Return to Transcripts main page

Next@CNN

Should Human Organs Be Bought, Sold?; New Weapons System Drive Up Defense Costs; Grammy Awards Get Under Way Tonight

Aired February 23, 2003 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, HOST: Hello, I am Fredricka Whitfield. Today on NEXT@CNN, a controversial proposal to buy and sell human organs in the wake of the sad case of Jesica Santillan.
Did you know the Pentagon has $1 billion to spend every day? We'll talk about the weapon systems that drive up the cost of defending the country.

And take you to the site of the Grammys. Find out how you can watch tonight's festivities without a television set or a ticket.

Hello. Everyone and welcome to NEXT@CNN for this Sunday, February 23. The double organ transplant case of Jesica Santillan raises difficult questions for doctors and for all of us. Jesica, who first received organs of the wrong blood type, died yesterday, two days after receiving a second transplant. The Santillan family has decided not to donate any of the girl's organs according to Duke University Medical Center. Jesica's case points out the severe shortage of organs and the complications that arise. She was on a waiting list for three years. Most people on the list won't ever get organ transplants that they need.

One controversial question being raised now on the issue of availability, should it be legal to buy and sell human organs? Would it increase the supply? With us in our Washington Bureau, Dr. Clive Callender, a surgeon and head of the transplant center at Howard University Hospital and founder of MOTTEP, the Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program, and Lloyd Cohen, a professor and attorney at George Mason University in Virginia, and he has written several articles on this very topic. Good to see you both of you gentlemen.

DR. CLIVE CALLENDER, TRANSPLANT SURGEON: Thank you for letting me join you.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Cohen, let me begin with you because you were quoted as saying that, quote "Healthy people contract to sell their organs for delivery after death. If those organs are harvested and transplanted, a payment in the range of $5,000 for each major organ would be made." Presumably to the survivors?

LLOYD COHEN, ATTORNEY: Well, it could be to the survivors. It could be to a charity. It could be to a designee, subject to the contract. It would give the person an opportunity to be doubly generous. To be generous to the recipient of the organs and then to be generous to someone with financial payment after their death.

WHITFIELD: And it's your position to do that in order to do that, to sell these organs that that will boost the supply?

COHEN: Oh, certainly. That's really beyond question by reasonable people. We boost the supply of every other valuable item by paying for it. This is simply scandalous that the single irreplaceable part for a transplant is not paid for. We pay for the scalpels, we pay for the hospital rooms. We pay for everything. We don't pay for the organ.

WHITFIELD: And Dr. Callender, if I could bring you in. Do you find this as scandalous to even have such a program or to advocate the selling of organs?

CALLENDER: I think his idea is scandalous.

WHITFIELD: Why is that?

CALLENDER: I think that -- I guess I've heard it many times that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and I'm certainly sure that he has good intentions, but I think he's starting a slippery slope that would be injurious to many, not only in this country, but across the globe. So I think that it is a terrible idea.

WHITFIELD: Well, Dr. Callender, it's interest in that some people do exchange plasma for money. So what is the difference? Why not organs?

CALLENDER: If you would look into your history of it, you'll identify that, as a matter of fact, blood donations, etcetera, were financed. But because of the calamities and the serious tragedies that occurred because paid donors lied and did other things, and they harbored diseases that made their paying for blood no longer possible. Because it is dangerous practice, because it takes away the altruism and the act of doing something for good but turns it into something that's commercial. So that you buy and sell.

WHITFIELD: In fact...

(CROSSTALK)

CALLENDER: Of course, I believe the human body is not for buying and selling.

WHITFIELD: In fact, let me ask you, Mr. Cohen, if you could then respond to that because there are those that say then, this will precipitate yet a new problem, particularly among perhaps poor families, poor individuals who just might see this as a way in which to help finance their family.

COHEN: Well, there's many different possible kinds of organ markets that could be created. The one that I have advocated in print is not one in which organs are purchased from living donors. It's organs from cadavers, and what I'd point out to you is cadavers are neither rich nor poor. Cadavers are merely dead. And so it entitles no sacrifice on the part of the donor to donate the organ.

