The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. on the NewsHour tonight, crunch Time for the Bush tax cuts plan: Kwame Holman reports today's House debate-- and Senators Snowe, Durbin, Feinstein and Craig have their own debate; Ray Suarez gets an update from Hawaii on the U.S.S. "Greeneville" court of inquiry; and Jeffrey Kaye tells a story of slavery in America today. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The House today passed a major part of President Bush's tax plan. The vote was 230 to 198, largely down party lines. The bill would lower personal income taxes by some $960 billion over 10 years. Before the vote, the President made another pitch for getting the plan through Congress. He spoke before starting his latest road trip to build public support.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: When you have a President and a Congress that works together to set priorities, to set the focus of the country on important matters when it comes to spending, when you stop the growth and rapid escalation of the growth of the federal budget, we can meet priorities and have meaningful real tax relief, and it's needed. It's needed not only to provide kick-start to our economy; it is needed because many Americans today are struggling to make ends meet.

JIM LEHRER: House Democrats argued the tax bill was being rammed through without enough consideration. Minority Leader Gephardt said it showed Republicans weren't serious about bipartisan cooperation. He spoke at a news conference before the debate.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT: This is a continuation of a my-way-or-the-highway leadership. George Bush has not changed the climate in Washington. We're right where we ever were. Would that it were that he would have encouraged his Republican leaders in the Congress to really consult with Democrats in an honest way, to negotiate tax cuts that would get 400 votes on the floor - you see, I think it's possible to have done that.

JIM LEHRER: The tax cut bill goes next to the Senate. Congress will deal separately with the President's plans to end the marriage and estate taxes. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Congress repealed some new federal workplace rules last night. They had been imposed in the last days of the Clinton administration to curb repetitive motion injuries. The House vote was 223 to 206. The Senate passed the repeal Tuesday. President Bush is expected to sign the measure. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld today played down fears of new trouble in the Balkans involving U.S. troops. He met with NATO 's Secretary- General, Lord Robertson, at the Pentagon. Later, he was asked about clashes between ethnic Albanian guerrillas and Macedonian troops-- they've been happening along the Kosovo/Macedonia border. Yesterday, U.S. peacekeepers fired on several gunmen there after being threatened. Rumsfeld said risk is part of the job of peacekeepers.

DONALD RUMSFELD: NATO forces in the region have, from time to time, been involved in skirmishes, as the situation arose. You raised the question: Can you get into a shooting war? Shooting is shooting, and it has been going on throughout the period that troops have been there in one level or another. And it's been relatively minor, and it remains relatively modest.

JIM LEHRER: Rumsfeld also said he supported NATO's decision today to allow Serbian troops back into a buffer zone between Kosovo and Serbia. The goal is to block guerrillas from crossing the area into Macedonia. The Palestinians today asked Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to restart peace talks. They did so on Sharon's first full day in office. Palestinian leader Arafat sent a letter of congratulations and called for new negotiations. Sharon said he was ready to meet, once Israel has quiet and security. More than 420 people have died in five months of violence-- most of them Palestinians. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the debate over cutting taxes, a U.S.S. "Greeneville" update, and slavery in America.

FOCUS - TAX FIGHT

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman begins our coverage of the tax story.

(Applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: With the help of Uncle Sam, House Republicans staged a pep rally this afternoon, backed by a cross section of folks described as America's working class taxpayers. The event was held in eager anticipation of the vote scheduled later in the day on President Bush's plan to slash income taxes across the board. At a cost of $958 billion over ten years, the cuts make up the bulk of the President's overall $1.6 trillion tax cut package.

REP. RICHARD ARMEY: Thank you for paying your taxes. Thanks to you, this government will have $5.6 trillion more than what they need in the next ten years. One of the things we should do is just give some of it back. It's your money. We have too much. ( Applause )

KWAME HOLMAN: The Republicans' excitement flowed onto the floor of the House.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. And Mrs. America, help is on the way.

SPOKESMAN: This is a great day in America. For every American who pays taxes.

REP. DEBORAH PRYCE: If you're paying taxes today, you are paying too much. We have a record surplus. We can't spend it. The American people need it. They have record debt. They can use it. Return to sender. Let's give it back and let them spend it.

