The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of the news, the economics of the Bush economic plan as seen very differently by Joseph Stiglitz and Martin Anderson, a report from California on the rise of untenured part-time college professors, a debate between congressmen Charles Rangel and Mark Kirk about resuming the draft, and a media report on the growth of low-power radio.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush signed a bill today extending benefits for the long-term unemployed today. He acted at a meeting with congressional leaders after the House passed the legislation; the Senate did so yesterday. It would cost more than $7.2 billion and apply to those who've used up their state unemployment benefits. Some two and a half million Americans would qualify for the federal payments over the next five months. Democrats wanted coverage for another one million people who've exhausted their state and federal benefits. North Korea warned again today the danger of a nuclear war is growing, but the Communist state did not respond to a U.S. offer tohold new talks. In Washington, a White House spokesman said again the United States would not offer new incentives to end the north's nuclear weapons program. He said, "The ball is in their court."

ARI FLEISCHER: What we have always said is that there are channel of communication open and used. Those channels represent North Korea's mission to the United Nations in New York. We have consistently said that we're not going to negotiate and we will not negotiate but we will talk to North Korea about North Korea's intentions and how they intend to come back into compliance with the obligations they committed to.

JIM LEHRER: In South Korea, the defense ministry warned against demands for the U.S. to withdraw its 37,000 troops. It said a U.S. pull-out would cause economic chaos in the South and give North Korea "a chance for provocation." There were fresh reports today that Arab states have appealed to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq. The foreign secretary of the Philippines said several governments were privately urging Saddam to go into exile, possibly in Libya. And "The Christian Science Monitor" reported a Saudi Arabian envoy raised the issue in Baghdad last month. But in Moscow, Iraq's ambassador to Russia insisted Saddam would "fight to the last drop of blood." 72 people were killed today when a Turkish airlines flight crashed in Southeastern Turkey. Only five people survived. The plane was trying to land about 630 miles southeast of Istanbul. There was heavy fog at the time, but it was unclear if that caused the crash. A commuter plane crashed today in Charlotte, North Carolina, killing all 21 people on board. The US Airways express flight was taking off when it dove into a hangar and burst into flames. Late today federal investigators said the focus was on finding the two black boxes from the plane.

JOHN GOGLIA: We have what we believe to be the flight data recorder and we have an airplane standing by to take those to Washington as soon as we get the other boxes no later than 6:30 when we take the box we do have to Washington to give us some initial cases of what may have happened.

JIM LEHRER: It was the worst U.S. plane crash in more than a year. The cause was unknown, but the FBI said there was no sign of terrorism. British police announced today they've arrested a seventh man in a possible terror plot involving the deadly poison riesin. They said other suspects could still be at large. Six North African men were taken into custody Sunday in London. U.S. citizens may be held as enemy combatants during wartime without full legal rights. A federal appeals court panel made that ruling today in the case of Yaser Hamdi. He was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001. Hamdi is from a Saudi Arabian family, but he was born in Louisiana and never gave up his American citizenship. He's being held in a naval brig in Virginia. President Bush has renominated two candidates for a federal appeals court after they were blocked last year. The senate judiciary committee rejected Charles Pickering, a federal district judge in Mississippi, and Priscilla Owen, a state supreme court justice in Texas. Democrats had criticized Pickering's record on civil rights. They said Owen's anti-abortion views colored her rulings. Leading Democrats warned today they might filibuster against Pickering. A White House spokesman said the opposition was politically motivated. Sarah McClendon died Tuesday in Washington. The veteran Washington reporter had been hospitalized with pneumonia since before Christmas. McClendon covered Presidents for decades, startingwith Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. She founded her own news service and became known for asking pointed questions about government secrecy. Sarah McClendon was 92 years old. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 145 points to close at 8595. The NASDAQ fell more than 30 points, more than 2%, to close at 1401. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to two economic views of the Bush economic proposal, a different kind of college teacher, a debate about resuming the draft, and low- power radio.

FOCUS ADDING IT UP

JIM LEHRER: Day two of adding up the Bush economic plan, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The President's ten- year plan, unveiled Tuesday, includes $674 billion in tax cuts and other provisions. It would end taxation of most stock dividends, boost the child tax credit by $400 per child, and accelerate tax cuts due to take effect in 2004 and 2006, making them retroactive to January 1st of this year. So is this the right fix for the nation's ailing economy?

We put that to two economists. Martin Anderson is the former domestic and economic policy adviser for President Reagan, and advised the Bush Presidential campaign. He is currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Joseph Stiglitz was a member of the Council of Economic Advisors during the Clinton Administration. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. A former chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank, he is now professor of economics and finance at Columbia University in New York.

Professor Anderson, let me start with you. What do you think is in the package of proposals and do you feel it will have the desired effect?

