The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening, I'm Gwen Ifill, Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight, our summary of the news, then, a Newsmaker interview with Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, about the upcoming Supreme Court hearings. A look at a new proposal to set limits on some, but not all, gas guzzlers. Closing military bases, which will stay, and which will go? Connecticut sues the feds over who pays for improving schools and, essayist Clarence Page on our cellular society.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: A federal commission rejected Pentagon plans today to close several major military bases. They're among more than 800 facilities on a list to be shut or consolidated. The commission voted to keep the submarine base in New London, Connecticut, and the Portsmouth shipyard, in Kittery, Maine, open. It also spared the Red River Army depot in Texas, plus Naval sites in California and Louisiana. In Connecticut, political and business leaders celebrated the decision on New London.

GOV. JODI RELL, Connecticut: We did it. We did it. That's all I kept thinking. I know that when I spoke with the commissioners last week, one after another, everybody praised the effort of Connecticut. Everybody said that, you know, we did a good job and made a great presentation. We stuck to facts. We backed up or data.

GWEN IFILL: The commission did vote to close nine other major bases, including the naval air station in Brunswick, Maine. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe called that a mistake.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: The miniscule cost savings that will result from this closure, it certainly does not exceed the value that this base has provided, not only for the security for this quadrant of the country but for all the United States. This base was important not only to Maine but to America. And I think this is a decision that the commission will come to regret.

GWEN IFILL: This was the first of four days of commission meetings. Its recommendations must be approved by President Bush and Congress. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Iraqi President Talabani appealed for consensus today on a draft constitution. He urged Shiites and Kurds to gain Sunni support for the document, saying "Stability can't be achieved without consensus The new constitution must be for all the people of Iraq." Negotiators face another deadline, tomorrow, to finish the constitution. But Sunnis still oppose plans for a de-centralized government. Dozens of gunmen ambushed Iraqi police with car bombs and gunfire in western Baghdad today. At least 13 people were killed. And Prime Minister al-Jaafari urged calm after rival Shiite groups battled in Najaf. Four people were killed. The United States will send another 1,500 troops to Iraq, temporarily. The military said today their mission is to bolster security for upcoming elections. Before that announcement, President Bush addressed members of the Idaho National Guard, and focused again on U.S. losses in Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: In this war we have said farewell to some very good men and women, including 491 heroes of the National Guard and Reserve. These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country. And now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission.

GWEN IFILL: The president insisted again the United States must not leave Iraq until the new government can assume full control. The United Nations says much of southern Iraq's formerly lush marshlands-- drained and left arid by Saddam Hussein are now being restored. The region between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers has expanded to encompass nearly 40 percent of the 3,600 square miles it covered in 1970. After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam ordered thousands of marsh Arabs who rebelled against him killed. And Iraq built dams and canals to drain the area. Two major groups formally took positions today on John Roberts for the Supreme Court. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out in favor. People for the American Way came out against. The Senate Judiciary Committee begins confirmation hearings next month. Today, Chairman Arlen Specter told the NewsHour abortion will be a major focus. We'll have that interview right after the News Summary. Evangelist Pat Robertson apologized late today for suggesting the U.S. should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. On Monday, Robertson told his television audience: "If Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." This morning, he said he was misinterpreted. But this afternoon, he said he'd spoken in frustration. He issued a statement that read in part: "Is it right to call for assassination? No. And I apologize for that statement." Rescuers in Peru searched a jungle marsh today after an air disaster killed 41 people. The Tans-Peru plane broke apart yesterday trying to land in a hailstorm in northeastern Peru. At least 57 people survived, but rescue workers were lookingfor bodies. It was the fifth major airline crash worldwide this month. European countries struggled today with fire and flooding. Heavy rains triggered a deluge this week in central and southern Europe, killing at least 34 people. Romania was worst hit, with 25 dead and thousands of homes destroyed. And 250 residents in Bern, Switzerland had to be evacuated by helicopter. In Portugal, seven more forest fires blazed out of control today. More than 450,000 acres have burned this year amid the worst drought ever. Oil prices hit another new record today, after a large drop in U.S. gasoline supplies. Crude oil futures gained more than a $1.60 to settle at $67.32 a barrel. That news drove stocks lower. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 84 points to close below 10435. The NASDAQ fell eight points to close below 2129. That's it for the News Summary tonight, now it's on to: Senator Specter; SUV fuel standards; a base closings update; fighting Education Department rules; and a Clarence Page essay.

