The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight two views of today's Supreme Court argument over federal funding of the arts; the story of another death of campaign finance reform, this time in the House; a report from Chicago about training workers for high-tech jobs; and on this opening day a look at Minnesota's experience with Major League baseball and at the new kind of team owners. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today on so-called "decency" standards for federal funding of the arts. The Clinton administration said the National Endowment for the Arts should consider general standards of decency when awarding grants. Opponents argued prevailing public sentiment should not be a criterion. We'll have our own argument right after this News Summary. Also today, the justices upheld a ban on the admission of lie detector results in military courts. A case involved a California airman, who wanted to tell a court martial jury he passed a polygraph. In the eight to one ruling the court said the ban did not violate the constitutional rights of defendants. Money for the International Monetary Fund has hit a snag in the House of Representatives. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said today there will be no vote on IMF funding before late April. The Clinton administration wants $18 billion to assist IMF bailouts of three Asian countries. The Senate passed a bill last week. At the White House today three cabinet members made a plea for IMF and other national security appropriations.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: We believe it is essential that Congress approve the President's request promptly, without crippling conditions or reductions. And we reject efforts to take one or more of the items hostage in order to force action on unrelated issues. Timing does matter. If we wait and the financial crisis in Asia spreads, or a new crisis begins, the impact on our interests would be severe and the cost of restoring stability far higher.

JIM LEHRER: The House killed an attempt to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation late last night. We'll have more on that story later in the program. The Federal Reserve Board left interest rates unchanged today. The Feds' Open Market Committee adjourned without an announcement. That means the benchmark rate on overnight loans between banks will stay at 5.5 percent. Also today, the Conference Board reported consumer confidence was down this month, after reaching a 30-year high in February. The report said Americans expected economic growth to slow in the months ahead because of the Asian financial crisis. The Conference Board isa business research group based in New York. President Clinton headed to Senegal today, the last stop of his 11-day Africa tour. Before departing Botswana, Mr. Clinton said he was taken by the beauty of the country and stressed the importance of preserving it. He urged the Senate to approve an international treaty to help stop farmland from drying up.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I sent this treaty to our Senate for its approval in the summer of 1996. No action has been taken since. But today I am pleased to announce that two distinguished Senators--one from each of our parties--Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--have agreed to lead a bipartisan effort for Senate approval. And I will do my best to get it approved as quickly as possible.

JIM LEHRER: The president also announced NASA would beginning using its satellites to measure the impact of climate change on Africa. In the Middle East today Prime Minister Netanyahu said Israelis would not be made suckers in the peace process. He spoke after American envoy Denis Ross tried to get Israel to pull troops out of an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. Netanyahu rejected it, saying Palestinians needed to do more to stop terrorism. Netanyahu said Ross did make some progress before leaving the region.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Prime Minister, Israel: We didn't send him empty-handed, and he didn't see us empty-handed. We gave each other some very good ideas, what I would call bridging proposals. I think they're serious. I would even say that some of them are creative. I would say that about ideas that we brought up, and ideas that Mr. Ross brought up, and we're going to each study these proposals, and we probably--well, we may well have--we may have to meet again.

JIM LEHRER: Back in this country this was a big day in sports. The University of Kentucky savored its winning the National College Basketball championship last night. And Major League baseball opened its 127th season today. Kentucky defeated the University of Utah in San Antonio 78 to 69, overcoming a 10-point half-time deficit to win its second national men's title in three years, its seventh overall. In baseball there were four American League and seven National League games this opening day, among them the World Series winning Florida Marlins took on the Chicago Cubs in the National League. The American League champion Cleveland Indians face Seattle. We'll have more on the business of baseball later in the program tonight. Bella Abzug is dead. The former congresswoman died today of complications following heart surgery. She was a New York Democrat and leader in the civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, and feminist movements for nearly three decades. Her slogan once was: "This woman's place is in the House, the House of Representatives." She was 77 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to federal funding of the arts, campaign finance reform dies again, the skills gap, and the business of Major League baseball. FOCUS - ARTISTIC FREEDOM?

JIM LEHRER: The Supreme Court takes up the boundaries of artistic expression and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: From boys' choirs in Harlem to Indian basket weavers in California, the National Endowment for the Arts has helped support nearly 110,000 artists and projects in its 32 years of existence. Cleo Parker Robinson believes her dance ensemble in Denver would not have prospered without its NEA grant.

CLEO PARKER ROBINSON: We came from nothing, and we got support from the National Endowment, and that was a ripple effect.

MARGARET WARNER: Each year, Congress appropriates millions of dollars for the NEA to support theater, music, dance, and the visual and folk arts. The NEA makes grants to artistic companies and individuals, after a multi-step process that includes recommendations by panels of experts and members of the public. Many endowment projects have been well received, but others have been extremely controversial. There was this 1995 theater performance in Minneapolis in which one actor cut another to draw blood. This 1989 exhibit of homoerotic photographs by the late Robert Mapplethorpe generated particular outrage among some members of Congress, including North Carolina Republican Senator Jesse Helms.

SEN. JESSE HELMS: I don't even acknowledge that it's art. I don't even acknowledge that the fellow who did was an artists. I think he was a jerk!