MARTIN ANDERSON: I think it's a good package. Let me say why. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a recession that had begun under the last administration. And a lot of the rosy forecasts that were around during the campaign about the large surpluses started to fade away. So he made a move and he tried to get his tax cut plan passed. The purpose was to keep economic growth going and create new and better jobs. The plan was passed, the concept but the Democrats spread it out over an 11 year period. The result is that as of today, 2003, we have received less than 10% of the tax cut. In practical terms, that means we have not had a tax cuts. Since then, things have gotten worse. The economy is still stagnant and we have serious national security questions. We had 9/11, we were worried about al-Qaida, worried about Iraq, worried about North Korea. So it's critical to get the economy going again. And I think what Bush has proposed, his total package, is really critical to doing it. Let me say that I think the most important part of the package is the acceleration of the across the board tax cuts for every living American that is working. This means that your marginal tax rates will be reduced, everyone gets the cut. That's the critical part. The rest of the parts are good, they add to it. But cutting the rates across the board is key to stimulating this economy and getting it moving again.

RAY SUAREZ: Professional Joseph Stiglitz, what do you think of the cuts and will it have the desired effect?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think if you were going to design a package to stimulate the economy, you couldn't have done worse. Even by President Bush's own Council of Economic Advisors they estimate this tax program will only reduce unemployment by about 190,000 jobs. That's two weeks of unemployment. It is not going to promote economic growth. Even their own forecast estimate that over a five-year period it will add about 1 percentage point to economic growth,.2% per year. Again, even if it is successful as their own CEA estimates, it will only do a small job of addressing the gap between the slow down in the economy of where we were performing in the 90s and where we are today. Let me put it the following way: The economy is weak. Martin and I can agree about that. It needs a stimulus. How do you get a stimulus? Well, the way you get a stimulus is to get money in the pocket of people who are going to spend it. This current proposal couldn't be designed worse. Let me give you an example: The dividend tax cut that was mentioned, about 40% of that money goes to the upper 1%. 220,000 American taxpayers will get the same amount as 120 million people at the bottom. I don't view that as fair. To put it another way: The Secretary of Treasury according to the numbers in the Financial Times is going to get a tax cut that is equal -- roughly, to about 1 5,000 Americans in the 30 to 40,000 dollar tax bracket. The basic point is that what this economy needs is a stimulus. This is not a stimulus. The way you get a stimulus is to focus on where the economy is weak. Let me give you an example.

RAY SUAREZ: And quickly.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Right now states like California and New York are facing a real problem of budget stringency -- because of slowdown and the mismanagement of last three years the tax revenues have fallen dramatically. The state faced a balanced budget constraint, which means that when their revenues go down they have to cut back expenditures or raise taxes. That is going to be a big dampener on the economy. The Bush proposal does absolutely nothing about that. In fact it makes it worse. It makes it worse in two ways.

RAY SUAREZ: Give me just the one way. Professor Anderson has been trying to get his own..

MARTIN ANDERSON: Let me just comment on one part of this. Many years ago was when I was a professor of economics, teaching economic as the Columbia we taught stimulus a little bit differently. The Democrats have proposed giving every $600. That's a gift. That might stimulate for a week or two when you go out and buy something. What you really need is to reduce marginal tax rates because if the taxes are reduced then they'll change the way they look at the income coming in. They will plan on it being a permanent thing. Before you attack me, let me finish what I'm trying to say: If people know that their tax rates are reduced, they know the income is coming in, the tax cuts are permanent they can start planning ahead. They can decide if they buy a house, they want to buy car, they can do things; they can act as if they have money in their pockets. But to give them $600 is silly.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Joseph Stiglitz?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: This is the old supply-side economics that Reagan pushed in 1981 that was supposed to lead to such a level of economic growth that deficits would actually be reduced. We what happened after the Reagan tax cutes. What happened is we had the largest deficit in history.

RAY SUAREZ: But what about Professor Anderson's point though that if people are able to shape their economic planning and the management of their own economic lives with some predictability down the road that they'll make choices that have stimulative effect on the economy?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think money should be gotten in the hands of average Americans. There's absolutely no doubt about that. The real question is that most of this money is going to go in the hands of a few people at the very top, the dividend tax cut. That dividend tax cut is not going to stimulate economic activity. Do you think the firms that have not responded to lower interest rates because there is excess capacity and high tech and excess capacity in telecom are going to all of a sudden start investing more in the U.S. economy because the dividends are cut? Absolutely not.

MARTIN ANDERSON: Let me just say one word about the reduction in the taxes on dividends, that isn't the purpose of it. If you reduce taxes you pay on dividends you automatically will increase the value of stock. I mean, this is basic economics 101. Let's get back to the old supply-side business? This is current. Jack Kennedy did it in the 1960s; Ronald Reagan did it in 1982, passed a tax cut and kicked off an enormous economic explosion in the country.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Let me --.