NEWSMAKER

GWEN IFILL: Now, a Newsmaker interview with a pivotal player in the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Arlen Specter is 75 years old, battling prostate cancer and preparing for the biggest challenge of his Senate career. As the Republican Judiciary Committee chairman, he is set to oversee the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts when they begin Sept. 6. These will be the first such hearings in more than a decade, but Specter is no stranger to high profile controversy. In 1987, the former district attorney cross-examined, and then crossed party lines, to be the sole Republican to vote against President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: You said it was controversial. I think it was that controversial because there was no legal underpinning for it.

SPOKESMAN: Senator, I think there was.

GWEN IFILL: Then in 1991, Specter took the lead in attempting to discredit Anita Hill, the law professor who charged then- nominee Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: How could you allow this kind of reprehensible conduct to go on right in the headquarters without doing something about it?

ANITA HILL: Well, it was a very trying and difficult decision for me not to say anything further.

GWEN IFILL: Thomas was confirmed with Specter's support, but the Pennsylvania senator outraged many feminists. Specter has also made his Republican colleagues uneasy, supporting issues like abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. So Republicans, Democrats and activists of all stripes are gearing up for September's hearings. Last week, lead Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy called Roberts' views "right wing and radical," while Republicans have pressed the committee to avoid detailed questions on Roberts' stance on abortion, and other hot-button social issues. In the middle of it all, Arlen Specter is busily preparing to take on all comers. I sat down with him at his Senate office today.

GWEN IFILL: Welcome, Sen. Specter.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Thank you very much for coming in to visit with me.

GWEN IFILL: In your 25 years in the Senate you've been through nine of these kinds of hearings, these Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Now you're chairman -- big job, a lot of responsibility. What have you learned from those past experiences that will inform you in this one?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I have learned that the justices have enormous power in our society and on their five to four decisions they decide all of the cutting-edge questions, that they have taken over a great deal of Congress's authority in striking down very important legislation which we enact. For example, to protect women against violence, key provisions are declared unconstitutional because the court does not think we have a sufficient factual record where I think we have a very extensive record. They have challenged our method of reasoning, and I do not believe they have any stature to say that our reasoning is deficient to theirs so that when we select people for the Supreme Court, I think that the Senate is under a very heavy responsibility to do our best to have a proper allocation of power among the branches of government.

GWEN IFILL: You've written a letter to Judge Roberts asking him about your concerns about the powers of Congress. Is that something you plan to press very hard on during the hearings?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Yes, I do. I think that it's important for the hearing to determine an idea of Judge Roberts' jurisprudence, his approach to the cases. I do not intend to ask him about specific cases, but I do think that on the separation of powers, it is a fair question to ask him about Supreme Court decisions.

And when Chief Justice Rehnquist challenges our, quote, method of reasoning, unquote, I want to know if he's going to accord proper respect for what Congress does.

GWEN IFILL: You said originally after your first post nomination meeting with him that he would seem to be a man of modesty and stability. Does that still hold?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, yes. Gwen, I asked him a question about the characterizations. Everybody says he's conservative. And I asked him about the traditional labels of moderate, liberal, conservative. I don't like labels. I think they conceal more than they reveal, sort of like a bikini. So I asked him if he was comfortable with any of the labels. He said to me, no, he wasn't, that he would prefer to consider himself on the characterizations of modesty and he liked the characterization of stability. And we have read a lot of his writings at an early age when he was an advisor on the attorney general's staff in the early '80s and read some of his work for White House counsel. And he has very pronounced views. Maybe he's changed some of them. Maybe they don't apply to the Supreme Court cases. And those are fair areas of inquiry.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about some of those views. In some of those documents, he has said that he has -- he's criticized affirmative action. He's criticized comparable worth for women workers, and he's raised some questions about voting rights. Do any of those writings that you have reviewed raise any red flags for you?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, they raise yellow lights. They raise cautionary lights. I wouldn't say that they were a red light or a red flag to stop. But they're appropriate to inquire into. When he has talked about women's rights and comparable worth, he wrote about that more than 20 years ago. And I think times have changed and maybe some of his views have changed. When he was asked about women as lawyers, he made some comments which were subject to question. But now we know he has a very distinguished wife who is a very distinguished lawyer. So perhaps some of his views are different. And that's what the hearing is for, to find out.

GWEN IFILL: So you think he was joking when he said that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to convince housekeepers to become lawyers?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Listen, every now and then people are entitled to a little humor among all of the seriousness, but I wouldn't pre-judge him on that. But I think it's a fair question to ask him.

GWEN IFILL: Talk about the questions that are fair to ask. As you know, a lot of the Phyllis Schaflys of the world, conservative Republicans. are concerned that you'll be asking too pointed questions in this hearing and that you will end up on the Democratic side of the aisle in this questioning technique.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, I believe that when you are confirming a United States Supreme Court Justice, that it really isn't Democratic or Republican; it's American. And I believe that all of us have a duty to ask dignified, appropriate, probing questions to find out where Judge Roberts stands. And I'm not going to cross the line or come near the line of asking him how he's going to decide specific questions.