KWAME HOLMAN: However, through much of the day, a group of southern conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs did all they could to delay the final vote.

SPOKESMAN: I move that the House do now adjourn.

KWAME HOLMAN: They used every parliamentary motion available to interrupt the debate with time-consuming procedural votes.

SPOKESMAN: This will be a 15-minute vote.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Blue Dogs' complaint was that Republicans were rolling out the tax cuts without a complete budget blueprint.

REP. JIM TURNER: Mr. Speaker, the House is being asked today to do something that no family or no business in this country would do and that is embark on major financial decisions without first having a budget. The Congressional Budget Act was passed for the purpose of requiring this Congress to act on a budget first, irrespective of the technicalities -- clearly the spirit of the Budget Act is being violated here today.

KWAME HOLMAN: And the Blue Dogs got plenty of support from liberal Democrats who all along have argued against the size and the distribution of the cuts. Wisconsin's David Obey is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

REP. DAVID OBEY: I believe that every American should get a tax cut and the kind of tax cut that I favor is one that will not eat up so much of the surpluses that there's nothing left on the table to strengthen Social Security or Medicare, or strengthen schools, or pay for prescription drug benefit or fill in the gaps in healthcare and pay down debt. That's why I believe there should be no tax bill on this floor until we have a full, complete budget so we can see the entire game plan.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan countered Obey's charge.

REP. PAUL RYAN: Look at the whole perspective of this. This tax bill in its entirety is six cents on the dollar. The tax relief plan is 6% of all the federal revenues over the next 10 years. So the idea that this is too big and irresponsible is irresponsible. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, if this tax bill is defeated, and this money comes to Washington and is laid up upon the table, it will be spent by this body and we will not get tax relief.

KWAME HOLMAN: First term Republican Mark Kennedy of Minnesota made the argument that the tax cuts are designed to help out average Americans.

REP. MARK KENNEDY: This will provide real money that families can use to pay down credit card debt or to spend a little less time working for the government and a little more time with their own families. So it is because of this that this Kennedy will be voting for across the board tax relief today.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey insisted the tax cuts are misdirected.

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: President Kennedy said, "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." The Republicans here today have issued a different kind of a challenge. "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what can be done for your country club pals. Ask not what's in this titanic tax cut for ordinary families, ask what's in it for the wealthiest 1% with an average income of $1.1 million a year." 45% of the benefit goes to the upper one percentile.

KWAME HOLMAN: California Republican Bill Thomas is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which wrote the tax cut legislation.

REP. BILL THOMAS: Please, why is it so hard for you folks to say yes, yes to returning a little bit of the tax surplus to those who paid it, hard-working Americans? Every taxpayer gets exactly the same tax reduction, no matter what you say, it's true. It's in these seven little pages. It's here. Every American this year gets the same reduction. Just say yes on HR-3 and relieve your pain.

KWAME HOLMAN: The House chamber filled as the final votes neared, and members cheered as their respective positions were echoed in the closing arguments. Early this evening, two votes, a Democratic alternative with smaller tax cuts didn't even attract full party support. The vote on the Republican tax cut plan only attracted a handful of Democrats, but Republican support remained solid. It passed comfortably. The tax cut issue now moves to the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: And shortly before the vote, Margaret Warner recorded a look ahead.

MARGARET WARNER: For a preview of where the Bush tax cut is going in the Senate, I'm joined by four of its members; two Republicans: Olympia Snowe of Maine, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Larry Craig of Idaho, Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. And two Democrats: Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Richard Durbin of Illinois, who also sits on Appropriations. Welcome, all.

Senator Durbin, as we speak now, the House is on the verge of voting for the President's tax cut. What are its prospects now, as it heads for the Senate?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I think it'll be a different story in the Senate. It appears that the House considered this measure without much bipartisan debate and very few opportunities for amendment or substitutes. I think the Senate's a different scene. It's a 50-50 split. I think you're going to find both parties actively involved in considering this issue.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Craig, do you agree that it will be a very different procedure in the Senate, very different approach?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Well, it will be a different procedure, and I think Senator Durbin's right, with the 50-50 split, depending on what our Budget Committee can do. We do have a process here that the House does not have, it's called reconciliation, which means it will come out with our budget package, and it will not be just the marginal rates; it'll probably be a total tax-cut package that will be worked out by the Budget Committee. Or if they gridlock, the rules of the Senate now will allow us to bring it directly to the floor, where it will play itself out on the floor in limited fashion.