MARTIN ANDERSON: Let me finish my point. There's a lot to attack, Joe. Look, it kicked off an enormous economic expansion. Revenues went up dramatically. You know that.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Kennedy's investment tax was an investment tax cut. It was targeted to increasing investment. That is what stimulated the economy. There are forms of tax cuts that will work. And I very strongly support those. An investment tax cut, particularly a net investment tax cut such as we proposed in 1993. What would be -- would be something that would work. I can strongly support certain forms of tax cuts; the problem is, this is not the kind of tax cut that is going to stimulate the economy today. And as I said, even Bush's Council of Economic Advisors agrees that this is not going to increase employment significantly and is not going to promote growth significantly. So there's no disagreement between Bush and me on this we both agree this is not going to work.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Anderson, let's go back to the dividend taxation cut just as an example since it's one of largest components of the plan. If a wager earner has a thousand, two thousand bucks to invest and one buys a CD, one buys a bond, and one buys stocks that pays them a dividend, is the federal government in effect saying that one kind of investment is favored over another by the way it treats it for tax purposes?

MARTIN ANDERSON: No. Let me jus say I think what the critical thing about the reduction and taxes on dividends -- people have argued about this for a long time m it's been an old thing in the economic profession for years as to whether you did a double taxation of money that's earned by corporations and then taxed as dividends. If you do not tax dividends, the dividends that they do pay make the stock more valuable. Therefore it's not people buying stock so much as people who have got tremendous amounts of money invested in stock in terms of their retirement funds. I think the estimates are that those retirement funds would probably increase as much as 5% or 10% simply because of the fact you are not taxing the dividends. But, again, this is not the main part of what Bush is recommending. We keep moving away from the fact that he is saying every working American will get a reduction in their marginal tax rate. And this is a tremendous stimulus to the economy -- at least it was when a used to teach it.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Stiglitz, how do you respond about that people fattening up people's portfolios -- retirees, for instance, at a time in their life when they need it?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Those retirees, the average American retiree already puts his money into an IRA, a Keogh plan, a pension fund, and those are not taxed. They're not getting the benefit. The benefit is going to the rich people who don't have their money, or a retirement program but have money from some inheritance or a stock option or something like that. It's not going to the people who really need it and for whom when they get the money will stimulate the economy. Let me make one more point that Martin mentioned; he said the key point is the speed up in the celebration and the implementation of the 2001 tax cut. First let me point out that that is not where most of the spending is going.

MARTIN ANDERSON: That's true.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The big one is the dividend. That's where the dollars are going and the result of that increased deficit, everybody agrees including his colleague John Taylor who is now the undersecretary of Treasury agrees that bigger deficits lead to higher interest rates and that's going to have a negative impact on many people, many firms.

RAY SUAREZ: Go ahead.

MARTIN ANDERSON: Let's stop on John Taylor. First of all, John Taylor strongly supports this program overall. Second, what we're talking about here is whether or not we should reduce marginal tax rates for every American who is working. We know that over the past history, it's been tried before, it does work. People respond to it. And let me say one other thing. In 2001 we had a major debate. I think it's great we had this debate. We had a debate like this in 2001. It was decided to pass the Bush tax cut as proposed except stretch it out. All Bush was saying look if that was a good thing to do in 2001, we need it much more today, let's just do it. Let's not argue about it. We already argued about it.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Anderson you heard Joseph Stiglitz talk about the possible effect on the deficits in the years down the road. Do you agree with his assessment that this puts the country in line for deaf sits along the road?

MARTIN ANDERSON: Yes, and let me say one word about that. It is true if we do this you'll get an increase in the deficit. That is one thing Joe has right. Absolutely. If you look at the deficit as a percentage of our GDP, it's falling dramatically. It's now in the 30% range instead of 90 to 100% where it used. Let me say one thing about deficits. I don't like them. I think we should not have deficits. But if there's comes a choice. Say for example you want to buy a house and it costs $200,000. I can save money for twenty or thirty years to buy the house, or I can go to a bank and borrow it. What we're doing because of the war, because of al-Qaida, because of Iraq, because of a low economy we're going to make a decision that we're going to borrow money temporarily and see if we can fix these items. If we don't, we're in real trouble.

RAY SUAREZ: Very quickly Joseph Stiglitz.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: This is a permanent tax cut. It's not a one time thing. That's why it works. We want a stimulus to get the economy going now -- that was like Kennedy temporary investment tax credit. That would work. What we're doing is really jeopardizing the long-term fiscal position. Let me address the point that Martin made.

RAY SUAREZ: Very quickly, sir.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: If it was good in 2001, why isn't it good today? As he pointed out, in 2001 the fiscal position -- the numbers that were used were vastly different. We had a $3 trillion non-Social Security ten year surplus then. We now have a $2 trillion deficit. That's a huge change in the fiscal situation which requires. --

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen we're going to stop it there.

MARTIN ANDERSON: We didn't get a tax cut. You're right.

RAY SUAREZ: And Gentlemen, we're going to stop it there. Professor Martin Anderson, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Gentlemen, thank you both.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a college teachers debate, a "bring back the draft" debate, and low-power radio.

FOCUS TEACHERS WITHOUT TENURE

JIM LEHRER: Part-time and untenured college teachers are on the rise. Spencer Michels reports.

JIM STOCKINGER: All right, let's read a book, okay? Can we do that? (Child whines )

SPENCER MICHELS: 56-year-old Jim Stockinger, a part-time teacher at the University of California, works mornings from 9:00 to 12:00 at a child care center in Berkeley, California.