GWEN IFILL: As you pursue these areas of inquiry, what should Americans, who we assume will be paying great attention to these proceedings, what should they be listening for? And what would you be listening for?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: We should be listening to see how he approaches these issues. When he talked about stability, that is a very important item; one of the big considerations in these hearings is obviously going to be Roe versus Wade and a woman's right to choose. And when you talk about stability, we have had the decision standing as U.S. law since 1973.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that's going to be a big issue?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, there's no doubt that a woman's right to choose is a major concern. And it will be a subject for discussion. And some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have suggested they want a flat-out commitment from Judge Roberts -- and I do not believe it is appropriate -- but there are different ways of approaching the subject in terms of precedence where we have Roe versus Wade, which has been the law of the land for 32 years. And it came up for reconsideration in 1992, a case called Casey versus Planned Parenthood, where the opinion was written by three justices appointed by Republican presidents upholding a woman's right to choose: Justice Kennedy, very strong pro-life; Justice O'Connor, pro-life; Justice Souter, appointed by President Bush the elder --

GWEN IFILL: So stability to you means maintaining that record?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Stability means respecting precedents. Now it is not an absolute rule and if you take a case like segregation where you had Plessey versus Ferguson, separate but equal to keep the races apart, that was overruled 58 years after it was in the law where times had changed and expectations were -- it was a different America in 1954 than 1896 so it's a matter of judgment. And I want to find out about Judge Roberts' judgment as you approach these big issues.

GWEN IFILL: You got in a little bit of hot water before these hearings began by suggesting that someone who might overturn Roe versus Wade would not be able to be confirmed. Do you still believe that?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I believe that it is a critical question in American life today and that there has been substantial focus by the pro-life advocates, substantial focus by those who believe in a woman's right to choose and the women's groups. I've never believed in a litmus test, Gwen. I voted for -- to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist even though he voted against Roe versus Wade -- Justice Scalia. But I think it is a factor very much on people's minds.

GWEN IFILL: You and Sen. Leahy famously get along very well, the ranking Democrat on the committee. Lately he has stepped up his criticism of Judge Roberts as have other Democrats. Is that going to make your job tougher?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Listen, they have their point of view. Let them express it. Let them ask their questions. Let them vote as they choose. Let's hear Judge Roberts out. Let's not come to conclusions in advance. I have said that I'm reserving my judgment until I hear him testify.

GWEN IFILL: So how are you preparing for these hearings?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Meticulously. I am reading all of his cases. I am going over volumes of materials. I have a large staff which is feeding me material. Earlier you photographed my desk. And those are a small part of the materials I'm reading.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think you have the confidence of White House and of other Republicans to run these hearings in the way they would prefer?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I believe I have the confidence of the president and my colleagues in the United States Senate on both sides of the aisle. I have supported President Clinton's nominees when I thought they were fit for the job. I have supported and opposed a Republican nominee. I am still hearing about my vote against Judge Bork, and I'm still hearing about my questioning of Professor Hill. And I called those shots as I saw them and I think that history will vindicate me on them, Gwen. And I'm preparing for the Roberts' hearings. And I intend to go right down the middle, and it is a hearing for Americans not a hearing for Republicans or Democrats or any of the so-called groups.

GWEN IFILL: And, finally, many Americans know you have been struggling with cancer. You have completed your chemotherapy round. So the question becomes how is your health? How are you feeling?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, a bigger question than my health, Gwen, is how is my hair? I see pictures of myself and I don't recognize myself. I have been a victim of identity theft. I have completed the chemotherapy. And during the course of the chemotherapy from February through July, I've been able to keep all my duties. I haven't missed a beat. As I've said in the past, I've beat a lot of tough opponents. I beat a brain tumor. I beat by-pass surgery. I beat a lot of tough political opponents. And I'm beating Hodgkin's cancer as well. I'm fine.

GWEN IFILL: Thank you very much for joining us, Senator.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: A great pleasure to be with you. Thank you for coming to visit me, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Standards for gas guzzlers; downsizing military bases; fighting school rules; and a Clarence Page essay.

FOCUS - FUEL STANDARDS

GWEN IFILL: Jeffrey Brown gets the latest on new fuel standards for SUV's and other heavy vehicles.

JEFFREY BROWN: With gas prices averaging $2.61 a gallon and rising every day...

MAN: I'm probably going to have to let the Explorer go, which is the gas hog.