MARGARET WARNER: So let me make sure I understand. One of the things that the House Democrats were very upset about today is the fact that they're being asked to vote on this without seeing the budget blueprint. You're saying that will not happen in the Senate?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: Well, it won't happen in the Senate. We do it differently because we do not have a Rules Committee to limit debate or control debate. As a result, we have what's called budget reconciliation, a process where budget... and in the budget, there will be a fixed figure that will say, up to so much will be allowed for tax cuts. Now, that does not mean that specific tax cuts will, at that time, be proposed. But at least a round figure could be proposed that then would be applied to coming tax cuts.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So Senator Durbin, back to you, since you first brought this up, what impact do you think that will have, the very fact that it's being approached in a different way and being approached kind of in the round with all the other aspects of the financing for the next ten years? Will that improve the prospects for the President?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Oh, I think it definitely improves the process on Capitol Hill.

MARGARET WARNER: No, I meant the prospects for the President's tax cut bill.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Oh, the prospects for the President? Well, that's another story, because we have to wait and see the budget that's going to be proposed by the administration. We received the cliff notes. Now we want to see the full text. What does it mean? What will we have to cut to achieve this $2.6 trillion tax cut if you take the total involved that the President's asked for? And I think a lot of us want to ask questions, too, about whether or not the projected surplus of five or ten years from now is really something we can count on.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Senator Feinstein, what's your read and what's your view on where... how the tax cut will do in the Senate and which direction it should go?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think there are a number of us that don't want to vote for a tax cut unless it has a trigger. Senator Snowe who's sitting here with me is one of our leaders on that issue. There are at least 12 of us in that regard, about half Democrats, half Republicans. We believe this very strongly. There are those of us on the Democratic side that want a tax cut but see no chance for a $2.6 trillion tax cut. There is no question. I come from the sixth largest economic engine on earth, and California is sliding into recession. The productivity rate is substantially down. Therefore, the surplus figures are already jeopardized. The budget... or, excuse me, the tax package is back loaded where the surplus figures are the most ephemeral. So we have very serious concerns about this, and I think many of us would like to see, and the centrists here specifically, would like to see a form of compromise. So hopefully there will be time to work that out. Senator Craig, Senator Durbin, Senator Snowe I think concur that there will probably be some form of compromise if anything is going to pass the Senate in this regard.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Snowe?

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: Yes, I think certainly there's a substantial likelihood, obviously, that we will have a tax cut this year, I think based on what President Bush has indicated, given the high tax burden in America, as well as the declining economic growth. I think the question is how best to approach this tax cut to ensure that we have broad bipartisan support. And that's why Dianne and I and others joined yesterday in proposing a trigger that we would ensure that we would have a mechanism in place to assure that we stay on track for surpluses that hopefully we expect to materialize over the next ten years. Given the fact that we could have projections go... 50% either on the plus or minus side, all the more important that we make sure that we stay on track for debt reduction over the next ten years and not jeopardize this window of opportunity that we have for financial stability and sustaining an era of surpluses.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Snowe, staying with you, let me just understand the politics of this. Are you saying that, for instance, for you, having this trigger mechanism is a deal- breaker or you have to have that to feel comfortable voting for the President's tax cut?