WHITFIELD: Except a deal has to be made before they're dead.

COHEN: Yes. That's right. The deal has to be made but it's no sacrifice. They don't give up organs until they die. As for the notion of altruism, the thing to keep in mind is that we're living in a very tragic situation now. Something between a half and 75 percent of all available organs that could restore people to health and life are instead being fed to worms. And, the altruism of the current system is a very petty sort of altruism. Let me illustrate it for you this way.

WHITFIELD: Well, I am going to have to cut you off there because we're running out of time. But Dr. Callender, if I can allow you to have the last word on if this is not an option what do you see as an option -- a viable option in order to help increase the availability of organs for people who need them?

CALLENDER: Well, I see genetic engineering. I see stem cell research. And I see the coming age of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) transplantations as a way to address the number one problem in transplantation today -- the shortage of organs.

WHITFIELD: All right. Dr. Clive Callender and Lloyd Cohen, thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us. We appreciate it.

Coming up next, the hunt for shuttle debris moves westward. Searchers find objects that may have come from the doomed spacecraft.

And later, the future of warfare tanks. They -- these tanks may be getting some help from a little brother. That and more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: This jawbone belongs to one of the earliest pre humans discovered in Africa on the banks of the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old. The era when our early cousins, Homo habilis, walked the earth. It is estimated he was about four and a half feet tall, a foot larger than the older and famous fossil Lucy. This hominid, researchers think, also had a bigger brain than Lucy, but still only half the size of ours. Also uncovered, primitive tools researchers say were used to butcher meat. Tool marks and cuts found on large animal bones at he site are some of the earliest indications yet that our early relatives feasted on animals as big as modern day antelopes. They probably didn't hunt at the time but were scavengers. Researchers say these and other findings are helping piece together how we evolved and whether early tool use and the extra protein from eating lots of meat have anything to do with how we humans got bigger brains than the earliest predecessors.

Well, taking now a look at some of the headlines; could foam -- foam just like this acoustic insulation have helped spread in the fire? Apparently tiles made of the very material may have been placed within the club. Often this kind of material is in sound booths, of audio booths, and recording rooms, etcetera. Well, in a press conference earlier today, Governor Donald Carcieri said they're taking a closer look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. DONALD CARCIERI, RHODE ISLAND: There's no question that the composition of the insulating material is a major focus of understanding what that is. And my understanding is we have samples of that. Tests are going on so that we can ascertain what that is, exactly. As you well know, there are some kinds of this material that are highly flammable. There are other types that are flame retardant. And, so, until we know what the material was, and understand that, then we can make a judgment as to whether it was appropriate for that venue in that use.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Rhode Island Governor Carcieri.

Well, searchers continue to comb through the rubble in a Toys 'R' Us store in Maryland, where the roof there collapsed yesterday under the weight of heavy snow and rain. Officials sat they are cautiously optimistic that they will not find anyone trapped inside. The collapse injured at least nine people, but none of the injuries was considered life threatening.

The Department of Homeland Security has unveiled a new Web site that gives advice on how to prepare for a terrorist attack. The site, ready.gov is part of a broad campaign to get Americans to put together a home emergency kit, and make plans for what they would do if an attack were to happen.

A NASA satellite gave new view of that huge oil depot fire on Staten Island on Friday. The image from the Sea Wisk (ph) satellite shows a huge brown plume of smoke from the burning fuel spreading across Long Island and the Atlantic Ocean.

Searchers in Nevada have found debris that may have come from the space shuttle Columbia as it broke up in the sky three weeks ago. If the material is in fact from Columbia, it would be the furthest west that shuttle pieces have been found. The material will be sent to NASA investigators for analysis.

Well, as the search for debris from the shuttle Columbia continues, the investigation board looks to see what warning signs NASA had before Columbia broke apart. CNN's space correspondent Miles O'Brien reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The foam that fell off Columbia's external fuel tank and hit the shuttle's wing 82 seconds after launch was the focus of a lot of attention while the doomed spacecraft was in orbit. Engineers employed by shuttle contractor Boeing offered at least three reports during the mission that evaluated the foam strike and its implications. The first report completed five days after launch estimated the foam hit the wing at a relative speed of more than 500 miles an hour, at an angle of less than 20 degrees. The report suggested an impact near Columbia's left main landing gear, a well-known Achilles heel for a shuttle.