JEFFREY BROWN: ...the cost of filling up a sports utility vehicle, small truck or mini-van is higher than ever. And a long-running question has returned: Should these vehicles be required to get more miles to the gallon? Yesterday the Bush administration proposed the first revision of fuel economy standards for these popular vehicles. The rules for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards, were first set for automobiles during the Carter years. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta made the announcement.

NORMAN MINETA: The old system squeezed all vehicles into a one standard fits all structure. And when the new cafe is fully implemented in the year 2011, nearly all manufacturers will be required to produce more fuel efficient light trucks and will have to improve the fuel economy of the vehicles in all size categories.

JEFFREY BROWN: Starting in 2008, mini-vans, light trucks and SUV's will be divided into six different categories depending on size. Each would have its own target for efficiency. Once implemented, the smallest and lightest trucks would be required to increase efficiency to 28 miles a gallon. The largest vehicles would need to get over 21. The average increase is around two miles per gallon. But the very largest and thirstiest vehicles, like the Hummer H-2, will not be affected by the new guidelines. Environmental groups said the plan is a start, but doesn't go nearly far enough.

BRENDAN BELL, The Sierra Club: We will have a modest improvement out of this, but we're really in a race to cut our oil dependence. And today the Bush administration ran the first 100 yards and then they quit.

JEFFREY BROWN: The Bush administration says the plan will save ten billion gallons of gasoline over a period of years. That's less than 10 percent of the 140 billion gallons Americans consumed last year alone.

And to steer us through these new proposals, I'm joined by Alex Kaplun, reporter for Environment and Energy Daily. Welcome Alex.

ALEX KAPLUN: Thank you.

JEFFREY BROWN: I suppose it's no coincidence that this is happening as Americans see prices rising at the pump.

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes and no. This is something that's been in the works for a couple years now. The Bush administration indicated they might change the CAFE standards in 2003, but, you know, there certainly has been pressure in recent months and in the last couple of years to address gas prices, to address oil dependence so the administration really had to do something and take some kind of step to show that, you know, we're paying attention to this issue.

JEFFREY BROWN: I've seen this -- every news report I read describes it as a complicated system being set up. So what's the simple way of explaining this six-tier system and why that would work better than what we have now?

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes. It is quite a complicated formula. What we have now is a system where for each manufacturer all their light trucks, which is mini-vans, SUV's, pick-up trucks, even some station wagons, they all have to meet a certain number. What some of the manufacturers want and especially the American manufacturers was to break it up by the size of the vehicle; in this case it's going to be done by the length and width.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let me ask you -- stop you. Why do they want to change the system?

ALEX KAPLUN: There's a couple of factors. The big factor is that American automakers say that the current system is unfair to them; it favors the Japanese automakers who make a lot of smaller light trucks, and they can sort of balance out their small light trucks with the big ones. And it's a lot easier for them to hit sort of an across-the-level benchmark than a broken apart system.

JEFFREY BROWN: The American automakers sell more of the larger vehicles.

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes. For the American automakers really the big moneymaker for the last few years has been the really big SUV's, the really large pick-up trucks. For the Japanese automakers, it's kind of a combination. They certainly sell bit SUV's, but they also sell a lot of smaller vehicles.

JEFFREY BROWN: So you were describing the new system. It will divide it into six categories. How will that change things?

ALEX KAPLUN: It changes things in that instead of having sort of everything be -- fall under one guideline, the heavier trucks will have to meet one mileage standard. The lighter trucks and some of the station wagons will have to meet a much higher standard. Again, it really depends on what kind of vehicle you're producing now on where that vehicle needs to be in fuel efficiency.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, as we said, there was immediate criticism from environmental groups. What's their argument?

ALEX KAPLUN: There's a couple of big points. The first one is that they don't think this goes far enough. They think fuel economy can be a lot tougher than it needs to be and that really what this is, is sort of a give-away to the automakers. Basically a couple points increase is not sufficient considering where gas prices are and considering how much oil this country is using. Their second argument, and sort of the big objection to the system, is that with a six-tier approach what the automakers might do is that they might make some of their vehicles just a little bit bigger to get them into sort of a higher bracket so they can meet a lower fuel efficiency rating. They're afraid that's what's going to happen. You're really going to see a lot more bigger vehicles and some of the smaller vehicles are going to get squeezed out.

JEFFREY BROWN: You mean this would actually push the automakers to in essence finding a loophole to make their car a little bit bigger and therefore have a slightly lower gas standard?

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes. I mean, that's kind of what the environmentalists are thinking will happen. An example that's been given a lot is the Subaru Outback. If you make it just a quarter of an inch longer and a quarter of an inch wider, which is basically unnoticeable to the consumer, it will get pushed into a whole new bracket and would not need to get the same fuel efficiency.

