reaction was mostly that of happiness.

DONALD TRAUTLEIN, chairman, Bethlehem Steel Corporation: We're pleased, of course, that for the majority of the products injury was found, and I think, if I heard the commissioners right, they believe the industry as a total has been seriously injured, and we certainly understand that, and believe it. While the administration on record is against quotas, I think we've shown that nothing else will work where the problem is so comprehensive.

Sen. JOHN HEINZ, (R) Pennsylvania: I think the relief is absolutely required if the industry is ever to generate the cash flow to modernize, to put in the energy-efficient equipment, continuous casting. That will make it not only more self-sufficient, but competitive and able to stand on its own two feet and fight and win the battle for competition.

LEHRER: The commission will next arrive at a suggested specific way to protect the U.S. steel industry; then it will go to President Reagan for the real decision. Robin?

MacNEIL: To tell us more about what happens next concerning protection in the steel industry, we talk to David Healy, an industry analyst with the Wall Street securities firm of Drexel Burnham Lambert. Mr. Healy, what mechanically happens now? Does this take effect immediately? What happens?

DAVID HEALY: No, there is at least a 60-day waiting period where the President has to make up his mind about what, if any, protection will be given for the steel industry.

MacNEIL: What, President Reagan could still say no protection?

Mr. HEALY: He certainly could, and I think that's his philosophical inclination. He's basically a free-trader. But I think that the steel industry is not unaware of the political timing of this kind of thing where in 60 days he'll be in the middle of a presidential election campaign. His choices are things like countervailing duties, additional tariffs on steel, or perhaps negotiating a quota agreement with the offending importers to reduce the amount of steel they're shipping into this country.

MacNEIL: Is the feeling among people you talk to, including the lobbyists and politicians, that, given the political pressures of this year, the President is likely to go against his philosophical opposition to import restrictions and give them something -- give the steel industry something?

Mr. HEALY: Well, the steel industry has quite a bit of import protection already, but I think there may be some additional protection coming this summer, perhaps more likely in the form of informal quotas with various nations rather than a higher tariff.

MacNEIL: If he imposes quotas or penalties on imported steel, how does that affect the American consumer of steel?

Mr. HEALY: Well, essentially, the American steel industry, by looking for more protection here, is trying to solve their earnings and profitability problems on the back of their customers. What you will have is higher steel pries; therefore, the users of steel, the people who put steel into their manufactured products -- autos, structural steel and others -- will be paying higher prices. And therefore you will have their costs increasing and perhaps some additional unemployment in the steel-using industries offsetting some of the jobs improvement that will come from quotas directly in the steel industry.

MacNEIL: You mentioned the automobile industry. What other products are likely to be affected by this?

Mr. HEALY: Well, the steel products that were affected by this quota ruling or this ITC ruling today represented about 75% of the steel consumption in the U.S., and it'll be a much shorter list of what isn't affected. All machinery -- agricultural machinery, automobiles, much of the structural steel. It's a broad-based kind of thing.

MacNEIL: So the impact on the American consumer could also be quite broad?

Mr. HEALY: It depends on what happens to steel prices, actually.

MacNEIL: Now, the ITC, as we heard Mr. Trautlein say, agreed the industry had been hurt by imports. We also heard the dissenting commissioner on the commission, Paula Stern, say that imports were not the problem. They'd had their affect, but they were not the problem. That is what we were told by observers of the steel industry in a long report we ran last night, that big steel's problems were essentially of their own making? Do you agree with that?

Mr. HEALY: Essentially I do. Now, imports can't be ignored. Ten years ago imports were 12 1/2% of the market; this year they're 25%, and they have taken volume away from the U.S. companies and they've driven down prices below what they would have been otherwise. But I agree with the commissioner in saying that the real problems of the steel industry go a lot deeper than imports, that declining demand -- there is very high wage and benefit costs in the industry; their labor costs are uncompetitive. Their plant is deteriorating at a rate more rapidly than they're spending to renew it and modernize it. There are a number of other factors, such as the -- well, in other words, we could go on --

MacNEIL: You could go on. Well, if imports are not the real villain or the only villain, then what is the answer to Senator Heinz, who said this, restrictions on imports will be the shot in the arm the industry needs. It'll help them modernize and everything else. Is that realistic?