JIM STOCKINGER: "Good night, clocks. Oh, Kenny, where are the clocks?"

SPENCER MICHELS: He speaks five languages and holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the university. But in 22 years he has never taught full-time. Such college teaching jobs in his field are scarce, and tenure, a lifetime appointment at a college, has become more difficult than ever to secure. Stockinger's part-time university job provides him with no benefits.

JIM STOCKINGER: It's through childcare that I have my health benefits, my retirement benefits, which otherwise I wouldn't have.

JIM STOCKINGER: Okay...

SPENCER MICHELS: On the Berkeley campus, he teaches an upper division course on the history of social theory.

JIM STOCKINGER: "But in the interest of our investigations, we will not forget that present-day man does not feel happy in his God-like character." (Speaks in German)

SPENCER MICHELS: The course he teaches counts as one-third of a full teaching load, so he earns one-third of $35,000 a year, about $12,000, and at one point was making less than his teaching assistants were. Stockinger says part-time lecturers, or adjunct professors, as they're sometimes called, get little respect from the university.

JIM STOCKINGER: Part-time faculty members, lecturers such as myself-- I call myself an intellectual migrant laborer-- are playing a larger and larger role in that process.

SPENCER MICHELS: To make ends meet, Stockinger also drives 100 miles once a week to teach at Sonoma State University. The U.S. Department of Education says 43% of college and university faculty nationwide teach part-time, up sharply in the last two decades. Many of those travel from one campus to another, working out of their cars, so-called "freeway flyers" or "road scholars."

JIM STOCKINGER: It's not exactly something I would choose to do, but basically you go to where they need you.

SPENCER MICHELS: At California State University at Hayward, a four- year school, part-timers, like this journalism teacher, outnumber tenure-track faculty. At two-year institutions, like Foothill Community College, near San Jose, full-time faculty members like this are increasingly rare. Here 44% of instructional hours are taught by part-timers, some teaching in their occupational field, like business; others hired simply to teach at lower pay than full-time faculty would get. The college depends on state support, and it can't afford an all full-time faculty, according to Chancellor Leo Chavez.

LEO CHAVEZ, Chancellor, Foothill College: Absolutely it's less expensive to use part-time teachers.

SPENCER MICHELS: Because?

LEO CHAVEZ: Because we don't pay them as much on an hourly or what's called a pro rata basis, because we don't provide them with the same level of health benefits.

SPENCER MICHELS: Chancellor Robert Berdahl at U.C. Berkeley says that saving money is not the only reason to hire temporary teachers. Many bring life and workexperiences to the classroom.

ROBERT BERDAHL, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley: We have people who are professional practitioners, who come in as lecturers and teach part-time: Lawyers, social workers. They teach composition courses; they teach classes in what we would call obscure languages.

SPENCER MICHELS: Berdahl says the university tries to act fairly with part-time teachers.

ROBERT BERDAHL: We try to make certain that their life isn't bad, and... and I hope that it isn't.

SPENCER MICHELS: Part-time teachers at Berkeley struck briefly at the beginning of the school year, joining striking clerical workers. The lecturers say the university doesn't deal with them honestly.

JIM STOCKINGER: Clerical workers and lecturers supporting each other... ( cheers ) students supporting the lecturers and the clerical workers.

SPENCER MICHELS: The issues for the lecturers: Job security, wages, benefits and respect for the part-timers. A few weeks later, lecturers at five other university of California campuses struck for two days while administrators and union officials tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a new contract. Chancellor Berdahl says most part-timers are satisfied and those who complain are in the minority.

ROBERT BERDAHL: In many cases these are... are people who had hoped for and expected to get or are waiting for tenure-track positions at universities. And so there is a certain frustration that is borne of their... of the status of their careers that they're at. And... and... and that obviously is reflected in some cases in their attitudes towards where they're working.

SPENCER MICHELS: Some critics say that hiring part-time teachers cheats students of contact with renowned professors, who, instead of teaching, do research that brings lucrative grants to the university. At the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, officials say a university's national rankings depend not on teaching skills, but purely on research. And according to Lee Shulman, the President, that's partly why they hire so many teaching temps.

LEE SHULMAN, Carnegie Foundation for Teaching: Those ranking systems are utterly dominated by the research productivity and prestige of faculty. I think if teaching were being pursued appropriately on campuses, there would be many fewer part-time teachers, and the universities and colleges would be much better places if they had a much higher proportion of full-time faculty teaching the students.

SPENCER MICHELS: Berkeley's Berdahl contends that teaching does not get short shrift even at a distinguished research university.

ROBERT BERDAHL: We do value good teaching. There's just absolutely... this is a myth that is... that is always a rap that we get: That somehow if you value research, you don't value teaching. This is not a tradeoff. You can value both and reward both and recognize both in all of the... the processes by which we review and evaluate faculty, and we do.

SPENCER MICHELS: Not everyone agrees. At Berkeley, students' opinions varied on the teaching skills of researchers verses part-timers.