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well, I would like to have a trigger, certainly. You know, it's not an all-or- nothing proposition. Obviously, I'd have to look at size and scope. But the issue here is whether or not we can develop a mechanism to ensure that we have the kind of surpluses and debt reduction goals over the next ten years and that we can achieve them. And so from my standpoint, I think it does enhance the likelihood that we could get broad bipartisan support for the kind of tax cut that the President is talking about in terms of size. Obviously, we'll all have differences on particulars within the package that we may want to work on, but in the final analysis, we want to make sure that we can allay the concerns on the probability that, you know, we could go wrong in some of these assumptions. Even Chairman Greenspan, he's the one that proposed this mechanism, and in fact he said it would be an insurance policy. And I think it is an insurance policy that we would want to pursue.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Feinstein, let me reverse the question to you. Are you saying that you could go for something like the President's tax cut if it did have this trigger safeguard?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, there are elements of the President's tax cut I can certainly support. I have very deep concern about the number. I think the number... if the Democrats had proposed a tax cut that was back loaded, that didn't provide for the alternative minimum tax costs for interest costs, for tax extenders, for retroactivity, we would be assailed for it. This tax cut at $1.6 billion doesn't provide for any of those things, and those are real costs that will accrue during the ten years. Ergo a $2.6 trillion tax cut really doesn't leave enough for prescription drugs, for the defense program that people want to do, for the education initiatives. Therefore, that's the beauty of having to see the budget and really see these numbers cast in hard terms, not in cliffs note terms, as Senator Durbin referred to, but in actual numerical terms. Then I think this thing is going to be much easier to straighten out.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Craig, is the Senate Republican leadership ready to compromise in a way that the House Republican leadership was not?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: I think the Senate Republican leadership wants to deliver a very sizable tax cut to the American working men and women, to stave up and strengthen our families and build our families and strengthen the economy of this country. Senator Feinstein's right. California economy's in trouble, partly because of energy and partly, in my opinion, because they need a good tax stimulus at this moment to kick them, start again and get them moving. I think we can produce a very sizable tax cut. We will pay down the debt substantially. And what most don't want to admit, Washington, DC, is awash in America taxpayer surplus money. We have a lot of money here to build a good prescription drug and a Medicare reform program. We can deal with Social Security, we can deal with some defense expenditures, and at the same time we can hold down the overall growth of government by making sure we don't leave a lot of money on the table that will otherwise get spent.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, but what I'm asking you, though, is, are you and other members of the Senate Republican leadership willing, for example, to consider this trigger mechanism to bring along colleagues like Senator Snowe?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: If I can help produce a sizable tax package and work with Senator Snowe and Senator Feinstein and others to make sure that we build that, I'll look at mechanisms. I also don't want to make the tax cut something that is uncertain. I don't think it would have the kind of economic stimulus that our country deserves at this moment. It has to be strong, and it has to be certain and predictable so the economy will respond in a timely fashion. But that does not mean that we cannot fashion some kind of mechanism. We'll take a look at that. That's the way good legislation is produced.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, Senator Durbin, same question to you: Would the trigger mechanism, or are there other compromises that might bring along, if not members of the Democratic leadership, a sizable number of Democratic Senators?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I think that's a very important point, and I agree with Senators Feinstein and Snowe. And I just might comment, if the surplus belongs to the American people, as has been suggested, to whom does the national debt belong -- a $5.7 trillion debt that we're going to leave to our children if we don't really focus ourselves on taking today's surplus and paying off yesterday's mortgage. And let me also add, I think we need a tax cut across the board here, not heavily weighted toward the wealthiest people in America. I've got people in Illinois, two families that have two teachers in the household, for example, making $80,000 to maybe $100,000 a year. I don't think they're wealthy, and frankly, they don't receive the benefits that they deserve in this tax cut.

MARGARET WARNER: So, in other words, you're saying the trigger alone would not satisfy your concerns because your concerns are other than that?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, I think we have to look at the entire question, and the trigger's an important part of it. Do we have with the surplus that we had hoped for? Secondly, are we paying off the national debt so our kids won't be burdened with it? Is the tax cut fair across the board? Have we walked away from important priorities like investing in education and prescription drugs under Medicare and reforming Social Security? These are things that have to be considered as a total package, as far as I'm concerned.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, finally-- and I'd like to get around to all four of you on this, Senator Feinstein, starting with you-- the President, at least from what we can see, has not been actively involved in lobbying for this right now on the House side. Instead, he's been actually out in some states talking to the public in states where there are Democratic Senators that he won. Do you think that's going to be effective in bringing across... bringing over some Democratic Senators?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Frankly, I do not. This is the most important thing we will do. This will either enhance our future or jeopardize our future. There is... I think, on our side of the aisle, there is not one Democratic Senator that's going to be swayed by the visits out into the country. What we are going to be swayed by is, is this tax cut really going to improve the economy, or would a lowering of interest rates do better? Is this tax cut so back loaded that not enough can get into the economy quickly enough to make any kind of difference?

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, Senator...