Mr. HEALY: I think we've been here before. The industry had three years of so-called voluntary import restrictions back in the '70s and it didn't really arrest the decline in the industry. I think that quotas or high tariffs are habit-forming, and it would be very difficult to give them up after this period if they were indeed imposed. I think the fundamental problems of the industry won't be solved by import limitations.

MacNEIL: David Roderick, who is the chairman of U.S. Steel, said today that very few, if any -- at least half, he said, of the 100,000 steelworkers who are presently out of work will never work again in the steel industry. Will import restrictions allow steel to rehire some of those laid-off steelworkers?

Mr. HEALY: I think that employment will go up some in the steel industry, if you have quotas and some of the volume goes over to the domestic companies. But my best guess is that some sort of a quota arrangement might bring back 5,000 steelworkers at a cost in terms of steel prices about $500,000 per job. It's a very expensive way of solving these problems.

MacNEIL: The steel industry and its union, in addition to pushing the ITC to make the decision it did today, have been lobbying heavily on Capitol Hill for legislation for import quotas. How will this decision today affect that process of legislation, do you think?

Mr. HEALY: I think it lets Congress off the hook for awhile. I think they're going to wait until President Reagan makes his decision pro or con import protection on steel, and then, if necessary, if Reagan doesn't do anything, thenthere might be some sort of a quota legislation. But I think they would love to have the ball in President Reagan's court for the campaign this summer.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Healy, thank you very much for joining us.

Mr. HEALY: Nice to be here.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: Two of President Reagan's Republican Party leaders in the Senate today pleaded their case for a presidential mind change on Soviet summits, but it didn't take. Mr. Reagan declined. Senators Howard Baker, the majority leader, and Charles Percy, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, went to the White House with their proposal asking Mr. Reagan to offer to meet with the Soviet leaders on an annual basis no matter what. A White House spokesman later reiterated Mr. Reagan's position -- that any such summit should have a carefully prepared agenda and a good chance of achieving results. Senator Baker said the proposal has nothing to do with election-year politics.

Sen. HOWARD BAKER, (R) Tennessee, Majority Leader: Just because you got an idea that sounds like it is worthwhile and important to the country does not necessarily mean that it a partisan political issue, nor should it be. The fact that Democrats may embrace this proposal and Republicans may embrace this proposal does not disqualify it as a serious proposal, an important proposal and one we ought to go forward with. I don't think of this as a Republican initiative. I don't think it is Howard Baker's idea or Chuck Percy's or Fritz Mondale or anybody else. I just say that the world is so dangerous and the Russians are so stubborn and obstinate right now on coming back to the table to talk about arms control, we ought to say, "Look, okay, forget about them. Let's just get together and talk about the general world situation 'cause we got to figure out some way not to blow each other up."

LEHRER: There was in fact an opening of a summit involving the Soviets today in Moscow. It was a meeting of Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko and the leaders of the Soviet Union's major allies, similar to the Western summit last week in London. Chernenko reportedly opened today's session with a speech, but there were no details available on what he said. The only major news item seemed to be the unexpected absence of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Cuba was represented by the vice president for reasons left unexplained. Robin? U.S. Sikhs Protest

MacNEIL: The Indian government claimed today it had quelled the mutinies by Sikh troops infuriated by the army's assault on their temple last week. The mutinies broke out last weekend in a number of army bases following the storming of the Golden Temple at Amritsar to crush a campaign of violence by Sikh extremists. Government spokesmen said some 2,000 Sikh soldiers joined the mutinies, but had since been defeated in gun battles or had surrendered. Meanwhile, the death toll from the temple action continued to rise. Today it stood at 1,220 as more bodies were found, and reports said it could go even higher. The recent events have been a profound shock for Sikhs living outside India, as Kwame Holman tells us in this report from San Francisco.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: Yesterday Sikhs from all over California came to the Indian consulate in San Francisco. They came in traditional dress, in Western business suits, but they all came to protest the Indian government's invasion of their holy temple.