MARGARET WARNER: In 1990, Helms proposed--and Congress passed--legislation requiring the NEA to judge applicants not only on artistic merit, but also "taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse reliefs and values of the American public." Later that year, the NEA turned down grant requests from four performance artists, saying their proposals didn't meet the new NEA decency standards. The projects included such topics as homosexuality and AIDS. In one, the artist was nude; in another, the artists urinated on stage. The disappointed grant seekers were Holly Hughes; John Fleck; Tim Miller; and Karen Finley, shown here. These four performers, joined by the National Association of Artists' organizations, challenged the law, arguing that the new congressional restrictions violated artists' rights of free speech and free expression. One year later, a federal judge in Los Angeles struck down the decency provision, saying the new standard was unconstitutionally vague. In 1996, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The appeals court said the decency provision violated the 1st Amendment by letting the government improperly discriminate based on the content of an artists work. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case. Afterwards, one of the artists suing the NEA, Tim Miller, spoke to reporters outside.

TIM MILLER: The United States, you know, the richest, most complex society in the world, is like sending a signal that we don't value individual voices because they're dangerous, because they might bring up stuff we don't want to look at. And so in that sense, I'm extremely ashamed of the NEA.

MARGARET WARNER: NEA officials and their lawyers did not speak to reporters afterwards.

MARGARET WARNER: Joining us now are David Cole, who argued before the Supreme Court today on behalf of the four artists. He is a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights and teaches law at Georgetown University. And Robert Peters, an attorney and president of Morality in Media, his organization filed a brief in support of the government's position.Mr. Cole, what was the gist of your argument before the court today?

DAVID COLE, Center for Constitutional Rights: Well, our claim was that Congress need not fund the art, but if it decides to fund private artistic expression, as it did in 1965, it can't impose ideological viewpoint-based restrictions on the art that it funds. And the decency and respect clause is precisely such a restriction. The Supreme Court has recognized that the government can skew the marketplace of ideas and affect private freedom of expression not only by imposing penalties but also by selectively subsidizing private speakers. And it's really an issue that I think applies across-the-board because it's hard to think of an area of private expression in this country that is not funded with taxpayer dollars. The print press gets mailing subsidies. The broadcast press gets licenses. Public Broadcasting gets taxpayer dollars directly. Public universities are paid for with taxpayer dollars. Non-profit groups get tax exemptions. If the government's arguing that it can--because it pays the piper, it can call the tune, were to be accepted, then all of these areas would be threatened, and the freedom of expression in each of these contexts would be subject to controls by the government through the power of the purse.

MARGARET WARNER: And you're saying that's unconstitutional?

DAVID COLE: And we say that violates the First Amendment.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Mr. Peters, how do you respond to that main argument, that it amounts to violating the First Amendment?

ROBERT PETERS, Morality in Media: Well, as I understand Mr. Cole, that if the government, for example, were to fund a performance of the African ballet, it would also have to fund a hard core sex performance. As I understand Mr. Cole, if the NEA decided to fund an exhibit of degenerate art, and I use that phrase as Adolf Hitler used it in Germany, to ban all kinds of art because of viewpoint, I would say the NEA feels that for educational purposes Americans need to know something about the type of art that was banned totally in Nazi Germany. As I understand Mr. Cole's argument, if the NEA were to fund an exhibit of degenerate art, it would also have to fund art provided by current day Nazis. I don't think that's what our founding fathers intended the government to do. I think that our founding fathers in writing the First Amendment would have anticipated that, yes, government might someday choose to fund art, but just because it chooses to fund some art, it doesn't have to fund all art. And I hasten to add two things: This law does not prevent anyone from doing anything. It doesn't prevent an artist from funding indecent or otherwise offensive art, and it doesn't even require the NEA to refuse a grant because it's indecent or offensive. And I think common sense would say that there are works of art that may offend even a significant number of people that should, nevertheless, be funded by the NEA, and this law permits that.

MARGARET WARNER: What about that point, that there's nothing in these standards that says these artists can't perform, they can get funding from other sources? The government isn't banning their work.

DAVID COLE: Right. Well, that argument can be made about all funding situations. It's always the case that when the government takes away funds from someone because it doesn't like what that person is saying, the person is not completely suppressed from speech--from speaking. That argument was made with respect to public universities in the 50's and 60's, the same argument that is now being made with respect to the NEA. They said, people purged Communists from the public universities. And what they said was we don't care if they're Communists; we don't care if they express Communism; but they're not going to do it with taxpayer dollars. And so in state after state there were laws passed to purge Communists from the universities. And the Supreme Court held in the 60's--in a case called Kaieshian Vs. Board of Regents--that the principle of academic freedom means that although the government doesn't have to fund universities, if it chooses to fund a public university, it must respect the principle of academic freedom. And we're saying the same thing is true here. If it chooses to fund the arts, it must respect the principle of artistic freedom. Of course, we're not saying that they have to fund all art, or if they fund art on this point, they have to fund contra art. What--the point--

ROBERT PETERS: Well--

MARGARET WARNER: Let him finish, Mr. Peters. Then we'll get right back to you.