STUDENT: You have, like, the professors who are doing... doing research, and for some of them that's their primary concern, so they get in the classroom and they're just like disgruntled about it sometimes, so they don't always take teaching as their priority. Whereas you have some of the lecturers, that's all they do, so that's their priority.

STUDENT: If it's a good teacher, I don't care if they're tenured or not. It matters to me more if they... how much they want to be teaching.

MARK SCHLISSEL, Biology Professor: This example is a gene that's only expressed in this population.

SPENCER MICHELS: Mark Schlissel is a full- time, tenured professor at Berkeley. He lectures two-thirds of one course per year. That's the teaching load for tenured faculty in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology. This was his final lecture of the term, and at the end, he asked the students to evaluate him.

MARK SCHLISSEL: Please be honest. Don't be mean, of course... ( laughter ) ...and don't think... don't think of Tuesday's exam. Think of the course as a whole when you... ( laughter ) okay, thank you very much. ( Applause )

SPENCER MICHELS: While Schlissel says he loves teaching, he spends much more time in the lab than he does in the classroom.

MARK SCHLISSEL: I think the way we teach is more than just standing up in front of the classroom. So I have in my lab, for example, six graduate students and four postdoctoral fellows and three undergraduates and a research technician who's actually an M.D. I'm teaching them on a daily and continuous basis as we do our science together. In addition to the stand-up-in- front-of-the-room teaching, I have office hours, I host seminars.

SPENCER MICHELS: Because science is changing so fast and it's hard to keep up, full-time faculty teach all but a few courses in Schlissel's department and other life sciences. But in the humanities, the use of part-timers is much greater and the controversy more intense. Under University of California rules, sociologist Jim Stockinger, who has been teaching here more than six years, was recently given a three-year teaching contract, something of a rarity. But still his picture is not among those displayed in his department's faculty room. He was told this semester that for lack of funds, he would not be rehired by Sonoma State University.

JIM STOCKINGER: I did not feel like a teacher. I did not feel like a member of an ancient and honorable profession. I did not feel like someone who was making important contribution to his society. I did not feel like someone whose educational attainments got the respect and the dignity they deserve. I felt like a Kleenex tissue, disposable.

SPENCER MICHELS: At the University of California, negotiations continue between the administration and the teachers' union. And across the country, the hiring and treatment of part- time teachers is becoming an increasingly contentious issue. (Bell tolls)

FOCUS BRINGING BACK THE DRAFT

JIM LEHRER: Now, should America bring back the draft? Yesterday, the first day of the new 108th Congress, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York introduced legislation to resume the military draft. We have our own debate now with Congressman Rangel-- he earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his army service during the Korean War; and Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois-- he is on the Armed Services Committee and is in the Naval Reserves. He has seen duty in Serbia, Bosnia, Panama, Haiti, and the Persian Gulf. Congressman Rangel why bring the draft back now?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: From what I hear it seems as though the President has widespread support, the secretary of defense has indicated that we can continue to the war in Afghanistan, attack Iraq and fight in with it or three wars. I think the way we talk about wars is so cavalier that in terms of sacrifice and the pain involved is really not being shared. It is though this volunteer army can carry all of this weight. In my opinion there's not the sense of patriotism in terms of widespread support that it has. I think several things: One, if we bring back the draft, people will focus on who is put in harm's way and two, if we do go to war, there's so many things that young Americans can and should be doing that we ought to have a national universal draft that includes women with no exemption with the exception of just finishing high school at a given time.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Kirk, you disagree, why?

REP. MARK KIRK: I do because if you look at the record of the U.S. military in World War I, in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, you see large number of American casualties. Because the business of war was in training mainly 18 and 19-year-old young men and sending them into battle and hopefully we would win if we lost fewer numbers of men than the other side. When we went to the volunteer military, we built an entirely new institution, which has been phenomenally successful.-- winning battles in Desert Storm and Kosovo at low loss of life with such highly trained and motivated volunteers. The United States has been able to prevail and to be carrying out our duties to the United Nations with very, very few Americans getting killed and that is good news for American mothers who are worried about their kids in uniform and we want to make sure they are able to accomplish their mission but to come home safely.

JIM LEHRER: You believe if there had been a draft in each one of those recent military cases, there would have been more U.S. casualties

REP. MARK KIRK: The role of or the context which you're in, the modern battlefield is so dangerous and so complicated that an untrained 19-year-old can do very little. About the only job description a 19-year-old untrained can fill is that of casualty.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Rangel, what about that?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: Well, I think that's absurd. First of all, you're not giving inch to the ability of the military to train anyone; you're claiming that the affluent are unable to learn but only young people that come from poor circumstances can be become professional. The second thing is that the number of casualties is not just dependent on the amount of training but who you are fighting. God knows in going into Baghdad, in going into urban fighting we have no idea about what our casualties are going to be. And, lastly if you're talking to a parent or someone whose kid is eligible to the draft, they are not going to be persuaded by your argument that casualties may be lower but it may be their kid.

JIM LEHRER: Is he wrong about that, Congressman Kirk?