The Sikhs in America aren't usually found marching in the streets. In fact, 5,000 of them usually live a very peaceful life as farmers in this valley north of Sacramento, California. One of the most successful Sikh farmers is Didar Bains, who came to America in 1958. He has found his peaceful life disrupted by the events in his homeland.

DIDAR SINGH BAINS: Now everybody get really pain, really feeling. Everybody like to know what going to happen, what we can do. So as everybody really understand, and this happen make really everybody get together, more closer. You know, somebody like would get the death in the family, you know? That's the same kind of thing in our community all over the world.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Hari Everest has lived in a world of books since coming to the U.S. in 1954, a teacher, a librarian and secretary for his temple, he now finds his community full of anger and frustration.

HARI SINGH EVEREST: I think it is oozing out through their eyes, through their voices, through their gathering, that only one topic is pretty hot these days, and that's, "Oh, if I were there!"

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Although life has been quiet for Sikhs in America, they have not forgotten their religion's strong tradition of self-defense, of fighting for their rights. The swords today are symbolic; the anger is not.

RALLY SPEAKER: We are demanding justice. We are demanding our rights, saying that any Indians [unintelligible] born free will also live free.

Mr. BAINS: We no want stay under their government because they are criminals, so we're going to fight. We never fight before; we just ask our divine. So we want the freedom.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Before the invasion of the temple, the Sikhs in this community had differing opinions on the situation in India. Very few of them were willing to call for a separate Sikh homeland. Those who did were often scorned as dreamers, but now, when Didar Bains asks for a vote on whether Sikhs should be free, the response is unanimous.

Mr. EVEREST: People are united here for a cause. People have different opinion; they should have in a democracy. But when it comes to the issue of the moment, they're one in body, mind and soul.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The community is united, but anxious. They carry on their day-to-day activities like this free lunch, where wealthy farmers and workers eat side by side as a symbol of their caste-free society. But the tension is just below the surface. They scan week-old newspapers mailed from India; they monitor the short-wave radio. And when they hear that a reporter is in town, they all gather round to hear the news and to make sure the truth is told.

Dr. GULZAR SINGH JOHL: Right now what's going on in the papers, what they are saying in the papers, is not a true story what's going on in India, in Punjab.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: So far, the California Sikhs have held two demonstrations, but the Indian government suggests that they are doing much more, that they are financing the revolution.

Mr. BAINS: I don't care. They can accuse before, but I never sent any money before. So now we have to organize ourself, then we'll have to see the Sikh are free from the Indian government. We want freedom.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: At last Sunday's meeting they raised $100,000, money they say will be spent in America to defend the Sikhs.

Mr. BAINS: Indira Gandhi, that family been running the country about 35, 37 years. I think she had her share already enough. So we can't live under her no more. So now we're going to show her what we want, you know. Before she accusing totally wrong, but now she can accuse; she can say whatever she want. Now we teach her howto have the freedom. I really mean it.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Even one of the quietest voices in the community agrees that the fight isn't over.

Mr. BAINS: I used to be admiring the Christianity for -- and still do -- that offer the other cheek. Beautiful. But remember one thing. That nobody has two necks. You can't offer the second neck. When any government and any opponent of yours want to destroy your faith, your family, yourself, and then you better stand up for your conviction and be counted.

MacNEIL: In an address to the Indian nation last week, Prime Minister Gandhi expressed regret over the assault on the Golden Temple of Amritsar, but she said it was necessary to root out Sikh terrorists who were attacking Hindus in the campaign for self-government.