DAVID COLE: What we are saying is that the way that the NEA was run for the first 25 years, which was a program that made decisions based on artistic merit, is the way the Constitution demands the government to allocate funds. What they've done since 1990, unfortunately, or until we were successful in declaring the law unconstitutional, was to superimpose a filter, an ideological filter that says even if art is excellent, we're not going to fund it if it expresses the wrong message.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Mr. Peters.

ROBERT PETERS: Well, I've been somewhat of a student of the NEA for a good number of years, and I have won file folder filled with criticisms of the NEA, specific grants, that I term conservative, and oftentimes those objections are really moral grounds, although occasionally conservatives also fault the NEA for funding works that really in most people's opinion don't have serious artistic value. But interestingly, I also have a file folder full of criticisms of the NEA that have been leveled by basically very liberal critics. They aren't faulting the NEA for--on moral grounds. They're faulting the NEA for being political, for basing grant decisions not on artistic merit, as Mr. Cole asserts, but on the basis of political correctness and on whether in some cases even liberal critics have pointed out that the NEA seems often more concerned about the pol viewpoints of the artists and perhaps their religious views than it is in art. So I would say that if we have a concern here about the NEA being an unregulated loose cannon body, they've been a loose cannon body since they were four. And I hasten to add, I'm not against public funding of arts, and I'm not against the NEA. But when you start talking about vagueness and political consideration, they've been with the NEA since day one, and the standards of decency has been defined by the Supreme Court, which is something that artistic excellence has not been defined, and, in my opinion, it's more vague and wide open than standards of decency.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. That raises--give me, what is the vagueness argument, the other argument you made Mr. Peters just raised?

DAVID COLE: Well, the vagueness argument is essentially that is very problematic to give a government official the power to allocate millions of dollars annually based on standards like general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public. How is an NEA official going to assess what general standards of decency are? How are they going to determine what the American public's beliefs and values are? And what--

MARGARET WARNER: Let me interrupt you for one second. I mean, how do they assess what's artistic? I mean, don't they make judgments?

DAVID COLE: Certainly, and they're trained to make artistic judgments in the same--in the same sense that at a public university setting, judgments are made based on academic merit. But it would be impermissible if in a public university setting, you deny tenure to a writer because his--a scholar because his work--written work was considered politically incorrect.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay.

ROBERT PETERS: Mr. Cole, one question would be: If you're correct that artistic excellence is such a well defined and understood concept, why is it that there have been so many criticisms against the NEA not based on moral grounds but on artistic grounds? I'm not for abolishing the NEA. I recognize that what is art may differ from one person to another. I can live with that uncertainty, and so can you, because you've done it. And yet, when it comes to standards of decency, which has been defined by the Supreme Court and upheld by the courts, suddenly you find that these are too vague or too uncertain to live with. I don't follow your argument, and I defy you to define what you mean by artistic excellence. You don't know and I don't know in all too many cases.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Peters, let me stay with you for a minute. The lower courts, however, did rule that they found it impermissibly vague. If you'd been at the Supreme Court today, what would you be arguing to them legally?

ROBERT PETERS: Well, one thing I'd be arguing is that some of the scenes that were shown on PBS, this station, shortly before our segment, you know, were edited. There were scenes which would have so outraged and shocked the citizens that your editors chose not to put them on the air. And one reason they did so is because there is a broadcast and decency law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It's been defined by the FCC. And, in my--and also recently in another Supreme Court, the court upheld the concept of indecency against a vagueness challenge.

MARGARET WARNER: We're about out of--

ROBERT PETERS: What more can we ask?

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Cole, briefly, response on that?

DAVID COLE: Well, I think, first of all, the decency in the television setting is very different because of the access to children point. We're not claiming that anyone has to go see a work of art that they don't like; it's simply that we can't empower government officials to censor work on their basis of what decency means, or what the American beliefs and values are.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thanks, Mr. Cole, Mr. Peters, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, so long again to campaign finance reform, closing the skills gap, and an opening day look at Major League Baseball. UPDATE - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman tells the story of one more go at campaign finance reform.

KWAME HOLMAN: Last night House Speaker Newt Gingrich kept a promise he made last fall to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the floor by the end of March. However, few members on either side of the aisle were satisfied with the rules set to debate the issue.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, [R] Arkansas: I'm pleased to express my support of this bill, but I'm deeply disappointed that in the last moments the people's home for reform was crushed when majority rule became defeat by design.

REP. SAM FARR, [D] California: Well, we're here in the night to discuss campaign finance reform. Where's everybody else? Half the nation is watching basketball games. Half the Congress is attending a funeral. What kind of business are we in?

KWAME HOLMAN: The debate was held late in the day, and many members were just returning from New Mexico, where they attended the funeral of their colleague, Steve Schiff, who died last week. But members' primary complaint was that Speaker Gingrich decided late Friday to bring campaign finance reform to the floor under a procedure known as Suspension of Rules. It limits the debate to 40 minutes, allows no amendment, and requires a 2/3 majority for approval. Suspending the rules normally is reserved for approving non-controversial legislation in an expedited manner. Last night, most members believed campaign finance reform didn't meet that standard. Connecticut Democrat Sam Gejdenson even compared the process to the practices of Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin.