RANDY AVERA, FORMER NASA ENGINEER: Anywhere along that center line of the orbiter on the belly of the orbiter or out on the wings, the leading edge of the wings, or even back on the body flap in this area and the trailing edge of the ailerons, these are all critical areas.

O'BRIEN: Another report came in three days later. It said there were actually three pieces of debris, each as long as 20 inches, and it also calculated they hit near the left main landing gear door. In the meantime, another team of Boeing engineers, another report. Using a computer program called "Crater" (ph), they saw the potential for large thermal protection system damage. They concluded that depending on the damage, Columbia's aluminum skin could be exposed to temperatures of between 540 and 790 degrees. But in both cases, the engineers concluded it was no issue.

AVERA: The temperatures of the aluminum skin of the orbiter are not allowed to exceed 350 degrees Fahrenheit for normal operations of orbiter. And I can't understand how it's concluded to be a non-issue with critical systems involved and temperatures that are double the allowed limit.

O'BRIEN: A landing gear expert at NASA's Langley Field, Bob Dougherty weighed in on the what ifing as well, even though he wasn't asked to do so officially. On January 29, he wrote, the current official estimate of damage is seven by 30 inches by half the depth of the tiles. One of the biggest concerns, he writes, is that the gouge may cross the main gear door thermal barrier and permit a breach there. It is a seemingly prophetic e-mail as the independent board investigating Columbia's disintegration says the evidence points to a thermal breach in that wheel well.

SEAN O'KEEFE, NASA ADMINISTRATOR: This is not about who did what where. It's to figure out what happened, how do we fix it, and how do we get back to flying.

O'BRIEN (on camera): No matter who knew what when, during Columbia's mission, it appears the crew's fate was sealed. Even if the problem had been discovered, NASA says there is nothing anyone on the ground or in space could have done to avert disaster. But the Columbia board will also look at three previous shuttle missions in 1983, 1990 and 1992 when big pieces of foam fell off that external tank, to ensure that NASA responded properly then to what might have been the early signs of trouble.

Miles O'Brien, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And Miles will continue to stay on top of the shuttle investigation in the weeks and months ahead. But first coming up on NEXT, we'll talk about a weapon system designed to bust Iraqi Scuds before hitting targets such as Israel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WHITFIELD: With fears that Israel will be a target for Iraqi missiles if war breaks out, there's still controversy over how well the Patriot missiles protected Israelis in the last Gulf War. New Arrow missiles will share the task this time. For more on the Arrow, Kelly Wallace is in Jerusalem.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Fredricka, during the Gulf War, the American Patriots did not have much success. They failed to prevent 39 Iraqi Scuds from hitting Israel. But American and Israeli officials believe they have will have more success this time around, namely because of that $2 billion Arrow anti-missile system.

(voice-over): While the Patriot can only knock out an incoming missile near the end of its flight, the Arrow intercepts incoming missiles at a very high altitude, at least 30 miles above the ground and at least 60 miles away from the launch site, which means the Arrow could intercept missiles over neighboring Jordan. The Arrow does not directly strike an incoming missile, instead it tries to get close enough to its target and then it blows itself up. The system was tested as recently as last month when Israeli officials say it was able to hit several incoming missiles at once, but officials also say they know the real test will be in a war.

As a backup to the Arrow, upgraded American Patriot anti-missile batteries started arriving in late December. At least 600 U.S. troops have been on hand in Israel teaming up Israeli forces for joint exercises which wrapped up earlier this month. Israeli officials say they have a two-tier defense. The Arrow which tried to shoot down Scuds at high altitudes and the Patriots would go after Scuds that get past the Arrow. Overall, the Israelis we recently talked to say they're very confident the improved defenses will prevent what happened in 1991 from happening again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The technology is way better than 1991. It's -- I feel that very secure about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the combination of the Arrows, testing, and placement, deployment and the Patriot missiles gives us a psychologically and emotionally as good of feeling as we can have given the situation.