JEFFREY BROWN: Have the car companies responded on that?

ALEX KAPLUN: The car companies have sort of been vague on this whole proposal - they're saying that -- especially the American automakers -- that they like the idea. They think it's a more fair approach but they're going to use this 90-day comment period sort of to really examine the proposal to make their statement on it. So they're not giving a definitive yes or no.

JEFFREY BROWN: I gather there's an ongoing debate over whether the technology exists to make cars -- these kinds of vehicles more efficient and, if so, how much it would cost.

ALEX KAPLUN: Yeah. You really get a lot of different answers depending on who you speak to. The automakers say, "Look, we can't make a car that's going to get 40 miles per gallon and have a lot of horsepower and be very safe. Or if we can make it, it will cost way more than any consumer is going to pay." Environmentalists counter with, "Well, some of the technology is out there. The automakers fight any kind of advancement, any kind of mandate and they're just not willing to go take the steps that they could take and boost fuel economy a significant amount with not a large price increase." It's one of the things depending on which side kind of spins the best that side seems to win.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, one thing that we pointed out here is that some of the largest vehicles -- the Hummer, the Ford Excursion -- are not affected by this. Why not?

ALEX KAPLUN: It's been sort of a standard CAFE policy that vehicles above 8,500 pounds have not been regulated. This isn't really a change. One of the reasons that's been given is if you include the Hummer, which is not officially tested for fuel efficiency but people say it's gets something around 11 miles per gallon, if you include it in any kind of formula, it will push down the whole formula and for the whole fleet you are not going to be able to get the same CAFE number. One of the explanations I heard from a Transportation Department official is that you actually save more by not including the Hummer, setting a higher CAFE number than including the Hummer and sort of pushing the whole thing down.

JEFFREY BROWN: Of course, there's another side to that, I suppose, which is that these are the precisely the vehicles that should be --

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes. I mean, one of the things environmentalists will say over and over is that these are the vehicles that are sort of the worst offenders and again with the six-tier system what you could have happen is that vehicles are already heavy. Maybe the automakers will push them above 8,500 pounds and say they won't be regulated and you'll have more and more vehicles on the road that won't have to meet any kind of fuel efficiency standard.

JEFFREY BROWN: The argument from car companies for a long time, of course, has been that this is what the American public wants; they're just playing to the market. Is there any sign yet of any change in behavior or any new talk about what might be happening now that prices are going so high?

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes, there's some sign. I mean, the hybrids, some of the hybrids are very popular. SUV sales and some of the large truck sales slumped a little bit earlier this year which, you know, environmental groups and some lawmakers jumped on as a sign that consumers want change. I mean, that's all still very unclear. There were about 80,000 hybrids sold in the U.S. last year out of a car market of 16 million new cars. So I mean to say that hybrids are going to change the market completely or that some new technology is going to change it completely, it's a little too soon to reach that conclusion.

JEFFREY BROWN: And at the other end, the very large, the Hummers, for example, any signs that they might become less popular?

ALEX KAPLUN: Not much. I mean, vehicle sales slump somewhat and they have slump and they did slump a little bit earlier in the year, some of the very large vehicles. But I mean, one of the explanations I've heard from people is that, look, the people who are going to spend $80,000 or $60,000 on a huge SUV are not really going to not buy it because gas prices are a dollar higher. They're not the ones who are squeezed by high gas prices. It's low-income individuals.

JEFFREY BROWN: Reporter: Now these are just proposals we've said. What happens next with this?

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes. There's now a 90-day comment period where basically anyone can submit to the administration their thoughts on this issue. The automakers will certainly submit what they want. The environmental groups will do the same thing. A proposal has to be settled by April 2006. This is scheduled to go in effect for Model Year 2008. So one way or another, the decision needs to be made by next April.

JEFFREY BROWN: That would be the earliest Americans would see some change in the market.

ALEX KAPLUN: Yes. And it still remains unclear just how much of a change in the market you would have. I mean, some people are saying that with this proposal, the automakers might need to do some tweaking but it's not like you're going to see really new models or some models get pulled off the market. You might see more or less the same thing with just slightly better fuel efficiency.

JEFFREY BROWN: Okay. Alex Kaplun, thanks much.

FOCUS - BASE CLOSINGS

GWEN IFILL: Next tonight, the winners and losers in the base closing drama. Tom Bearden reports.

TOM BEARDEN: Over the last 13 weeks, members of BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closing Commission, visited every one of the 173 military installations around the country that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recommended be shut down or reduced in size.

DONALD RUMSFELD: This year's recommendation, if approved by the BRAC Commission, approved by the president and ultimately approved by the Congress of the United States, should result in some $5.5 billion in recurring annual savings; a net savings of $48.8 billion over 20 years.