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Let me just say that the debt question that Senator Durbin raised is a very significant question. We care about that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Senator Snowe, your view on what the President needs to do to bring across... bring enough Senators to his tax cut.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well, I think he will continue to do what he's already been doing, and that is, you know, discussing these issues on a bipartisan basis. I mean, he has met with more than 200 members of Congress in both the House and Senate in his first month in office. He will continue to have those discussions. Obviously, he's going to reach out. He also should be going around the country and discussing his tax plan with the American people so that they have a full understanding of why he thinks it's so essential for the future of this country. And one thing that has been overlooked, the American taxpayer is facing a historic high when it comes to tax burden in this country. It's the highest since 1944 and so the President logically is saying, you know, if we do have these kind of surpluses, some of it should be returned to the American taxpayer. After all, they're the ones that created it, not government.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Senator Craig, a final word from you. Do you... would you recommend to the President that he be ready to compromise to get this, compromise on some of the really important elements to him?

SEN. LARRY CRAIG: I think he needs to let the Senate Finance Committee work its will. The House is working its will at this moment. That will begin to shape the issue for the President to see more clearly what the Congress wants. Right now, the President is communicating with the American people, as he should, and already he's beginning to move the polls in favor of a tax cut. He is combining it with a very effective debt-reduction program, as we will hear. So in combination, this President is going to be victorious on a tax cut for the American people because, in the end, he will engage not only the American people, but he's going to engage all of us in ultimate votes.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, let me quickly get Senator Durbin. You really have the last word -- the President's role, very briefly.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, the President is in a curious role, to think of all the hard work he's putting in to sell a tax cut. You know, if he had to sell a tax increase or a tough issue, I could understand it. But I think it really reflects the skepticism a lot of people have about projecting a tax cut on a surplus that may be five or ten years from now.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, thank you all four Senators very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a submarine investigation update and slavery in America.

UPDATE - COURT OF INQUIRY

JIM LEHRER: Now an update on the Navy court of inquiry into the "Greeneville" submarine tragedy. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: The first four days of the inquiry have been devoted to the testimony and cross- examination of the chief investigating officer. He prepared a formal report on the collision of the submarine and the Japanese trawler that left nine dead. With us is former Coast Guard lawyer and investigator Jay Fidell. He is now an attorney in private practice in Hawaii and has been watching the inquiry for us. Welcome back.

JAY FIDELL: Hi, ray. Thanks.

RAY SUAREZ: The last time you were with us, you spoke of a pretty impressive and thorough presentation by Admiral Charles Griffiths. The next step was cross-examination. How did lawyers for the officers of the U.S.S. "Greeneville" do on cross-ex?

JAY FIDELL: Well, before they got to cross, there was questioning by the court which you thought was very good, and it was done in a way that I could consider a hot court, namely that each of the members of the court had a lot of questions. They had obviously spent a lot of time writing those questions down and thinking about the matter, and it was an impressive participation by them. And that was the afternoon, I think, after you and I spoke. On Wednesday morning, the cross-examination began, and I would say that the attorneys for the parties made some real inroads on the investigation. Both counsel for Commander Waddell and Commander Pfeifer made inroads by attacking the primarily nature of the investigation. The fact that the investigating officer, Admiral Griffiths, had not talked to every witness, that some of the transcripts of the testimony had not be accurately reproduced, that some of the notes of the investigators were reported as statements of the parties, that some of the calculations and formulas used in the exhibits were not quite right, that some of the information that he might have known he didn't know, that some of the Navy warfare publications that bear on the issues in this case had not been referred to. So cumulatively, their cross-examination did deteriorate some of the force of his earlier testimony. And that was yesterday.

RAY SUAREZ: Did the cross-examination really do damage that might stand up through the length of this process to some of the really cornerstone findings in Admiral Griffiths' initial report?

JAY FIDELL: Not in my view. And apparently not in the view of the court because the court went home last night and wrote some more questions up, and they came in this morning as a hot court again, and the three of them asked a lot of good questions, questions that showed clearly that they were not particularly impressed by the cross-examination and that Admiral Griffiths' essential report still stands, that his essential recommendations still stand. And that was clear in this morning's session. Those opinions that he made, which I feel are still viable points of the investigation and of the investigation now to follow, are, one, that the factors to the... the factors which contributed to the collision are, one, that the sonar repeater was not working; two, is that the sonar room was understaffed; three is that Captain Waddell was hurrying; four is that there were distractions by the distinguished guests on the submarine; and five, that there was a problem in the control room; namely, that the command climate was not quite right. And those things I would say are the cornerstones of his testimony and will continue through this investigation.