WALLACE (on camera): As part of the coordination between the United States and Israel, an American military liaison team is now at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and will remain there during any possible war. The U.S. wants to prevent Israel from becoming involved in any way. Israel did not retaliate against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, but it is threatening to do so this time around.

Fredricka, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks, Kelly. Joining us now is CNN military analyst and retired general David Grange to help us understand what exactly is at stake. The U.S. wants to avoid involving Israel in the conflict at all, but General, can the U.S. afford not to have a plan in place just in case?

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET): Well, the United States, I believe, has already -- has a plan in place in place with the Israelis. I think the real guts of the plan is to destroy any Scud capability before it's even launched. But as Kelly was just describing, if it does launch, if Scuds are launched against Israel, they're picked up by satellite, handed off to other surveillance radar-type systems, and then with the combination of the Israeli Arrow system, and the Pack 3, which is the upgrade to the U.S. Patriot and some other air defense lower capable type means, they have a very robust layered defense especially compared to '91.

WHITFIELD: Well, as a former field commander in '91 during the Gulf War, do you feel that in company with the Arrow, that the Patriot system is likely to be much more effective this go around if it were to be put into action?

GRANGE: From what I have read and who I have talked to, yes. It's much more capable. The U.S. system has been tested. The Arrow initiative was a joint venture with the Israelis and the United States. The other thing, I believe, is that lessons learned from the Gulf War on how to find Scud hide sites, launch sites, how to destroy them early on, the reconnaissance that it takes to find them. That's much more capable than it was in the past war. And then, Israel itself has a very detailed civil defense program in place, so depending on where the missile may hit -- for instance, a Scud takes six to seven minutes to get to Israel, and there is plans in place on how to react to that in the country of Israel itself. So it's much better than last time.

WHITFIELD: Isn't the feeling that the concentration of missile launch sites from the Iraqi country is primarily in the western part of that region?

GRANGE: Yes. In the western part of Iraq, and I guess the biggest challenge would be multiple launches. Multiple launches, of course, would be the hardest to defend against. But I think that the coalition forces have a pretty good idea where they'll launch from if they're allowed to even launch.

WHITFIELD: We're talking about this H-2 and H-3, right? Can you explain that?

GRANGE: That area habitually is -- it notices the Scud box. It is an area that was used in the '91 war by Iraq to fire missiles into Israel. We know the area very well now. Our armed forces -- to include the coalition partners.

It's a -- they have to fire from there because of the range involved with the Scuds that may be used.

WHITFIELD: All right. General Grange. Thank you very much. Always good to see you. GRANGE: My pleasure.

WHITFIELD: Well, lots more coming up in our next hour, up NEXT@CNN, including a look at whether the Pentagon is getting the biggest bang for its billion-dollar a day budget.

And later in the show, we'll hear from Arthel Neville at the site of tonight's Grammy Awards, right from the red carpet. You can see right now, people are starting to assemble. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back to NEXT@CNN. Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea, the U.S. military needs different tools for these different threats.

The Bush administration wants a beefed up Pentagon budget roughly a billion dollars a day, but is that budget getting the best bang for its buck?

Joining us from our Washington bureau, Frank Gaffney, former official in Ronald Reagan's Defense Department, now the president of the Center for Security Policy.

Also in our Washington studio, Christopher Hellman, a senior research analyst at the Center for Defense Information.

Good to see both of you.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER HELLMAN, CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION: Thanks.

WHITFIELD: All right. Everyone agrees that it costs a lot of money to develop and refine tools of weaponry for the Department of Defense. But the disagreement comes on what areas are more deserving than the others.

So let's begin with the B-22 Osprey, which has been quite controversial for quite awhile. Frank?

GAFFNEY: It has been, principally because it's been plagued by some technical developmental problems and some fatal crashes that resulted from them.

However, the reason it's still going and the reason why I'm confident that it will be ultimately deployed and widely used by the Defense Department -- not just, by the way, the marines and the special operation forces but, I think, in a host of applications -- is because it really is a transformational technology.