TOM BEARDEN: The job of the commissioners was to review the recommendations, analyze the Pentagon cost savings data and force-structure plans. They also listened to those local communities most affected by the base closings, many of whom argued the savings the secretary envisioned just didn't add up. Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Tony Principi, is chairman of the BRAC Commission.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI: We heard or raised ourselves serious questions about the Department's calculations of the costs and savings of its recommendations, the effect of their recommended realignments or closures on homeland security and the wisdom of proposals that would leave large areas of our country without active duty military installations.

TOM BEARDEN: This morning, with their research and review now complete, the commissioners began voting on Rumsfeld's recommendations.

SPOKESMAN: All in favor? All opposed?

TOM BEARDEN: With little or no discussion, they agreed to shut down Forts Gillem and McPherson in Georgia, and Ft. Monroe, Virginia. But Commissioner Philip Coyle challenged plans to close Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, and move its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations to Aberdeen, Maryland. Coyle said this was not the time.

PHILIP COYLE: Ft. Monmouth provides daily support to our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, saving lives every day. Not only should we reject program disruption during time of war, but we should reject program disruption to future Army transformation.

TOM BEARDEN: The commissioners compromised, agreeing Ft. Monmouth should be shut down, but not until the new facilities at Aberdeen are fully operational. They tinkered with several other recommendations as well, before rejecting outright two cornerstones of Secretary Rumsfeld's base closing plan. The Naval shipyard at Portsmouth, New Hampshire has been operating for more than 200 years, but Secretary Rumsfeld argued that Portsmouth was one shipyard more than the navy needed. The commissioners disagreed.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI: I believe that Portsmouth is the preeminent shipyard, public shipyard in this nation. It is the gold standard by which we should measure shipyards. It is a model for labor-management relationships. Its ability to turn around subs quicker than any other shipyard should be noted thereby saving the navy significant dollars.

TOM BEARDEN: Rumsfeld also had called for shutting down the New London submarine base at Groton, Connecticut, and moving its operations to the bases at Norfolk, Virginia, and Kings Bay, Georgia. But the commissioners rejected that proposal, too. Retired Air Force Gen. Lloyd Newton.

LLOYD W. NEWTON: Not only is sub-base New London a first class facility, as a matter of fact, it's better known as the flagship of the submarine community. I find that it would be a big mistake to close this facility at this time.

TOM BEARDEN: Former White House Chief of Staff Sam Skinner.

SAMUEL K. SINNER: I think it's unfortunate here that we had the inability to really look at all of the three submarine bases on the East Coast. I think the secretary picked the wrong one to eliminate. It is the center of excellence. It has been the center of excellence. It will continue, if it stays in place, to be the center of excellence in the world.

TOM BEARDEN: The BRAC commissioners are expected to work through the week and send their final list of recommendations to President Bush by Sept. 8. If the president accepts the list, he'll send them on to the Congress, which can accept or reject, but not change.

FOCUS - SCHOOL RULES

GWEN IFILL: Now, state concerns and criticisms over No Child Left Behind. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: As America's children get ready for a new school year, what's happening in their classrooms is heading for a federal court docket.

TEACHER: What's the first word that starts a predicate?

RAY SUAREZ: Connecticut is the first state to file a suit challenging the federal No Child Left Behind law. At least two other states are considering filing lawsuits this year, and many states have spoken out against the law. Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced the action.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Our message today is give up the unfunded mandates or give us the money. Live up to the promise of this law: Show us flexibility or show us the money. Our problems are not with the goal of No Child Left Behind; it is with the failed implementation. (Applause)

RAY SUAREZ: No Child Left Behind was signed into law by President Bush more than three years ago, amidst complaints from some lawmakers and educators it would be too costly and too difficult to enforce.

(TEACHER TALKING TO STUDENTS)

RAY SUAREZ: The law aims to have every public school student proficient in reading and math by 2014. And it was designed to improve both students and teachers, in part by penalizing schools where standardized test scores don't improve rapidly enough.

(TEACHER TALKING TO STUDENTS)

RAY SUAREZ: Connecticut's main gripe with the law is over those standardized tests and who will pay for them. Connecticut students already take tests in fourth, sixth and eighth grade, but under No Child Left Behind the state must also test them in grades three, five and seven beginning this school year. More than 25 states are considering legislation critical of No Child Left Behind. And the National Education Association, the largest teachers union, filed suit last spring on behalf of ten of its chapters and local school districts. Utah's state legislature passed a measure in may defying the federal law, and Colorado has also given its school districts the choice of opting out.