Things were quiet in another violent area, Beirut, today after the heaviest fighting and the heaviest casualty toll this spring. The Lebanese Parliament gave the new coalition government of Prime Minister Rashid Karami a strong vote of confidence to try and end the civil war. The vote was 53 to 15. The government needed a majority to be formally installed. Scattered machine gun fire was heard as the Parliament voted, but there was no repeat of the heavy artillery bombardment by Christian and Muslim militias, which killed 84 people and injured 216 yesterday.

Jim?

LEHRER: Still to be done tonight on the NewsHour, a look at today's debate on the immigration bill in the House of Representatives, and our own debate over a proposal to make English the official language of the United States.

[Video postcard -- San Ysidro, New Mexico]

MacNEIL: The Interior Department was criticized today for making a misleading and inadequate report about an investigation into government coal leases, partly because of pressure from James Watt, who was then the secretary of the interior. The investigation concerned the sale of leases on government land in Wyoming and Montana in 1982. The price was $67 million, and congressional investigators said that was $60-to $100 million too low.Today the General Accounting Office, which looks into such matters for Congress, said the Interior Department's investigation failed to follow up reports of leaks of information about the land to be leased. The GAO report went on to say that Secretary Watt put pressure to have the Interior Department investigation done quickly, possibly because he wanted the results before he was required to testify about the leases before a congressional committee.

In another report published today, a study group established by Congress proposed a reorganization of the Social Security Administration into an independent agency instead of a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The study group said action was needed to give the Social Security Administration a stronger management capable of improving its efficiency and the quality of its service to the public. Jim? New Rules for Aliens

LEHRER: It was day two in the week-long debate in the House over the immigration bill. Those of a mind to change, gut or, in some cases, kill the bill aimed at curbing illegal immigration are set to offer 69 different amendments before it's all done. Today they got to five of them. Norman Ornstein, congressional expert par excellence, is here again tonight to tell us what was really going on today. He is a political scientist, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. What was it all about today, Norm?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: In a word, Jim, little. There really wasn't much happening.The House looked like the Senate usually does. Not the efficient processor of legislation that goes through in a fairly logical fashion to reach a conclusion. They were meandering around out there through mostly a series of inconsequential amendments taking far more time than they usually do to get through them. That's why they only got to five, or through five, by the time we started. They're supposed to go on tonight until 10 o'clock, and of course the aim is to slog through all 69 amendments -- here they are; it's a pretty thick document of just the amendments -- by the end of the week. At this rate, clearly they aren't going to make it.

LEHRER: Why is it, to use your term, meandering?

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Well, they way they've set this up -- of course, in the House there is a rules committee that sets the terms of debate. For this issue, because Democrats who are in the majority are fighting among themselves, and the majority group is trying to keep the hispanics, who are upset about this bill, mollified, the rule that was set up for this is more a terms of endearment than a terms of debate. They're trying to endear themselves to everybody who has an axe to grind in this, and they have thrown in the kitchen sink here. You have a set of amendments, some of which are contradictory, some of which are very small technical amendments, others of which are big and get to the heart of the issue. They're in some degree of order, the first set that we're dealing with now talk about the employer sanctions provision of the bill, and they'll move through in that order. But there are no time limits set for any of this.

LEHRER: Employer sanctions meaning if an employer willingly or knowingly hires an illegal alien, that employer could be penalized in some way under the law?

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Exactly. This is one of the main elements of the bill that would presumably discourage illegals from coming to the country to get jobs because employers wouldn't hire them. It's very controversial. We haven't yet gotten to one of the key amendments in that area, which is #15 on the list of 69 offered by Mr. Roybal, the leader of the hispanic caucus, to knock out that section. We might get to it by tomorrow, but at this rate, who knows?

LEHRER: His argument being not only would it discourage employers from hiring hispanics -- real illegal aliens who have come from Mexico -- but all Hispanic-Americans in this country, citizens alike. Employers -- just anybody who looked like a hispanic would not get -- would not get the time of day.