It is one that has been understood as a real revolutionary system for many years but particularly in the kinds of environments that we're dealing with today, the war on terror in which you've got to be able to move forces quickly over long distances, stealthily and in a survivable way. This is really an instrument of choice and it's just a shame that it's not available already.

WHITFIELD: Well, Christopher, no one disputes that the Osprey appears to be very versatile or at least it was designed to be very versatile.

But at what point do you make a decision on how much money needs to be sunk into a project when it doesn't seem to be a perfect project?

HELLMAN: Well, that really is -- yes, that's really a good question. What we've seen in the case of the Osprey is that it's been delayed for, you know, years. This is a program that Secretary of Defense Cheney in 1992 tried to cut as being unnecessary and too expensive, and since then, the cost of the program -- per unit cost of the unit has basically trebled.

So the question then becomes, you know, are we throwing good money after bad in this program?

The future of the marine corps may very well be tilt rotor technology but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be the Osprey.

WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk about the F-22 Raptor. This is created for air combat.

Christopher, I want to let you address that, then, first. Does the U.S. necessarily have an enemy to threaten its air warfare while in the air?

HELLMAN: Well, at this point, we probably don't, but that's only really part of the problem. What we have to look at with the F-22 and make no mistake, if it works as advertised, it's going to be the most profoundly advanced fire aircraft that we have ever seen.

The problem you run into is that the staggering per unit cost of the thing is putting in the situation where we simply won't be able to purchase enough of them to buy enough air frames, to do all the things that the air force says it needs to be able to do.

WHITFIELD: All right, Frank, how do you defend the Raptor?

GAFFNEY: Well, in -- a point that ought to be made about both this and the B-22, for that matter, is we've deferred modernization of what the services have been using for these jobs. We're going to have to replace aircraft one way or the other.

I agree with Christopher. I think the F-22 will dramatically improve the capabilities of the United States air force. I think we do need to get it into production, we do need to actually start getting those unit costs down.

But I think the truth of the matter is we don't know what the future's going to look like and whether it's air to air threats of the future or whether it's surface to air threats of the future. Having a stealthy aircraft with the performance characteristics of this, I think, will be well worth the investment. And I think we'll get there later, probably, rather than sooner but we will have this aircraft in the inventory.

WHITFIELD: Well, Frank, let me -- Let me stick with you as we move on to another somewhat controversial defense system, and that's the missile defense system, some saying that it really still is very much a pipe dream.

GAFFNEY: Well, it's not. It's actually proving itself day after day. There are, as with a number of these programs, developmental challenges.

We have not been working in this area as assiduously and, I think, as effectively as we should have. Principally because, until very recently, until really the president withdrew from the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, we couldn't. We were unable to do the full kinds of testing and take full advantage of the technology available.

But one thing I would say is I believe that what we will do very quickly is utilize the navy's Aegis fleet air defense system, an existing system in the inventory today, as a missile defender if, God forbid, somebody lets fly with one of the missiles that's out there, perhaps a short-range missile off of a ship, and destroys some place we care about whether it's the Middle East or perhaps here.

That's something that we will do. I wish that we were doing it more aggressively now so that we'd have a defense in place. Unfortunately, we still don't have such a defense in place, but I think the idea that we're in a world in which you can live without missile defense is naive and increasingly reckless.

WHITFIELD: All right. Christopher, then, would the same argument -- or could the same argument be made for the B-1B Lancers? Lancer bomber?

HELLMAN: Well, I'm not sure what the analogy is there. The B- 1's been in the inventory for over 20 years now. The problem is it hasn't been operationally very much value to us until the last few years because it was -- there were development problems and then it was -- it was actually tasked to do the nuclear mission well into the mid-1990s.

It's only just now being sort of retasked, reconfigured, so it can perform conventionally. But that's an expensive thing to do, and one of the things that the air force is looking at, as a way to fund that, is actually retire a portion of the fleet in order to make the remaining portion of the fleet operationally more suitable for the current environment.

WHITFIELD: All right. Frank, would you agree with that?