RAY SUAREZ: Two perspectives on No Child Left Behind and the criticism surrounding it: Betty Sternberg is the commissioner of education for the State of Connecticut and Sandy Kress served as senior education advisor to President Bush and led negotiations on the No Child Left Behind act with Congress in 2001. He's now a lawyer with the firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, and Feld in Austin.

Commissioner Sternberg, let me start with you. Why, after threatening suit earlier in the year did you have to follow through in August and go ahead and sue the federal government?

BETTY STERNBERG: Well, first of all, let me emphasize that we certainly agree with the goals of No Child Left Behind. However, the great specificity of the law and in particular the specificity around how often tests must be given is a concern to us. We did a cost study which was required by our state legislature, and in the main after assessing all the costs of the requirements of NCLB and subtracting out all the applicable federal revenue that came to us, there was a $41.6 million shortfall overall for all the requirements of NCLB and a subset of that is an $8 million shortfall for the assessments in particular.

RAY SUAREZ: So you're saying that under the -- given the money that you're getting from Washington, there was no way that you could do what the No Child Left Behind Act asks or demands of Connecticut?

BETTY STERNBERG: We would have to use state money in order to meet the demands. I think it's a right and responsibility of the state to question those costs particularly if we have some concern about the educational validity of some of those requirements.

RAY SUAREZ: Sandy Kress, right now Connecticut tests every other year No Child Left Behind asks that they test every year. What was the thinking behind that requirement?

SANDY KRESS: Ray, the bottom line is that parents want to know how their children are doing each year. A youngster in the 5th grade in Connecticut or elsewhere, the parent wants to know, did they meet the standards? Did they meet up to the requirements? They don't want to have to wait from the fourth to the sixth grade. This was a central pillar of No Child Left Behind. Most of the states that have gone to annual testing have found that their parents, their taxpayers, the public has information about how successful the program is, how effectively the dollars are being spent. This was a central element of No Child Left Behind that drew 80 plus percent of Democrats and Republicans, including the two senators from Connecticut. This is no surprise to Connecticut. They've received almost three quarters of a billion dollars in No Child Left Behind money since the law was signed in 2002, 40 percent increase than in previous periods. They could have chosen not to take the federal funds and not to have these requirements. But they'd been getting paid money not just general money, Title I money, they had been getting paid money for these tests in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and now all of a sudden, they sue the federal government. If they didn't want to do these tests, they shouldn't have taken the money or they presumably could have sued at the beginning. But they've taken all the money and now all of a sudden they're suing the federal government.

RAY SUAREZ: But didn't the No Child Left Behind Act, Mr. Kress, specify when it was passed that there could be local responses and local methods fashioned for meeting the requirements of the Act?

SANDY KRESS: Absolutely. There's a great deal of variation across the country in how to meet the Act. Each state gets to set its own standard. Each state gets to pick its own test. Each state gets to determine what proficient on the test means. States and local districts get to make all kinds of decisions. The one central part though was that parents and taxpayers and the public and the press have a right to know every year whether children are making it or not.

Connecticut has the second worst, largest black-white achievement gap in the country. If I were an African-American parent in Hartford or New Haven, I'd want to know whether my child fell further behind in the fifth grade between the fourth and the sixth grade tests. That's exactly -- it's closing that gap that exists in Connecticut not because all the kids are doing well but because the minority kids are doing worse than say here in Texas by significant margins. That was the purpose of No Child Left Behind. And I wish Connecticut and Commissioner Sternberg would weed their own garden instead of suing the federal government.

RAY SUAREZ: Commissioner, how do you respond to that? If you didn't want to follow the rules you shouldn't have taken the money, says Sandy Kress.

BETTY STERNBERG: We cannot afford to not take the federal funds. They are extremely useful. There is about $336 million of money that comes to our most needy districts in this state. It is not a reality to do that. We don't want to hurt our youngsters. I want to address the gap issue. What you have to do is look at NAPE, National Assessment of Educational Progress data and their data site. Why don't you look at the states where there is a small gap, less than 20 points? There are six of them in this nation. And when you really look at the reason why, actually our black students do no more poorly -- and it's sad because black students across the nation do poorly -- but our black students are scoring at the same level that other black students are across the nation.

But what happens is in those six states where there's a small gap, their white students are scoring significantly lower than Connecticut's white students. We have a national problem around the gap. And we know where the problems are already. We don't have to test more to know where the problems are. We have to provide programs that will really get at addressing that gap.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Sandy Kress, Connecticut was testing long before No Child Left Behind. And you just heard the commissioner. They say they're finding out what they need to know in order to craft an educational response to the problems inside their state. But that's not good enough?