RAY SUAREZ: From the tone of the questioning of the admirals who sit on the court of inquiry, would you say that they've gone some way toward rehabilitating Admiral Griffiths as a witness?

JAY FIDELL: Absolutely. They did do that. They spent the morning doing that. They worked on all the points that I could see the defense had made yesterday and took pains to rehabilitate the witness themselves. The questions were not being posed by counsel for the court but by the court members themselves. And it was, again, a court of very interested admirals who had done their homework, who were actively involved in thinking about all the issues that had been raised.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, when you talk about these admirals peppering the witness with questions, and you seem to be quite impressed with the level of their questioning, maybe it's good for us to understand who these admirals are. Are they in fact lawyers or just highly interested and experienced military men who ask good questions because they understand the nature of running ships?

JAY FIDELL: Oh, I think it's the latter. They're all successful admirals in high places from various places in the country. Only one is a submarine experienced admiral, although I think they all have time at sea. And they are all non lawyers but operators and commanders, and they do not come at this from the point of view of a legal approach so much as the point of view of an operating approach and what is good for Navy operations.

RAY SUAREZ: And from the tenor of their questioning, are you already beginning to sort of get a sense of where they stand on the outcome -- where they stand on the responsibility of these three officers for the terrible accident?

JAY FIDELL: Yes. This morning's rehabilitation questions clearly indicated that they have moved of center, that they are no longer... have no opinions. They begin to have opinions now. And their opinions seem to be that the... that there was something wrong here, that even if you could defend a particular act as reasonable for a commander, that cumulatively, these mistakes led to a less than best possible judgment by the commander. And so the limelight is on the commander again, and to a lesser extent, the other two parties. But clearly the court has developed views that he made mistakes and the mistakes led to the collision.

RAY SUAREZ: So earlier accounts that talked about trying to shift blame to a more junior member of the crew, they don't seem to you to be sticking?

JAY FIDELL: It's not over yet, Ray. This morning, for the first time, the name of the mysterious fire-control technician was revealed. And his name is petty officer Patrick Seacrest. And he is the FT-1 who was by the fire-control board at the time this was happening at 150-foot depth. He was the one who had the contact and did not report it to the captain. He was the one responsible for charting it on the chart on the bulkhead and did not do so in the hour prior to the collision, and he will undoubtedly be a witness in this case. And there's no question but that he's going to have to answer a lot of questions about what happened.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you think we'll hear from the parties themselves? They're not defendants, these three officers.

JAY FIDELL: Well, two of the three of the parties have put in requests for testimonial immunity, and they are making every campaign to get the convening authority, Admiral Fargo to grant that request. So far, he has not done so. And I for one would doubt that he will do so. That leaves them with two options: One is they could steam ahead and make sworn testimony in court subject to cross-examination, testimony which could be used against them at a subsequent court-martial; or two, they could make an unsworn statement, which would not be under oath and which counsel would help them draft and which would probably be much less of a risk in any subsequent court-martial. Those are their options.

RAY SUAREZ: I'll have to leave it there, but Jay Fidell, thanks for your help.

JAY FIDELL: Thank you, Ray.

FINALLY - SLAVERY IN AMERICA

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, modern day slavery in the United States. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles reports.

JEFFREY KAYE: Berkeley, California: Last January, the city's wealthiest landlord was arrested and charged with buying two teenage girls in India and bringing them to the United States for forced labor. Anchorage, Alaska: Immigration authorities are currently investigating claims by Russian dancers that they were tricked into coming to the U.S. and forced to perform in a local strip club. Las Vegas, Nevada: In September, authorities arrested the alleged leaders of an Asian organized crime ring, charging them with bringing Chinese women to work in brothels from New York to Los Angeles. To federal law enforcement officials and human rights activists, these incidents prove that slavery is once again alive and thriving in America. Michael Gennaco heads the civil rights section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.