GAFFNEY: Well, the system that I wish we were doing more procurement of is not the B-1 but the B-2, the stealth bomber. And I think it's a terrible mistake that the Pentagon made earlier this year -- you were talking about the F-22. One of the shortcomings of, no pun intended, of that aircraft is it has relatively short range.

WHITFIELD: All right.

GAFFNEY: Having a long-range bomber for the future is critically important. I think the B-2 is the obvious choice.

WHITFIELD: All right. Frank Gaffney and Christopher Hellman, thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us.

GAFFNEY: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Appreciate it.

HELLMAN: My pleasure.

WHITFIELD: Well, next up on NEXT@CNN, we'll have more on military might, 70 tons of military might, as a matter of fact. Find out why the most advanced tank in the world may already be outmoded.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The weapons the U.S. would use in a war against Iraq go beyond what was available in the 1991 Gulf War and the next generation of weapons systems is now on the drawing board.

Art Harris got a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Engage on contact.

ART HARRIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The best tank in the world may already be a dinosaur, too heavy at 70 tons.

The Abrams tank is a gas guzzler. Even with a 500-gallon tank, that still won't get it as far as the family car.

And it's too big to move quickly from war zone to war zone.

HARRIS (on camera): Seventy tons is tough to get somewhere overnight.

BRIG. GEN. ROBERT NIXON, FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY: That's right.

HARRIS: FedEx can't take it.

NIXON: That's right.

HARRIS: So what are you looking for?

NIXON: Well, we're looking for something much smaller, much lighter, that fits inside the air force aircraft, the navy ships. It may be 50, 20 tons or somewhere in between there is the current line of thinking.

HARRIS (voice-over): It will need to be a lot smaller to squeeze through narrow city streets.

NIXON: Much of our future combat is going to occur in towns and villages and cities.

HARRIS (on camera): Like Baghdad?

NIXON: Perhaps. Baghdad is one of several. Might be the next battlefield.

HARRIS (voice-over): At Fort Knox, Kentucky, General Robert Nixon is helping redesign the way the U.S. army will fight in the future.

NIXON: We want to find them before they ever see us.

HARRIS: Tanks that can work out of sight and fire ammo that can curve above a city.

NIXON: Which means it doesn't fly a straight line path. It actually flies up and over the buildings.

HARRIS: Now in the testing stage, a microchip soldier, a robot that can find targets and lead tanks to them.

(on camera): That sounds like R2D2.

NIXON: Well, in some ways, it may look that way. We anticipate robots doing a variety of tasks in support of soldiers.

For example, looking for mines and booby traps, flushing out enemies from a cave or from a building and you know, we're doing some of that, have done, in Afghanistan recently. We have used robots in caves.

HARRIS: The goal: to spot the enemy and search from afar. An unseen assassin.

NIXON: There's no place to hide, no place to run. And we're not going to have a fair fight. We have no intention of having the old gunfight in the OK Coral.

HARRIS: Advanced scouts, or drones, call in a target. Computers in the tanks help do the rest.

Just click of the button?

NIXON: It's a click of the button. I mean, it seems like Nintendo in some cases.

HARRIS: Still, in the end, soldiers may have to finish the fight on foot.

NIXON: It's not going to make it any less dangerous in many ways than it is right now. War is still a bloody, dangerous, hard business.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And art is with us now, live right here in Atlanta.

And Art, let's talk a little bit more about these tanks and the new technology. Tanks, particularly.

How well did U.S. tanks do during the Gulf War?

HARRIS: Fredricka, it was no match. They decimated Iraqi armor, left them flaming in the desert, their commanders running for cover.

Their commanders reported that later that they did not even see American armor coming, did not know they were in the neighborhood until they were hit. And so, the U.S. had a tremendous advantage in technology.

They can go at 45 miles per hour, hit targets two miles away, while they're moving, acquire four targets at a time.

And some things, thought, that need to be improved are what a commander sees on the battlefield so he can make sure his troops can always be identified and there are no friendly fire episodes.

But U.S. tanks and armor did not lose one tank to enemy fire in the Gulf War.