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Exactly so. And we've got about a third of the amendments that deal with different aspects of this. One amendment has passed today. It's a substantive amendment offered by the ranking Republican on the appropriate subcommittee, Mr. Lungren, that would extend the paperwork, the varification by employers from a narrow subgroup of those who violated the law before to all employers, and that one passed.

LEHRER: I'm not sure I understand that. Explain what that means.

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Well, of course, what employers or some employers have complained about is that they would have to fill out a lot of paperwork here that varified that they were employing no illegals. Now, the way the bill was set up, that would only apply to those who violated an immigration law before, which meant mostly agricultural people.Lungren said let's apply it to all employers. In a way it's saying we won't discriminate in favor of just some employers. It appeals to liberals in some sense; it also is more substantive and itsuggests that there isn't all that much paperwork involved. He's trying to protect the employer sanction provision as much as anything else. The other amendments were more or less rejected out of hand.

LEHRER: Were there any signs from what happened today as to how this thing might finally end up?

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Well, if they don't start to pick up the pace, then the strategy that we've discussed before, that hispanics may be just delaying this so long that it can't reach a resolution or at least getting to a point where another key vote is a vote to stop the debate and vote on it one way or another, which would give people an out by not voting against the bill but simply voting to keep debate going indefinitely may take hold. In other words, this may go on until people get tired of it, and they shelve it. We're heading towards what will clearly be a crisis point late in the week, by Thursday, I would say, where people are going to get a little antsy and say this is not the way the House is supposed to operate; let's get to a vote.

LEHRER: Is there anybody in control, anybody who's actually calling the shots right now?

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Right now, in essence, what the leadership has done is to sat we're going to bend over backwards and let everybody have their week in court. The question is whether that will work and play itself out through the week. We'll get a vote, we'll pass the bill out, even, and people will be satisfied that they've at least had their say, or we'll get to the end of the week with no end in sight, and either they'll put on the clamps and try and vote, or else it'll go on 'til the next week and then probably die of its own accord.

LEHRER: Norman Ornstein, thank you. Robin? Speak English

MacNEIL: Another issue affecting hispanics surfaced in Congress today. The Senate Judiciary Committee began considering a proposed constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States. The proposal was attacked by one critic as a backhanded attempt to further ostracize hispanics. Judy Woodruff has more. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Robin, it's an issue that has generated fierce opinions on both sides, particularly now that Spanish-speaking people make up an increasingly large part of the population. Opponents of the proposed amendment fear that the impact it would have -- or fear the impact it would have, rather, on a city like Miami, a city that is trying to deal with the tensions that come from being a two-language community. Miami-based reporter Kathy Barber Hersh looks at some of the problems.

KATHY BARBER HERSH [voice-over]: -- indeed like no other, the issue of bilingualism. Four years ago the citizens of Miami-Dade County voted overwhelmingly in favor of an ordinance prohibiting the use of county money for signs printed in any language other than English. It was an apparent backlash from an angry anglo community which resented footing the bill for Miami's rapid latinization. Because of the ordinance, Metrorail has no warning or information signs in Spanish, despite the fact that 40% of its potential passengers are Spanish-speaking. One of the people responsible for the ordinance is Mark Benson, chief spokesman for Citizens of Dade United.

MARK BENSON, Citizens of Dade United: There is a war going on right now between Cubans and Americans who have been here for many years. That war is continuing, and it is truly a war.

HERSH [voice-over]: Since the mass arrival of the Cubans in the early '60s, Miami has developed a distinctively Latin flavor. In Little Havana the main commercial street is no longer 8th Street, but is known by Cubans and anglos alike as Calle Ocho. This is the heart of a complete subculture. People live and die here without having to speak English. Spanish-language newspapers reflect the concerns of the Cuban community. Radio stations broadcast the news Cuban style and serve as an electronic backyard fence. A Spanish-language television station provides at-home entertainment, and for those who prefer older forms of diversion, there are places to go where the good old days of pre-Castro's Cuba die hard. Many in Miami feel that the Cuban community has made a substantial contribution to the city's economic growth as a banking and commerce conter for Latin America, but cultural and language differences nevertheless cause friction.