REP. MARK KIRK: Well, in this case, the record is very clear that our military is well trained, very highly motivated. I can tell you from the deck of a carrier it makes all the difference in the world to be there with volunteers as opposed to untrained disgruntled 18-year-olds who don't want to be there. I think the critical issue is the professionalism with which we now carry out our military obligations to the United Nation, the all-volunteer military is an unqualified success and changing it threatens the tremendous record we have built at extremely low cost of Americans lives.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: Hold the phone! Hold the phone. I am not disputing what Mark has said. If he is on an aircraft carrier with his officers and they are in their Navy whites, maybe the man is right. I'm talking about the grunt, the infantry man, the foxhole, the guy that is out there that can't get on the ship, can't get in the shower and he's in harm's way and that is the reason why I'm talking about who is assigned to the ships and officers and who is assigned to the foxholes with the rifles. Maybe he is right. Maybe they need volunteer types on the ship but I'm talking about who is in harm's way. If he's talking about little casualties, I was in the Korean War for a year. It went on for three years I don't know even know whether the Navy lost anybody.

REP. MARK KIRK: The Navy lost quite a few but if you look at the recent activity -- combat in Afghanistan. The ground troops involved were highly trained Army Rangers and Special Forces. There was no room for an untrained 18-year-old to be involved in that. They were calling in laser-guided and satellite-guided munitions, something that took years of training and the linguistic expertise to back up good relations with local troops. This is not an environment where untrained 18 year olds can add .

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: Mark, you just don't get it. I want our young people who are drafted to be trained. I don't want career soldiers to go in untrained; and I don't want draftees to be untrained. And you can tell me how many Naval people died in Korea and how many died in Afghanistan and how many is going to be in harm's way in Iraq. Let's drop the Navy and your experience with the Navy and talk about what we're talking about in the draft. I am talking about the person on the ground that is going to be attacking in Iraq. If you're talking about the sophistication of the volunteer army, it is my hope and expectation that the military has done so well with these people with lesser training that they'll do just as well if not better with the more affluent that is drafted. Where am I wrong?

REP. MARK KIRK: Remember, the point here for the draft is not to bring young men in uniform but to contribute to the overall military power of the United States. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld envisions no scenario whatsoever that it would involve a draft -- that we have got an environment now in which we are predominant in military power using volunteers. And I can tell you as an officer who has been in command of enlisted having them all be volunteers and having them so highly motivated and trained and knowing that everyone here in this difficult environment wants to be here and asked to be here makes all the difference in the world, not just in their commitment to the job but in their ability to carry out that job and do it in a way that the conflict comes rapidly to an end with extraordinarily low U.S. --.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: As an enlisted man I would want all the help I could get on the battlefield.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you Congressman Kirk, the additional point that has been made about the draft and national service generally which is -- it involves the entire nation in the decision to go to war or not because the potential of sending your young people, the people related to you, off to war focuses the mind more. Where do you go down on that issue?

REP. MARK KIRK: That is a positive effect of the draft. I think that we should expand volunteer opportunities for young men and women especially after September 11. I think we're on the verge of one of the most young patriotic generations to come on line. I offered legislation, for example, to double the size of the Peace Corps. And when you look at the volunteer opportunities here in this country and in the public health field, it's an area that federal government can give an enormous boost to so that young men and women who wish to volunteer for their country in uniform or other capacities should be able to. That's entirely different than bringing hundreds of thousands of 18-year-old young boys into a military that has no role for them, that has no particular job for them to do and they do not wish to be there I can tell you that that will lead to discipline problems and a situation in which people are given make work, do nothing jobs and will get very disillusioned with their country because there's no significant role for them today in today's military.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I'm not saying that hundreds of thousands should be just thrown into the military. I said they should be eligible for the military; the number of people that are necessary depending on what will be determined but people would be selected regardless of their background and it would not be because they want or don't want to serve. When that flag goes up, all young people should be prepared to serve.

REP. MARK KIRK: But we already have that. The volunteer military today

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I'm saying that patriotism should not be one you select to be a patriot. If you love this country and you think we should be at war, you should be prepared to defend the county.

REP. MARK KIRK: I can tell you from the men and women on the battlefield they far prefer to be there with other colleagues who volunteered to be there. The moral is higher, the professionalism is higher. We carry out our mission with far greater loss of any combat power. And people die in fewer numbers when we have that degree of professionalism.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Rangel, practical politics, is your bill going anywhere?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I don't know I'm getting a lot of support for the broad idea that when America says that the cause is just, that the sacrifice should be shared and not just restricted by those who want to get paid to fight or those who join the volunteer army but everyone should be standing there. Sure we should have the volunteer army, we should have the professional. Every army has the career soldier as the core. But in answer to your question whether it's going to pass, the debate has just begun. I have really been surprised at the number of people who have indicated an interest in my bill.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read that, Congressman Kirk?