WHITFIELD: Now Art, there's been a lot of talk about, if there is a war with Iraq, that this would indeed employ kind of an urban warfare technology that would go into place.

Would these new kinds of tanks be better for urban warfare?

HARRIS: They would be lighter, they would be smaller. They could get down alleys in a place like Baghdad, for example, much easier than the kind of tank that you see here, which is the M-182. They only have a certain elevation with their barrels so they would have a hard time taking out, say, a machine nest at the top of a building.

The new lighter tanks might not be able to run over a car like the old ones can. But, the new tanks would have an improved protection system where they could possibly vaporize an incoming round before it hit them.

WHITFIELD: Wow.

HARRIS: So here you see tanks and troops fighting together. The idea in the new force could be that soldiers would not have to get as close to know what the enemy is doing because the robot soldiers could see over buildings.

WHITFIELD: And are these tanks virtually indestructible?

HARRIS: Well, the new tanks, as I said, Paula -- I mean, Fredricka, excuse me -- would have a kind of system where they could possibly vaporize incoming rounds.

WHITFIELD: OK.

HARRIS: The old tanks have uranium depleted armor.

WHITFIELD: All right. Art Harris, thanks very much.

HARRIS: Thanks, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Well, coming up, a wondrous come back for migrating monarchs. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back.

Taking a look at some next news headlines, a former U.S. Forest Service employee received a six-year federal prison sentence on Friday for starting the largest fire in Colorado history. The fire in Pike National Forest last June destroyed nearly 140,000 acres and more than 600 structures.

Terry Lynn Barton could have been sentenced to pay restitution, but the judge declined saying, quote, "You can't ascribe a value to a natural resource."

Exotic Newcastle disease spread to yet another California poultry farm this week despite efforts to control it. More than 2 million birds have been destroyed, and a quarantine zone has been established.

The disease is harmless to humans and doesn't affect the safety of meat or eggs, but it's easily spread and can wipe out entire flocks of birds.

The migration of the monarch butterfly from Canada to Mexico is always a mystery but now more so. Last year, storms and cold weather killed up to 80 percent of the butterflies there.

Yet this year, the bugs were back in droves, twice as many as researchers had expected.

Well, don't go away. Coming up next, Arthel Neville will be in New York to tell us how you can watch tonight's Grammy awards without a ticket or even a television set.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. And the winners are -- we'll find out in a few hours when the 45th annual Grammy Awards begin.

Some of the nominees include Avril Lavigne, Nickelback and *NSync.

Arthel Neville joins us live from the red carpet with Mitch Roth of Grammy.com, who is hoping to take the show online.

There you are. All dolled up.

ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And you know what, Fred, let me tell you something. The stars are definitely out tonight. Bonnie Raitt is right over there. Gwen Stefani from No Doubt was just with me, India.Arie.

But Mitch Roth right now is a star because Mitch will tell us how to go to Grammy.com and find out what's going on behind the scenes as the show is going on. Right?

MITCH ROTH, GRAMMY.COM: That's correct. Grammy.com provides unique, online and exclusive access to really everything that's going on at the Grammy awards. Whether...

NEVILLE: So what will I see if I go to Grammy.com during the show?

ROTH: You will see what's going on behind the scenes. What's going on -- how the artists move through the media center. How they get their pictures taken...

NEVILLE: Media center, that means when they go behind backstage to talk to the reporters after they make their acceptance speeches?

ROTH: They'll talk to reporters. They'll get their photos taken. Photos that people just typically don't get to see.

They'll go on to the one on one rooms for a lot of the major networks. So they'll get to go and see and do things that the public typically doesn't get to see on Grammy.com.

NEVILLE: So basically, you go to Grammy.com and you're going to feel like a star yourself, you're going to feel like a VIP because you'll be right in the mix as it's all happening?

ROTH: That's correct. Nobody else has it. You'll see it on Grammy.com and on AOL. AOL's our exclusive partner. AOL will have webcams in rooms that nobody else is going to have. So you'd be able to see it there, as well.