Mr. BENSON: I think anybody who has called their community home for many, many years resents foreigners coming into their community and, over a period of years, establishing a foreign country in their city. And we do resent that most heavily.

Dr. EDUARDO PADRON, founder, Spanish-American League Against Discrimination: There is no one more American than I am. I am a very proud American, and I am willing to fight for this country and do everything that is called for. This is my country. But I speak Spanish and I enjoy doing that, and I like to eat rice and beans and I like that the same way I go to McDonald's and Burger King and have my hamburger. Now, you tell me what is the culture of the United States. This country is great because this country is a collection of the best that every other country had to offer. There is not such a thing as the culture of the United States.

HERSH [voice-over of Spanish class]: Like it or not, bilingualism is an accepted and institutionalized part of the curriculum of the Dade County school system, not only are hispanic children taught English, but in one of Dade County's total immersion classes, anglo children are learning Spanish and liking it.

MAURICE FERRE, Mayor of Miami: Miami is an American city, and no matter how impacted it is by Cubans or other hispanics, it will always be an American city. It'll be different from Minneapolis, because Minneapolis and Minnesota have a Scandanavian influence and we have a hispanic influence. When it's all done and over with we're all going to be Americans.

HERSH [voice-over]: That's the hope for the future. It's still at least a generation away.

WOODRUFF: Miami's problems are indicative of what a number of other cities face, all of which would be affected if the English language constitutional amendment were to pass. As we said earlier, there are strong opinions on both sides, and the most vocal support for the amendment comes from a group called U.S. English. It is a non-profit, Washington-based organization that has been described as a lobbying group for the English language. The president of U.S. English is Gerda Bikales.

First of all, Ms. Bikales, what exactly would the amendment do?

GERDA BIKALES: The amendment would simply declare that English is the official language of the United States. Beyond that it leaves it up to Congress to legislate the exact interpretation of this.

WOODRUFF: And what would the impact of it be? I mean, it's more than just --

Ms. BIKALES: For most people it's really -- it would have very little impact, and don't get me wrong. I think that is good. We certainly don't want something that's going to create huge upheavals in the United States. But I think it would do something like do away with bilingual ballots, for example, which are quite prevalent in 505 counties in the United States.

WOODRUFF: Voting ballots.

Ms. BIKALES: That is correct. This is the kind of thing. Or, say, applications for college loans all in Spanish. This sort of thing will probably be stopped.

WOODRUFF: Why is that necessary? What's wrong with having bilingual ballots for communities where people don't speak English or applications for college?

Ms. BIKALES: Well, I think you have just seen something about Miami. There are other things to be said about Miami. For example, the mayor, Mayor Ferre, whom we just saw in an interview last year, made several statements that in Miami you can, from birth to death, you never need to speak English. The community is self-contained, in effect. And he said that with great pride. This kind of thing really creates ill will; it creates tensions. It creates language segregation in a country that has really never had that before. And we feel that this is undesirable and prudent people will take some precautions now rather than let them develop further.

WOODRUFF: But you're essentially saying do away with any effort at bilingualism in the country, is that correct?

Ms. BIKALES: No, no, no. I say nothing of the sort.

WOODRUFF: You're saying we'd go strictly to English?

Ms. BIKALES: No, no, no. I say nothing of the sort. What I am saying, basically, is that it's not the role of government to foster other languages, but rather English is our language, although we have absolutely no laws to protect it or to designate it as such, which may come as a surprise to some people. But we're only talking of the role of government. Private organizations, businesses, will certainly be free to continue. We do not need to abrogate the First Amendment.

WOODRUFF: What would happen if this amendment did not pass, in your mind?