REP. MARK KIRK: An overwhelming number of the Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee oppose this legislation. And I would say that it would be lucky if 10% of members in Congress supported bringing back the draft. The volunteer military is an overwhelming bipartisan success. Defense leaders, Democrats and Republicans both agree.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: You have a quick fix. I introduced the bill yesterday. I didn't even know that the committee members have been assigned but probably knows what is going to happen in the future.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Kirk, do you expect if it doesn't pass to trigger a major debate about this? Should there be a major debate or should it be put aside saying Congressman Rangel, it's an interesting idea but go away?

REP. MARK KIRK: This is only a debate in the media. Here in the Congress and of the Democratic and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee there's no significant debate. The volunteer military is an overwhelming success. The combat record of the United States since Desert Storm shows that. And no serious military leader or secretary of defense is call for bringing back the draft.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: With all due respect today was the first day that the Congress met. Have you been polling the members all day?

REP. MARK KIRK: We have; they don't support your legislation.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: But we haven't even had members assigned to the committee where

REP. MARK KIRK: You've got an awful lot of media, so it was talked about before members

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: You must have been in the Republican -- because we have not have any --.

REP. MARK KIRK: They do not support the legislation.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: So not only have you polled the Congress but you have been at the Pentagon.

REP. MARK KIRK: You don't have much support.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: You're fantastic.

JIM LEHRER: Are Democrats going to support it, Congressman Rangel?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I hope this is not a Democratic initiative or a Republican initiative. This is not a partisan thing. I hope those called to serve are not called by their party registration but by need of our national security.

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much. We look forward to -- never mind what we look forward to. One says there will be a debate the other says there isn't going to be. We thank you both very much.

FOCUS POWER TO THE PEOPLE

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the emergence of low-power radio, and to media correspondent Terence Smith.

SPOKESPERSON: Step right this way to Oldies 100.

TERENCE SMITH: The sounds of radio today...

SPOKESPERSON: The weekend filled with unforgettable favorites: That's what you need.

Here's Cat Stevens and "Wild World."

TERENCE SMITH: ...Smooth, professional, and homogeneous. A few large media companies now own the vast majority of stations across the country, and the programming tends to sound the same. (Music playing) But this is also radio today.

SPOKESPERSON: This is Denise, and you're listening to the community events hour on KRBS-OP Oroville. First United Methodist Church is having a fund-raiser on Sunday.

SPOKESPERSON: This is KPFZ non-commercial radio for the free speech capital of the world, Lake County.

TERENCE SMITH: This is community radio, low-power FM - with the emphasis on "low," putting out a signal equal to a 100-watt light bulb-- tiny stations run by volunteers who want to open radio up to anyone who wants a say or has a song.

SINGING: Somewhere over the rainbow...

ERV KNORZER, General Manager, KRBS-FM: "Somewhere over the Rainbow"-- that's our theme. Everybody calls in on that. They love that song.

TERENCE SMITH: Erv Knorzer, a retired fireman, started KRBS with his daughter Mary Ann in Oroville, California, population: 13,000. In recent years the town lost its newspaper and its two hometown radio stations. KRBS is trying to fill the gap.

ERV KNORZER: We wanted the antenna to be downtown and bring the community closer and bring people downtown.

TERENCE SMITH: It's been on the air since March, a recipient of one of the hard-won licenses the federal communications commission is slowly issuing for low-power F.M.

SPOKESMAN: Hello, Chesapeake Bay! For the first time, an environmental organization owns and operates a radio station!

TERENCE SMITH: WRYR in Deale, Maryland, along the Chesapeake Bay, is run by Sacred, a local environmental group. Mike Shay is Vice President.

MIKE SHAY, Vice President, SACReD: Low-power radio is an opportunity for a community to have communications. Before that, for us it was putting up signs alongside the road. Okay, let's go.

TERENCE SMITH: Volunteers, with technical experts lending a hand, built the station from the ground up. Last March, after years of preparation, they were ready for the thrill of the first on-air test. ( Beeping )

SPOKESMAN: Yes! You're talking right now! It's delayed! (Voice inaudible ) ( music playing ) all right! ( Applause )

TERENCE SMITH: And finally, the real thing. WRYR, 100-watts strong, was on the air.

SPOKESMAN: This is my first deejay day. I'm feeling the power already. I don't think it's low-power. I think it's total-power FM.

PEOPLE: All right, total power! All right! ( Applause )

SPOKESMAN: Bring the monitor up, Jeffrey.

SPOKESMAN: You got the wrong one on.

SPOKESMAN: Oh. Oh, okay.

SINGING: Gonna get my muffin and a chicken...

CATHERINE ELIAS JERMANY, Board President, KPFZ-FM: This is KPFZ-LP 104.5 FM Lacerne, Lake County Community Radio.

TERENCE SMITH: For Catherine Elias Jermany, at KPFZ in Lakeport in northern California, low-power FM is about giving airtime to the voiceless in the community.

SPOKESMAN: Nothing was really said to say, like, "I'm sorry, you know, for putting you on reserves for extinct animals." That's what reservations are.

CATHERINE ELIAS JERMANY: I'm sort of into free speech, and the radio station gives an opportunity for all voices in the community to be heard.