REP. SAM GEJDENSON, [D] Connecticut: Think about what we're doing here today. We're taking up campaign finance reform after the Senate has definitively shown they can filibuster the bill to death: strike one. We have made sure that no alternative from the opposition can be heard here today: strike two! And just in case by some faint stretch of the imagination the Republican bill might pass, we have come to the floor with a process where you don't need 51 percent of the vote to win today; you've got to have 2/3 of the votes because they know they can't get 'em!

KWAME HOLMAN: The so-called Republican bill brought to the floor last night was sponsored by California Republican Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. It would ban unregulated soft money contributions to the political parties, increase the amount individuals can donate to candidates, impose strict contribution disclosure requirements on candidates, and prohibit labor unions from using members' dues for political activities without their consent.

REP. STEVE HORN, [R] California: So, let's not hear all this rhetoric on the floor, the screaming, arm waving, and shouting. Let's get down to cases. You want to make progress? This is the bill that has progress.

KWAME HOLMAN: But under the rules of the House members were not allowed to vote on a reform bill sponsored by Connecticut Republican Chris Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan, even though it has bipartisan support. A frustrated Meehan, nevertheless, tried to push for a vote, but he was turned away by Republican Jo Ann Emerson, who presided over the debate in the speaker's chair.

REP. JO ANN EMERSON: The gentleman may speak on his bill but not ask for it to be discussed within the--

REP. MARTY MEEHAN: Mr. Chairman, but I can't ask for unanimous consent to suspend the rules and ask for consideration of the bipartisan campaign finance--

REP. JO ANN EMERSON: There's already one motion to suspend on the table as we speak right now.

REP. MARTY MEEHAN: So this amendment couldn't be amended.

REP. JO ANN EMERSON: No. You may-- this issue is not amendable. You may speak on your bill in general.

KWAME HOLMAN: On the other hand, Delaware Republican Mike Castle was resigned to accepting that it was going to be the Thomas Republican bill or nothing.

REP. MIKE CASTLE, [R] Delaware: And let me just start by saying I agree with virtually everybody who spoke here tonight, that this process is not what we would have wanted, those of us who are trying to reform campaign finance. And let me just also say that both parties have had problems. I'm not saying whether it's equal or not. Who knows what the circumstances are with respect to campaign finance, and I think the whole country knows that. I also am a supporter of Shays-Meehan. I like the freshman bill. I think there's a lot of good things that have happened over in the Senate as well. And, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get to all those. But this is what we have before us. And we have to make a decision tonight on whether or not we're going to vote for this because this may be the only vote we're going to get. And so I did something unusual. I read the bill. And I decided to make up a list of reasons as to why we should support it. And after David Letterman, I did this as the top ten reasons to support it. And let me start with number 10. HR3485 removes soft money from the federal election process. That is extraordinarily important. We've already heard about all the soft money problems. It removes it from the federal election process. Number 9, the bill contains the core elements of campaign finance reform that Republican and Democratic reformers have agreed upon. Number 8, it keeps foreign money outside of the United States' elections. Number 7, it helps states maintain accurate voter registration roles. Number 6, it adjusts hard money contributions for inflation. Number 5, it strengthens FEC reporting requirements. Number 4, it levels the playing field for candidates running against millionaires. Number 3, it ensures voluntary contributions to members of corporations and unions. And Number 2, it strengthens disclosure requirements for interest groups to prevent them from anonymously financing expensive advertising campaigns. And Number 1, first, a bill that offends Republicans, Democrats, and interest groups alike is worth considering. This bill will cause everyone in the election process some pain, but it is the first step to achieve real campaign finance reform.

SPOKESMAN: All time having expired, the question is: Will the House suspend the rules--

KWAME HOLMAN: At the end of the evening Delaware's Castle did vote for the Thomas bill, but he was one of only seventy-four Republicans to do so. One hundred forty Republicans and all one hundred ninety-six Democrats in the chamber last night voted against it. The Thomas bill failed badly. However, small pieces of the bill were broken off and voted on separately. A measure prohibiting non-U.S. citizens from contributing to candidates was approved overwhelmingly, as was a bill requiring greater disclosure of campaign contributions.

REP. RICK WHITE, [R] Washington: This is a good government bill. It's bipartisan, doesn't have anything to do really with either party. It just increases disclosure and lets the American people see what's going on.

KWAME HOLMAN: But a bill restricting the political activities of labor unions was turned back.

REP. DAVID BONIOR, Minority Whip: This bill says if there's a debate over Social Security or minimum wage or Medicare, democratically-elected unions can't even talk about it with their own members. That's what this bill says.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, a group of House Democrats and other campaign finance reform supporters said they would push ahead in their attempt to get the Shays-Meehan bipartisan bill to the House floor. One hundred ninety members already have signed a discharge petition, which would force Speaker Gingrich to schedule a vote. Twenty-eight more signatures are needed.

REP. DICK GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: While nearly 90 percent of Democrats have signed the petition, only six Republicans have done so. That's an appallingly low number. It will take a bipartisan majority in the House to force this issue on to the schedule and to give members of both parties a chance to vote on all the bills.