Ms. BIKALES: Well, I think there is such a groundswell of sentiment in favor of this amendment. We have to realize, for example, that U.S. English is little over one year old, and we have over 40,000 members at last count. There is an enormous groundswell of sentiment in favor of doing something, and something will be done. It's not going to go away.

WOODRUFF: Well, what is it that you fear will happen, though, if it doesn't pass?

Ms. BIKALES: Well, I think there'll be further erosion of English. In other words, the language ghettos that we are beginning to see build up will become permanent, and they will become enlarged. And this is what we fear.

WOODRUFF: Okay.You came -- just a side note. You came to this country as a teenager, and you didn't speak any English.

Ms. BIKALES: That's right. That is correct.

WOODRUFF: But you've still come to this point of view?

Ms. BIKALES: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. You know, the point of view I hold I think most immigrants -- in fact, I would say an unusual proportion of members of our organization are immigrants. It is not unusual, and certainly when I came to the United States, I was expected to learn English and to fit in. And that is no longer expected.

WOODRUFF: Thank you. We'll come back to you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Hispanic groups object to the proposal on several grounds. To explain them we have Norma Cantu, director of edcucational programs for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She joins us from public station KQED, San Francisco. Ms. Cantu, why are you against the English amendment?

NORMA CANTU: Let me explain that MALDEF is not against the amendment. MALDEF, the Mexican-American Legal Defense, is in favor of making opportunities for all persons, and that would include immigrants. MALDEF does not believe that this constitutional amendment would make a difference. This constitutional amendment will not cause an overnight miracle, and it will not cause all persons to automatically become fluent in English simply because of its passage. As a result, there is no need to amend the United States Constitution. To the contrary, it could have some negative backlash; for example, the amendment would foster the same fears of racial isolation and language-minority isolation that the U.S. English group states that they want to avoid. I think they will cause more minority isolation than we currently experience.

MacNEIL: How would they do that?

Ms. CANTU: It will bring us back to days where children of other languages were discriminated against. We have had laws that prohibit the use of languages other than English, and they were used in ways that are shameful to this country. Spanish-speaking children were kept after school; they were spanked. They had their milk money taken away as fines -- a nickel a word. These were shameful techniques, and we do not wish to see the United States to return to this type of history.

MacNEIL: Would you fear that if this amendment passed that that would be an end to bilingual education? That is, educating children, say, who are Spanish-speaking naturally in their native language right up through a part of elementary education rather than forcing them to learn English from the start?

Ms. CANTU: Well, I simply do not understand what the amendment would do because, as written, the amendment is very open-ended and does not state what will happen with education or with the right to vote or a number of other rights that we have worked very hard to win.

MacNEIL: Well, let's discuss one thing that it does state specifically, and that would be to make election ballots only in the English language. What would you feel about that?

Ms. CANTU: Essentially what that would do is that I believe it would cause taxation without representation. That amendment would result in a situation where we would continue to tax all people in this country, regardless of what language they speak, but we would disenfranchise those who cannot read the ballot in English.

MacNEIL: Why do you think the proposers of this amendment are proposing it? What is their motive?

Ms. CANTU: Ostensibly the motive is one to promote the language of English, and that's a commendable motive. However, that motive can be reached without discrimination by promoting more English literacy classes. In fact, in San Francisco, where I am today, there are waiting lists of persons who want to take classes to learn English, and yet these adults do not have the opportunity becuse there are not enough classes. Even though on its face the amendment appears to be non-discriminatory, it will have discriminatory effects. And for that reason we oppose it.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: All right, Ms. Bikales, back to you. Ms. Cantu says that it will have discriminatory effects. You heard what she said about children will feel shamed if they don't learn to speak English very quickly.