SANDY KRESS: Well, again, as I said, Ray, there's lots of flexibility in this Act for Connecticut to do what it wants. They can do formative testing. They can do more in-depth testing. They can do testing by the way they can insist upon their contractor coming back faster than four months. They can do lots of things. The point is that parents and taxpayers want to know each year on a comparable assessment how youngsters are doing.

The problem in Connecticut unfortunately for Commissioner Sternberg is that the minority results are not what she says. I did an analysis last night of how African-American and Latino youngsters in Connecticut are doing against their peers in Texas, for example. If you look at the science, math, reading and writing tests, the most recent NAPE tests that have been given, Texas minority youngsters doing better in thirteen out of sixteen comparisons. I'm not trying to brag on Texas. We've got a long way to go here.

But that gap is not just because white students are doing so well in Connecticut. It's because minority students are doing poorly. And I would venture to say that if I were an African-American mom or dad in one of the cities in Connecticut, I wouldn't want to go two years without knowing how my child was doing against the standards that were set in a comparable fashion the previous year. This is a central part of No Child Left Behind. It is what the funding is there for.

Again, if Ms. Sternberg disagrees with that, she didn't have to take the money. She took the money and now wants to say somehow that this central provision in the Act should be waived. That's what happened before No Child Left Behind. That's why we have achievement gaps in our country. And that's why states like Texas and others that have implemented these reforms are seeing dramatic gains in their student achievement. Again the funding was for these reforms and if Commissioner Sternberg is not interested in the reforms, she should not be taking the funding.

RAY SUAREZ: Commissioner, no other states joined Connecticut in this effort. Why not? And what have you heard from them?

BETTY STERNBERG: My understanding is, first of all, they're not quite ready. They want to be absolutely sure that they have a solid cost study as we do. I believe that there are at least five or six states that will over the course of the next months join us. In particular I think there are a number that are ready to go quite soon.

RAY SUAREZ: Commissioner Sternberg is in Hartford, Sandy Kress is in Austin; thank you both.

GWEN IFILL: For more on the No Child Left Behind Act and how your state is performing visit our web site at pbs.org.

ESSAY - CELLULAR SOCIETY

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, essayist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune considers the power of the cell phone.

CLARENCE PAGE: Of all the mass media in this media saturated age, some people think television is the most powerful. Others argue for radio or the Internet. Not me. I think the most powerful medium is the cell phone. The cell phone can make the most intelligent people on our city streets look like babbling lunatics until you realize they're not talking to themselves. They're talking to someone else on a hands-free cell phone.

WOMAN: Hello. Okay. Hey -

CLARENCE PAGE: Conspicuous cell phone users seem amusing or annoying until they get behind the wheel. Then they become a menace. Some cities and states have banned drivers from using cell phones unless they use those devices that make them look like they're talking to themselves. But the New studies indicate that hands-free phone users may be driving to distraction as well. The British Medical Journal has found that cell phone using drivers are four times more likely to be involved in a serious crash whether they're using a hands-free device or not. And recent imaging tests at Johns Hopkins University found telephones actually divert brain energy. Whether hand held or hands free, Hopkins researchers said the cell phone effectively turns down the volume of information seen by the part of the brain that we use for other visual tasks like driving. Of course scientists have many more questions to answer. For example, can a cell phone be any more distracting than a live passenger or a back-seat full of restless kids? And while we shouldn't make too much of the cell phone as a distraction, we shouldn't make too little of it either. After all, when you've got a live passenger, they can shut up or even help when the need arises. However, when you've got somebody on a cell phone, they may just keep right on talking until they hear the crash. More than any other medium, the telephone engages us, so says Fordham University media Professor Paul Evanson. Our eyes tend to zoom in on one thing at a time, he says. Our ears are built for multitasking, picking up moods, messages and warnings from all corners of our environment. Marshall McLuhan famously called radio a hot medium for the way it imposed itself into our attention, while television is a cool medium for passively yet powerfully drawing our attention to the screen. Professor Evanson calls the cell phone a doubly cool medium. Think about it. What other medium makes us drop what we're doing and respond as quickly and compellingly as the telephone does? Indeed, if radio is theater of the mind, the cell phone is our electronic confessional. Powerful executives and oversexed singles find themselves revealing secrets they might not want their own mothers to know loudly and annoyingly in the company of strangers. The cell phone's power seems deceptive, even tyrannical, intruding into our lives and keeping us connected even when we might not want to be connected. (Cell phone ringing) Hello. I'm Clarence Page.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: A federal commission rejected plans to close several major military bases but agreed to close many others; the military announced 1,500 more troops will go to Iraq to safeguard upcoming elections. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said abortion is going to be a major focus of John Roberts' confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. He spoke on the NewsHour.

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

GWEN IFILL: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.