KWAME HOLMAN: However, any campaign finance reform legislation that passes the House would have to get approval in the Senate, where similar legislation was blocked last month. FOCUS - BRIDGING THE GAP

JIM LEHRER: Now, training skilled workers for today's high-tech jobs. Elizabeth Brackett of WTTW-Chicago reports.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The economy is humming. Unemployment is at the lowest level in years. Yet, one major sector of the economy-- manufacturing--sees a problem. Rick Gudell heads the Chicago Manufacturing Institute.

RIC GUDELL, Chicago Manufacturing Institute: We hear it every day practically, that one or another firm, because of the lack of skilled labor, is not able to do the work that they--that they would like to quote on simply because they don't have enough help.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: A recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers found that nine out of ten manufacturers are now experiencing a skilled labor shortage. The problem has now become so serious, says the manufacturing organization, that it could threaten the major productivity gains of the last decade. In the 1970's and 80's, the manufacturing sector lost ground as traditional industries like steel and auto shut down or reorganized. Today, manufacturing only accounts for 1/4 of the Gross Domestic Product. But productivity is up, due in part to a more technological, more mechanically efficient workplace. But that productivity is being threatened by the skills gap. The National Association of Manufacturers Survey shows that 88 percent of manufacturers report a shortage of qualified workers in at least one area. 73 percent are having trouble improving productivity or upgrading technology because of employees' lack of skills. Fel-Pro, a $500 million auto parts maker in Skokie, Illinois, became concerned about the skills gap five years ago. Arlis McLean, Fel-Pro's Vice President for Human Resources, says it began taking longer and longer for the company to fill job openings.

ARLIS McLEAN, Fel-Pro: A lot of people had trouble passing our entrance test. We offer--we require a math, reading, and mechanical aptitude test. And a lot of applicants couldn't pass that. We were also looking for people with more experience in some of the technical areas and not as many people were out there with those technical requirements.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Because of its generous benefits package and entry-level wages of close to $20,000 a year, Fel-Pro used to attract more skilled people than they could hire. Today the pool of qualified applicants has shrunk, just as manufacturing has become more complicated.

ARLIS McLEAN: Today our shop floor employees not only have to have greater technical skills--I'm talking about computer skills, things like that--but they also have to work in teams; they have to be able to problem solve; they have to be able to communicate across shifts. They oftentimes talk to customers. We have them out visiting customers, very different from what they had to do five or ten years ago.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The Manufacturers Survey found that employees lack not only the skills to turn out specific products; they lack the basics like math. 60 percent say employees lack elementary math skills. And writing, 55 percent say employees are without fundamental writing and comprehension skills. Like many people, Fel-Pro Vice President Rick Streicher sees a poor education system at the core of the problem.

RICK STREICHER, Fel-Pro: Right now, it's not doing the job. There are not curriculums that are focused on the kind of issues that are facing us in manufacturing. And I believe very strongly that manufacturing is still the backbone of this country, and it's what drives the industrial engine. The educational system is not only not meeting the kind of technicalities, but they're not educating students that this is a good career opportunity.

AMY FOX: What do you think of when you think of manufacturing a product such as a gasket?

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Fel-Pro decided to do some educating themselves. Alliances were formed with four area high schools and two community colleges. Fel-Pro let the schools know what it needed in basic math, writing, and technical skills. And Fel-Pro employees went into the classroom to try and change attitudes.

AMY FOX: Manufacturing has changed. Individuals aren't doing the same thing all day long. Individuals are working together in teams, taking responsibility for different parts of the process.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Students in a manufacturing class at Evanston Township High School just North of Chicago heard Amy Fox describe the new world of manufacturing.

AMY FOX: Now, if I ask you a question after that brief summary, what do you think it takes to work in manufacturing? Do you think it would be exciting or fun?

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Evanston, one of the nation's top public high schools, revamped its curriculum to acquaint students with five different career strands. The school spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on smart labs, where every student can experience everything from computer programming to just-in-time manufacturing processes, to advanced engineering techniques. It was a dramatic change for a school that has built its reputation on its college preparatory program. 75 to 80 percent of its students go to college. The applied arts department chairman, Kelvin Gilchrist, says it was a battle to get recognition for vocational education.

KELVIN GILCHRIST, Evanston High School: There's still a taboo, but I think that wall is coming down. I think the whole concept, if you're not going to go to college, you're not going to be very successful in American society, but I think, you know, that barrier is being challenged very successfully.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Fel-Pro also brings students to the plant through job shadowing and internship programs. Senior Martin Manzera gets a chance to apply what he learns in the manufacturing smart lab at Evanston in his internship at Fel-Pro. Manzera works at Fel-Pro three days a week after school and will become a full-time employee when he graduates. His internship has completely changed his idea of factory work.

MARTIN MANZERA, Fel-Pro Intern: My general concept would be like long hours and like-- almost like slavery, you know, coming in and doing work, work, work, work, and like no time to relax and learn anything new.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: And what has it been like?

MARTIN MANZERA: It's been like at school actually, I mean, from one place to another--from my last appointment I've learned so many things.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Fel-Pro's outreach recruitment programs are extensive and unique. The Manufacturing Institute's Gudell says few firms have created the positive relationships with local skills that Fel-Pro has.

RICK GUDELL: That's fairly unusual for firms. Firms are not generally taking that stance. The number of--out of 2500 metal working firms in the metropolitan area, maybe a couple of dozen have that kind of an active stance.