Ms. BIKALES: Well, I disagree with that completely. The process of learning English is open to anyone, and I dare say most people get through it very, very well, especially young children learn it very, very rapidly. I also heard what she said, that we should be proposing instead more English classes. Well, we certainly do. I think the amendment does not forbid giving more English classes so that more people can learn to speak English well. And, by the way, I think an excellent way to do this that we have been pushing for is to use television to teach English to children and especially to adults. I don't see that one has anything to do with the other.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Cantu, can you be a little more specific? You said you fear that it will lead to racial isolation and language-minority isolation. What exactly do you mean by that?

Ms. CANTU: What MALDEF is trying to do through its advocacy programs is to try to bring more atention to the fact that there is a large population that desperately wants to learn English and needs assistance from the education system and from both state and federal government. We want to have our people, the Spanish-speaking people, learn English as soon as possible and become as good a contributor to the United States as everyone else. An amendment that tries to set people aside as not worthy yet of being a voting citizen sends out a very negative, very, very disparaging message to the hispanic community and to othre communities as well, and I cannot see any good, any positive benefit that will come from making that message.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Bikales, what about that?

Ms. BIKALES: Well, it's not at all true that an English-only ballot would mean discrimination. It seems to me that everyone would be free, as they are now, to bring in a translator, if need be. It does not disenfranchise anyone. I don't buy that argument.

WOODRUFF: What about, though, the effect on bilingual education? What -- does your organization endorse bilingual education?

Ms. BIKALES: We do not oppose it, certainly. We think that bilingual education, if it's a short-term -- and that's the key word -- transitional programs towards the regular classroom, if that is the choice of the local school authorities, we are not against that. And I have heard Senator Huddleston, the main sponsor, today on Capitol Hill speak about this. He seems to agree that this will continue.

WOODRUFF: And even with the amendment, you're saying?

Ms. BIKALES: Even with the amendment.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Cantu?

Ms. CANTU: We have, I should mention, have brought suits where there is still discrimination in political access, and bringing someone a translator into the booth is something that is new, and we had to pass the Voting Rights Act to allow that to occur. Prior to the Voting Rights Act, a Spanish-speaking person could not bring a translator into the polling place.

WOODRUFF: So, I'm sorry. We were talking about bilingual education, and Ms. Bikales was saying the amendment will have virtually no effect on that, and I was asking if you agree with her about it.

Ms. CANTU: I do disagree. I disagree because there are some jurisdictions that try to force a student out of a bilingual program as soon as possible, even though the student yet has not learned enough English to succeed in an all-English curriculum. In those jurisdictions I believe that they would interpret the constitutional amendment as giving them the right to exit a student from the program prematurely.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Bikales?

Ms. BIKALES: Well, I think the bottom line here is national unity and, you know, whether somebody has to exit quickly or less quickly is really a very, very minor point. We are trying to establish an over-arching principle, and that is English is the language of this country; it's our language, and no other language has the same status in this society as this one. That doesn't mean they are not as good as English. In some contexts they are, but they are not as appropriate for this society.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you. Thank you both for being with us, Ms. Bikales, Ms. Cantu. Jim?

LEHRER: The last time a pope visited Switzerland was in 1418, and the oversight was mostly intentional. Switzerland has been one of the places where anti-Rome thought among Catholics as well as Protestants has centered for centuries. But today Pope John Paul II came to bury the Christian hatchet, if that's the term. As he usually does when he arrives in a new country, the Pope kissed the ground when he landed at the airport in Zurich. After an official welcome, he flew on to Lugano to celebrate an outdoor mass before 20,000 people. The last event of his day was a meeting in Geneva, where he spoke to Protestant leaders about the need for Christian unity.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. The Supreme Court ruled that seniority plans requiring newer workers to be laid off first take precedence over affirmative action programs giving special preferences to blacks and women. The Court also held that police need not advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights while the officers are concerned about a risk to public safety.

The International Trade Commission ruled that some steel imports have seriously damaged American steel makers and that some protection is warranted.

The Indian government said it has crushed all the mutinies by Sikh soldiers, and the Parliament in Lebanon gave Prime Minister Rashid Karami's new government a vote of support it needs to be formally installed.

Good night, Jim.

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