TERENCE SMITH: Andy Weiss is the station manager, announcer, and founding dreamer behind KPFZ. The control room is in his house. The station's antenna is up in his oak tree.

ANDY WEISS: And here's our transmitter room-- actually, the laundry room. $2,500 bucks worth of equipment, and that's all it takes to get one of these started. That's all there is to it-- this little box, a radio station in a box.

TERENCE SMITH: Low-power FM is an experiment in power to the people championed by this man: William Kennard, who was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under President Clinton. To Kennard, the airwaves belong to the people.

WILLIAM KENNARD, Former Chairman, FCC: Low-power FM was an attempt to give a voice to local communities, to put radio licenses in the hands of, not commercial interests, but non-commercial interests-- schools, churches, non-profits, community groups-- so that they would have a voice for their communities.

TERENCE SMITH: Kennard found an unlikely ally in this man: A former radio pirate turned legit named Pete Tridish, or Petri Dish, as he's known. Tridish ran an unlicensed radio station, "Radio Mutiny." It became one of about 1,000 unlicensed, and therefore illegal, pirate radio stations on the dial. The FCC was termed to shut them down.

PETE TRIDISH, Prometheus Radio: The FCC came a whole bunch of times. I think we set the record because they visited us six times before they actually broke down the door and came in and took off the transmitter.

TERENCE SMITH: But then the FCC approved low-power FM, licensed, legal, and free. Pete Tridish gave up piracy and launched Prometheus Radio, becoming a traveling troubadour for the cause.

PETE TRIDISH: We went around, you know, from town to town just talking in coffee shops or libraries or college classrooms, anywhere that would have us, and getting people to apply for these radio stations.

WILLIAM KENNARD: There were literally tens of thousands of expressions of interest in this service. There's a huge pent-up demand for people who want to use the airwaves to speak to their communities. I knew we were on to something, something important.

TERENCE SMITH: 3,500 applications came flooding in the doors of the FCC from churches, schools, community groups, and environmental groups, all nonprofit. Big media companies, like the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio, were concerned that the new low-power stations might create interference with existing stations. Kevin Klose is President of National Public Radio.

KEVIN KLOSE, President, NPR: We didn't see it as acompetition issue. The problems were that there was not sufficient... there hadn't been sufficient testing in the field of whether there would be interference from low-power stations to existing... especially existing public radio stations, which happen to be some of our members.

TERENCE SMITH: Congress agreed and mandated that new testing had to be done, and the only stations who could apply for a license were in rural areas where there was more space on the dial. Two-thirds of the applications, those from urban areas, were thrown out. Now only 60 stations out of the thousands that Kennard envisioned are on the air. Why so few?

ANDY WEISS: We were ready in our souls, in our hearts. What was a surprise was the amount of work and the technical part, and that was difficult because we are not professional broadcasters.

TERENCE SMITH: And is anyone listening?

SPOKESPERSON: I don't think anybody knows we're here.

SPOKESPERSON: Have you heard about the new low-power radio station, KPFC...

WOMAN: No.

SPOKESPERSON: ...Community radio?

MAN: No, I haven't actually. I haven't heard anything about it.

MAN: No, I haven't.

MAN: Is this the one that has the native Americans?

SPOKESPERSON: Yeah.

MAN: Yeah, I've heard of it. I thought it was a little different, and I liked the music.

SPOKESPERSON: You have a good time.

TERENCE SMITH: One way to spread the word is to show up at community events, like this one atop the damn in Oroville.

SPOKESMAN: This is an American city: Oroville, California.

SPOKESMAN: What is your name? And I'll get your name on the air in just a second.

BRITTANY STRATTON: My name is Brittany Stratton.

SPOKESMAN: Brittany Stratton, okay, and you live in Thermalito, right? Okay, we have Brittany Stratton from Thermalito. And she's promised to listen to our station.

SPOKESMAN: Brittany Stratton. Brittany from Thermalito. She promises to listen to KRBS.

Does that mean you haven't listened to us so far? Brittany, what have you been missing?

SPOKESMAN: May the boat be sturdy, the crew be courageous...

TERENCE SMITH: Along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, WRYR broadcast the blessing of the fleet fest. Adam Hewison organized the event.

SPOKESMAN: It's been very instrumental in getting people down here today.

SINGING: Thank the Lord I saw the light

SINGING: I saw the light I saw the light...

SPOKESMAN: We have the power of a light bulb. We are not a 50,000-watt station. We are not low-power. Really for our community this is total power.

SINGING: I saw the light.

TERENCE SMITH: Will low-power fm ever be able to expand beyond its rural limits? The results of the congressionally mandated signal interference test will be ready by summer, but no matter what they show, it will take another act of Congress to give the all- clear signal to low-power FM. ( Beeping )

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: President Bush signed a bill extending federal benefits for the long term unemployed. North Korea warned again that the danger of a nuclear war is growing but it did not respond to a U.S. offer to hold new talks. And a Turkish Airlines flight crashed in southeastern turkey killing 75. A US Airways commuter plane crashed in Charlotte, North Carolina, killing 21. There was no word on the cause of either crash. We'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.