SPOKESMAN: This modifier here for the date and feature--

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Realizing that just recruiting new employees was not going to solve their skills gap problem, Fel- Pro also developed extensive training programs for current employees. Basic math and writing courses are offered, plus more technical courses like this one in blueprint reading. Employees take the courses on their own time but get credit toward an associates degree at a participating community college.

SPOKESPERSON: You guys are so close to being done.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Loudene Jones has been at Fel-Pro for seven years. She's now a team leader, responsible for her group's output. Her usual job within the group is to operate the computer-controlled laser-cutting machine. She says the training she's received has helped her with the technology and communications skills she now needs.

LOUDENE JONES, Fel-Pro: Now, I feel pretty much comfortable with what I'm doing, and I feel like maybe I know a little bit more than what I did know from the beginning of the course.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But there may be some changes coming at Fel- Pro. The family-run company has just been bought out by the much larger Federal Mogul, a company with $2 billion in sales and far fewer benefits. It is not yet known how that buyout will affect skills gap training. FOCUS - NEW BALLGAME

JIM LEHRER: This was opening day of the baseball season, and we have two reports on a game and a business very much in flux. The first is from Fred De Sam Lazaro of KTCA-St. Paul-Minneapolis.

ANNOUNCER: It's a big day for Calvin Griffith, president of the Twins.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Twins meant much to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area when they moved to Minnesota from Washington, D.C., in 1961, bringing major league status to a medium-sized market.

ANNOUNCER: In the seventh Bob Allison comes up for the Twins. Joe DiMaggio, the ex-Yankee great, is among those looking on. Allison steps in. Whitey Ford goes into his wind up, comes in with the pitch. Allison meets it. Minnesota fans let out a roar.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Twins enjoyed solid fan support, meaning gate receipts which hit record numbers in the late 80's and early 90's, when the team claimed two World Series. But now, the Twins are threatening to leave Minnesota unless a new stadium is built for them. It's a tactic that's become widely used in pro sports, according to Arthur Rolnick, an economist at the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis.

ARTHUR ROLNICK, Economist, Federal Reserve: There are cities that don't have these teams that are willing to build these stadiums and if that threat is credible, they'd be foolish not to require the hometown to do the same thing. If I'm an owner of one of these teams, and I can get another state, another city to build me a stadium, increase my profits, allow me to pay higher wages and get the better players, I'm going to do it.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In the last decade, two new baseball stadiums have been built for expansion teams and another twelve for existing ones, many in communities anxious to hang on to their major league teams. The parks have been financed through higher state or local taxes or bonds.

SPOKESMAN: The value is not there when you're playing baseball in what is essentially a football stadium.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Twins currently share the enclosed metrodome with the Minnesota Vikings, who enjoy a bigger share of revenues from the lucrative luxury suites, as well as seats better suited to football. State lawmakers got a tour of the dome last spring from stadium official Bill Lester, who supports a new baseball park.

BILL LESTER: Your angle to look back or at home plate, where 80 to 90 percent of all the action in a baseball game occurs, is bad.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: One of the key players in the Twins campaign for a new stadium has been Kirby Puckett, the recently retired superstar hitter. Puckett is still immensely popular at gatherings like this one during the Twins' spring tour through rural Minnesota. Despite that support, the idea of any state subsidy for a new stadium found little sympathy among voters.

VOTER: I think the players should finance more of it.

VOTER: I think they can stay where they're at. Don't need a new stadium.

VOTER: I'm a retired rail man, railway man. You know what my pension is a year? $14,000. And, you know, it takes money to pay part of my money to pay for a stadium--$80 million. I can't understand people like that.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Despite public opposition, the Twins unveiled a scale model for a new retractable roof stadium with a price tag of 300 to 370 million dollars. Club officials and their allies proposed various financing options they hoped would be palatable to the public. Over time these ranged from cigarette surtaxes, capturing and using state income taxes paid by current players, ticket surcharges, and revenues from a new gambling facility.

CARL POHLAD: We're going to continue to work hard to get it. We're going to have some glitches. We expect that, but by no means have we lost any of our enthusiasm or our desire to keep on with this effort until we can make it successful.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Carl Pohlad, a banker who bought the Twins in 1985, even proposed turning the team over to community ownership as part of the deal, proof of his good faith, according to Twins President Jerry Bell.

JERRY BELL: The concept that has been developed is clearly the most unique concept in the universe of stadium deals, and that is the owner is willing to forgo any future profits whatsoever and is determined to keep baseball in Minnesota.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Twins officials argue the only ways teams from mid-sized cities can make a profit is with a new stadium and favorable lease arrangements. That's because two tiers have emerged in the major leagues since the 1980's, when players became free agents. The fact that they could sell themselves to the highest bidder gave a big recruiting advantage to the richest teams, usually those in bigger cities with lucrative TV contracts. Jay Wiener is a sports writer for the Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul.

JAY WIENER: We'll never be able to keep up with the $60 million cable package that the Yankees have every year or the $40 million package that the Red Sox have every year.