MICHAEL GENNACO: What we are experiencing in this country is a modern form of slavery. In many ways it parallels the same experience that... that the victims felt in the antebellum days of the South. The people that are brought here are essentially not brought in chains, but they're brought accompanied by traffickers. They're made sure that as soon as they arrive at the point of destination, that they're whisked away to an unfamiliar situation in the same way that the slaves in the South were whisked away to the slave master or the slave trader to an unfamiliar location. And then, once the slaves are acculturated and the master starts feeling comfortable about their ability to be trusted and not to run away, that they were then released from their chains.

JEFFREY KAYE: As many as 50,000 people are illicitly trafficked into the United States annually, according to a 1999 CIA study. Once here, they're forced to work as prostitutes, sweatshop laborers, farmhands, and servants in private homes. The United Nations reports that as many as two million people are trapped in the global slave trade. Victims-- mostly women-- are often desperate to escape poverty and abuse in countries wracked by economic turmoil. That was the case with Thonglim Khampiranon, a 43-year-old mother of two from rural Thailand, now living in Los Angeles. Seeking to provide a better life for her family, in 1991, Khampiranon was one of three Thai women trafficked to Los Angeles to work for this woman, Supawan Veerapol, a pillar of the Thai community. Khampiranon says Veerapol promised the women decent treatment and $240 a month working in her suburban home and in her restaurant located in a shopping mall. But instead, Khampiranon says she and the other women received six years of exploitation and abuse, working as slaves. Khampiranon often worked 18 hours a day, seven days a week. And in the six months prior to her escape, she received no pay.

THONGLIM KAMPIRANON: ( Translated ) I would wake up about 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning and start cleaning the house. Around 10:00, Supewon would then take me to the restaurant. I'd work there until about midnight. When I got backhome, I could only have a few hours sleep and then I had to wake up and start cleaning the house again the next morning.

JEFFREY KAYE: Khampiranon says Veerapol controlled her and the other Thai women by confiscating their passports, censoring their mail and restricting contact with the outside world.

THONGLIM KAMPIRANON: ( Translated ) She didn't allow me to see other Thai people. She told me they were bad. And because I was here illegally, I shouldn't see other people.

JEFFREY KAYE: Veerapol also used the names of the Thai women to establish fraudulent credit histories with which she purchased a Mercedes Benz and a new home. To maintain obedience, Khampiranon says Supewon Veerapol threatened family members in Thailand.

THONGLIM KAMPIRANON: ( Translated ) Supewon told me that killing someone in Thailand would only cost $120. Supewon said she could hire a killer.

JEFFREY KAYE: And you took that as a death threat against your family.

THONGLIM KAMPIRANON: ( Translated ) Yes. Yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: In late 1999, Veerapol was convicted of fraud, harboring illegal aliens and one of three counts of involuntary servitude. That count involved a worker-- not Khampiranon-- whom Veerapol had struck. Veerapol is now serving an eight-year prison sentence. She says she is innocent of all charges, and in a written statement to the NewsHour said the women in her house were always free to leave. "If you are interested in interviewing someone who kept people as slaves, then you are covering the wrong story...I traveled abroad two to three times yearly, and the ladies held the keys to house, business, and family Mercedes."

JENNIFER STANGER: Well, I think the Veerapol case is really a classic case of trafficking.

JEFFREY KAYE: Jennifer Stanger is co-founder of the Los Angeles- based Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, an organization which aids victims of the modern-day slave trade. She says to maintain control, traffickers prey on their victims' vulnerability.

JENNIFER STANGER: They don't speak English. They have very low educational levels, low job skills. They know that they're illegal, and their fears of the police and Immigration are very real. They've been told that, you know, the police will, you know, rape you, or do something horrible to you. And in their home countries, that's probably true. So their whole frame of reference is completely different. And their world view is their world view from their home country.

JEFFREY KAYE: The odyssey of Khampiranon and the women who worked for Veerapol ended when a Veerapol acquaintance tipped off authorities. In Southern California, the women's experience is not isolated. LA, with its immigrant communities and commercial links to Asia and Latin America, is a crossroads of the international slave trade. It's also the place where slavery leapt from the history page to the front page when in 1995 some 70 Thai sweatshop workers were discovered toiling in prison-like captivity in the suburb of El Monte.