JERRY BELL: The Twins' stadium revenues are the very last in Major League Baseball out of 28 teams.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Twins officials say their team is losing money and unable to compete for good players. Club President Jerry Bell said the Twins' payroll is about $22 million a year, the league average $35 million. Last November, Governor Arne Carlson called the legislature into a special session and urged them to approve a financing package. He was flanked by several leading state and city politicians who supported a new stadium.

MAYOR SHARON SAYLES BELTON, Minneapolis: Today what we wanted to affirm is that it's important that all of us in the state of Minnesota who are committed to making sure that this continues to be a world-class state, that we make sure that the Minnesota Twins stay in Minnesota.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON, [R] Minnesota: This is our last best hope for keeping the Twins in Minnesota. And so when the legislature comes back on the 13th, this package has to go up, or it has to go down. And my prayer and our prayer is that it goes up.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Putting further pressure on lawmakers, Twins owner Pohlad signed an agreement to sell the team to North Carolina businessman Don Beaver. The deal was to take effect if lawmakers did not come up with a stadium package by the end of November.

DEMONSTRATORS: Hey, hey, we won't pay! Hey, hey, we won't pay!

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: However, even the prospect of losing the team did not seem to turn around public opinion.

WOMAN: People don't want their money going to this. There are more important things to be about.

MAN: No. I guess I'm kind of in a fed-up mood about it. If they really don't see a benefit to being here, then don't let the door hit 'em in the rear end on the way out.

OTHER WOMAN: It's welfare for rich people, corporate America. I don't believe in that.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Even this latest plan, where they say they're going to give the team away?

OTHER WOMAN: Give the team to the taxpayers. Carl Pohlad lost money on it, why wouldn't we? He doesn't want it; I don't want it either!

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Twins officials say the Minnesota public does not realize what they will be losing, and they chafe at the welfare-for-the-rich criticism, which they've faced throughout the debate.

JERRY BELL: This is the easiest subject in the world to demagogue just for what you said. There are millionaire players, and millionaire owners involved in this. If those were the only people who benefitted from this, we shouldn't do it. You don't have to provide public funding for a lot of things in this community. You don't need to support the orchestra, you don't need to support the Orpheum Theater, you don't need to support the science museums. You don't need to support the Minnesota Twins, we would agree with that. But if you don't do these things, then pretty soon it's not the same community.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The legislature adjourned without approving a stadium bill. Attempts to revive one during its subsequent spring '98 session also failed.

JAY WEINER: I think that we're a community that has decided that pro sports isn't the civic imagery engine that it has been in some other cities for some reason we've been able to say sports are great, sports are fun, but sports aren't the be all and end all. And I think it's a problem that professional sports are going to be finding in a lot of these middle sized markets.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The debate on the Twins' future now shifts to North Carolina, where the question of public subsidies for a new stadium goes before voters in the Winston-Salem-Greensboro area. The move from Minnesota is subject to their approval, and that of the league, and that's hardly assured in a business worried about the disparity between big and smaller city teams. The North Carolina market is about a third smaller than Minnesota.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco looks at the new kind of baseball owners.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The new owners include media magnate Rupert Murdoch and his news corporation whose $311 million purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers was approved earlier this month by Major League baseball. Other teams owned by corporate conglomerates include the Walt Disney Company's Anaheim Angels, Time-Warner's Atlanta Braves, and the Tribune Company's Chicago Cubs. For more on all this we turn now to Smith College Economics Professor Andrew Zimbalist--he's the author of the book "Baseball and Billions;" and to Leonard Koppett, who covered the Dodgers, Yankees, and Giants from 1943 to 1973 for the Herald Tribune, the New York Post, and the New York Times, and who's now a columnist with the Oakland Tribune. He's a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Andy Zimbalist, in the old days, families owned the teams, right? Are those days fading?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST, Smith College: They seem to be gone right now, yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What are the--can you give me any figures of how many teams are owned by families still?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: Well, really there aren't any fully family-owned teams. There are remnants of family ownership. You have that, for instance, with Marge Schotz in Cincinnati, or George Steinbrenner in New York. But they don't fully own the team. They're part of corporate partnerships and they own in each of those cases between 40 and 60 percent of the team. O'Malley, with the Dodgers, was the last fully family-owned franchise.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why is this happening? What's compelling these changes?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: Well, I think the main thing that's happened is that all sports franchises have gone up terrifically in value, and they basically have priced themselves out of the family market. When you start looking at $200 and $300 million price tags, there are very few families who can afford to put that kind of money up. And what you have now in baseball is a sense that baseball has mismanaged itself for quite some time, and they've been on the down part of their economic cycle coming off still the strike, and people are seeing it as an attractive investment opportunity and particularly the media sees it as an attractive investment opportunity. The media sees the possibilities for synergy with the sports programming. They see the possibility to promote their other businesses. They see a possibility to gain more flexibility and control over the programming, and particularly in these days of the telecommunication revolution, where you don't really know who your competitors are going to be a few years down the road, it is much more advantageous to them to be able to lock up a franchise, especially at this point in time when the baseball industry is still at a bottom part of the cycle.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Koppett, do you have anything to add to the economic factors at play here?

LEONARD KOPPETT, Baseball Writer: Well, what has just been described really leads to the fact that you now have people owning ball clubs who are more interested in reselling clubs than in running clubs. And they are now a commodity that's of trading value because of the--because it's several hundred million dollars for a club, instead of $12 million. Walter O'Malley originally bought the Dodgers, and the price was $4 million when he acquired it. Now, they're being sold for $311 million . That's a different ballgame.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what about the changes that have happened that have propelled all this, made this happen?

LEONARD KOPPETT: I don't think that baseball changes it. It changes in the world as a whole. You see things going to conglomerates and everywhere you look--in book publishing, and newspapers, and any business you look at, and especially in telecommunications. And, of course, that's true. If you own the ball club, you own that program. You don't have to negotiate with baseball to get the rights to that team at least. And then you have influence inside the organization for whatever deals are made for all baseball.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Zimbalist, what are some of the results of this so far? What are the effects on baseball of these big companies owning the teams?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: Well, I think there's been an acceleration of the commercialization of the game and of the gentrification of the ballpark because of the corporate penetration. But I say only an acceleration because that really happens independent of whether you have corporate ownership or not, but corporate ownership tends to be a little bit more far-sighted. They tend to have deeper pockets. They tend to be able to lobby more effectively in public bodies, and they push the process that much faster and further. What is about to happen might be much more important, which is to say that you know have Mr. Murdoch and his news corporation controlling a good deal of baseball. He's in a position of much more power than anybody has ever had in that industry before. He not only controls the national media contract worth $565 million over a four-year period, but he controls twenty- two to twenty-four of the thirty local television contracts for the thirty baseball teams that are worth over $200 million a year. So these teams are now beholden to Rupert Murdoch and he has much more leverage and much more control than anybody has ever had before. And given the man's track record of doing whatever he wants to, to advance his own cause. I think it's potentially problematic.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think about how this is going to affect baseball?

LEONARD KOPPETT: I think it all depends on the individuals that are chosen by these conglomerates to run the baseball part of the business. If they choose people who have themselves long backgrounds in baseball, understand the process, understand promotion, understand this very peculiar kind of business that it is, then it won't have any large effect for the public as a whole. Whatever goes behind the scenes is their business. But if they now staff at club president levels people who pay--who have had success in their other businesses and don't understand baseball, the results of baseball can be very bad.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Andy Zimbalist, do you agree with that?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: I do agree with it. I think we have to be careful, though. I mean, on the one hand baseball has been a poorly managed sport, and it's been a sport with very weak leadership. And I think that corporate ownership can bring baseball something in both of those regards. But if corporate baseball pushes their strategy too far, then I think there's a danger of losing the mass space for this sport that has been for over a hundred years our national pastime. The gentrification of the ballpark is a serious issue. You have tickets--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean by that?

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: Well, I mean that you have the introduction of luxury boxes, eighty to a hundred and twenty luxury boxes, in a modern ballpark. You have 10,000 club seats. You have seats being built now at the Diamond Back Ballpark in Arizona, where they have computer terminals next to the seats that sell for $195 a seat per game, and that the bottom end seats, instead of selling for 75 cents or $2.50, like they used to sell for, are selling for $10 and up. It becomes almost impossible for a middle income or a low income family to go to the ballpark. And I think as baseball proceeds with catering to the higher income group, if it doesn't pay attention to the mass fan base, it's going to be in trouble in the long run.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It sounds like you're saying, though, that these companies won't necessarily go that way; it depends on who they put in charge of things.

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: I agree fully with that, yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I'm sorry. I'm just asking Mr. Koppett.

LEONARD KOPPETT: Yes. What--we may be living in a time when it is happening on all levels on television--for its entertainment and for access, and that's the shift that's going on. The people who will actually go to these luxury ballparks will be a smaller number and very affluent and produce more dollars. The people who want to just follow baseball are going to have to do the bulk of it, not by reading newspapers or going to sit in the bleachers 15 times a year, but to watch it on television 100 times a year. And if you're a media conglomerate that is both in the television business and in the baseball business, you don't mind that at all. You don't mind if you're increasing your television audience while you're decreasing your live audience.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Go ahead.

ANDREW ZIMBALIST: I think we have to be careful here too because if you look at what Fox has done with broadcasting baseball, because they own these local contracts, they've put together a package on Direct TV where you can get out of market games, so that if you happen to be say a Los Angeles Dodgers' fan living in New York, you can buy this package. But Fox has required anybody who wants to see the Dodgers to buy a package of all major league teams and they charge $140 for it for the year. That's an antitrust violation, and it stems from the kind of control that Fox has garnered over the industry. So I think that Mr. Koppett is correct, that there is a tendency and maybe someday it will be the case that this sport is appreciated on television. I'm not sure still that lower income people will be able to appreciate it, and I'm very concerned that on a cultural level that sports really provide almost the only outlet in the United States today for a community for form and to exist and root and scream together as a community. If people are reduced to watching baseball games in their living rooms, that community aspect is gone, and the society is robbed of one of its few true community expressions.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We have just a few seconds left.

LEONARD KOPPETT: I agree with that completely.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay.

LEONARD KOPPETT: But the question is: If that's where we're going, how do we stop the train and get off?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Thank you both very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over federal funding of so-called indecent art, and the Federal Reserve Board left interest rates unchanged. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with a Newsmaker interview with Defense Secretary Cohen, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.