MICHAEL GENNACO: The garment manufacturers and the defendants in that case were able to amass millions of dollars in profits as a result of keeping that forced labor in this country.

JEFFREY KAYE: The El Monte sweatshop case highlighted the connections between human bondage and profits; a connection most clearly seen in the global sex industry. It's a multibillion dollar business whose human merchandise increasingly comes from Russia and Eastern Europe. In video shot by a human rights group, Russian prostitutes working in Western Europe talked about the traffickers' ruthlessness.

WOMAN: ( Translated ) The pimps don't give a damn at all. Nothing concerns them. They have one goal - to get the money. If I don't pay them back, they'll sell me. Then I won't get to see Russia for another 10 years.

JEFFREY KAYE: In Southern California, trafficking of women for sex is often controlled by Asian organized crime rings. They advertise not so subtly in local ethnic newspapers and turn suburban apartments into brothels.

JEFFREY KAYE: Is this a profitable business?

DET. KEITH BACON: Extremely profitable.

JEFFREY KAYE: Keith Bacon is a detective with the organized crime unit in Monterey Park, a middle class Chinese-American community where several prostitution rings have been busted.

DET. KEITH BACON: Say you've got a house with five girls. Say you're charging $100. Each girl does five to ten liaisons a day. That adds up. What's your overhead? You have to feed the girl, you have the rent of the house; essentials, household essentials. There's not much overhead. It's a lot of profit, an extremely high amount of profit.

JEFFREY KAYE: As in the case of Kevin Dong, accused of operating a prostitution ring with women brought from Asia. In just one six-month period, Dong made over $460,000 operating brothels in these suburban homes and apartments, according to federal authorities. Frequently prostitutes have to work off huge debts to their traffickers. In undercover video shot last year by U.S. Immigration agents in Thailand, a woman talked about the payments she'd have to make.

MAN: Can I ask you how much you're going to pay? Can I ask you that? Like $40,000?

WOMAN: $40,000.

MAN: Is it 40 exactly?

WOMAN: Yes.

MAN: Oh, really? That's a lot of money, isn't it?

WOMAN: Yeah.

DET. KEITH BACON: If we're talking $30,000, $40,000, they're given the explanation that you have to stay with us and service 300 clients at maybe $100 to $120 a client to pay off your debt to us before moving on.

JEFFREY KAYE: Anti-slavery activist Stanger says with few services available to help victims of trafficking, their ordeals don't necessarily end with freedom.

JENNIFER STANGER: The people who kind of fall through the cracks in our federal system may be deported right back into the hands of their traffickers. When they're deported, sent back home, who picks them up? The trafficker, and then puts them in debt again.

JEFFREY KAYE: To educate women about trafficking, several countries have launched public awareness campaigns. They range from commercials shown on Ukrainian television to stage plays performed in the rural Philippines.

MAN: ( Speaking native language )

JEFFREY KAYE: In the United States, landmark legislation passed last year will stiffen penalties against traffickers and make it easier for victims to stay in this country and receive help.

JENNIFER STANGER: If you've been in servitude for five years, seven years, it can take maybe ten years to really get your life back together, especially when you don't have legal status.

THONGLIM KHAMPIRANON: Hi. My birthday is today.

JEFFREY KAYE: It's a process Thonglim Khampiranon has started. She now has a new job and new friends in LA'a Thai community.

THONGLIM KHAMPIRANON: The people who have been trafficked, they're relatively normal folks that wound up in a very abnormal situation and we're able to really see how resilient they are after they are freed and they get to rebuild their lives.

THONGLIM KHAMPIRANON: Everywhere I want to go, I go. I want to... I work. I have joy now. Freedom, right? (Laughs ) Yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: But while Khampiranon celebrates her freedom, much work remains. In Los Angeles, federal prosecutors have established a first of its kind worker exploitation taskforce. Activists worry that inequities in the global economy combined with the ease of international travel ensure a continuing stream of victims for the modern day slave trade.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thursday was the tax debate. The House passed the major part of President Bush's tax cut plan, 230 to 198. It would lower personal income taxes by some $960 billion over 10 years. Mr. Bush said the vote sent a strong message. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with David Brooks and Tom Oliphant, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.