NEVILLE: I see. Well, you know what? Look, we're talking about Grammy.com. It's all about music here. I'm looking around, because I'm seeing so many stars. Who are you looking forward to seeing tonight?

ROTH: Me personally? The Boss.

NEVILLE: Well, of course you are. Of course you are. So that means you're going to be hoping that he walks away with a Grammy or two tonight?

ROTH: I would like to see that, yes. Yes, I would.

NEVILLE: Yes, I see. Well, I've got to tell you something: it's tough out here because, I mean, the competition -- I just was talking to Gwen Stefani. You saw her, right? With No Doubt?

Gwen Stefani is up against Avril Lavigne, Pink and Norah Jones for Best Pop Vocal Album. I wouldn't know who to vote for.

ROTH: Neither would I.

All right, Mitch Roth, thank you so much. Nice to see you. Thank you very much.

All right, Fred, you know what? The music will roll tonight here in New York City. And they will do it none other than Big Apple style.

Back to you, Fred, in Atlanta.

WHITFIELD: All right, Arthel. You'll be rolling right along with them. All right. Thanks a lot. Good to see you.

Well, that's all the time we have for now. But before we go, here's a peek at what's coming up next week.

It's that time of year, again. Time for Alaska's annual Iditarod sled dog race. We'll tell you about a big change in store for mushers this year.

That story and much more coming up next week. Hope you'll join us.

Coming up next, "AMERICAN STORIES."

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Drive Up Defense Costs; Grammy Awards Get Under Way Tonight>


Aired February 23, 2003 - 16:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, HOST: Hello, I am Fredricka Whitfield. Today on NEXT@CNN, a controversial proposal to buy and sell human organs in the wake of the sad case of Jesica Santillan.
Did you know the Pentagon has $1 billion to spend every day? We'll talk about the weapon systems that drive up the cost of defending the country.

And take you to the site of the Grammys. Find out how you can watch tonight's festivities without a television set or a ticket.

Hello. Everyone and welcome to NEXT@CNN for this Sunday, February 23. The double organ transplant case of Jesica Santillan raises difficult questions for doctors and for all of us. Jesica, who first received organs of the wrong blood type, died yesterday, two days after receiving a second transplant. The Santillan family has decided not to donate any of the girl's organs according to Duke University Medical Center. Jesica's case points out the severe shortage of organs and the complications that arise. She was on a waiting list for three years. Most people on the list won't ever get organ transplants that they need.

One controversial question being raised now on the issue of availability, should it be legal to buy and sell human organs? Would it increase the supply? With us in our Washington Bureau, Dr. Clive Callender, a surgeon and head of the transplant center at Howard University Hospital and founder of MOTTEP, the Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program, and Lloyd Cohen, a professor and attorney at George Mason University in Virginia, and he has written several articles on this very topic. Good to see you both of you gentlemen.

DR. CLIVE CALLENDER, TRANSPLANT SURGEON: Thank you for letting me join you.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Cohen, let me begin with you because you were quoted as saying that, quote "Healthy people contract to sell their organs for delivery after death. If those organs are harvested and transplanted, a payment in the range of $5,000 for each major organ would be made." Presumably to the survivors?

LLOYD COHEN, ATTORNEY: Well, it could be to the survivors. It could be to a charity. It could be to a designee, subject to the contract. It would give the person an opportunity to be doubly generous. To be generous to the recipient of the organs and then to be generous to someone with financial payment after their death.

WHITFIELD: And it's your position to do that in order to do that, to sell these organs that that will boost the supply?

COHEN: Oh, certainly. That's really beyond question by reasonable people. We boost the supply of every other valuable item by paying for it. This is simply scandalous that the single irreplaceable part for a transplant is not paid for. We pay for the scalpels, we pay for the hospital rooms. We pay for everything. We don't pay for the organ.

WHITFIELD: And Dr. Callender, if I could bring you in. Do you find this as scandalous to even have such a program or to advocate the selling of organs?

CALLENDER: I think his idea is scandalous.

WHITFIELD: Why is that?

CALLENDER: I think that -- I guess I've heard it many times that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and I'm certainly sure that he has good intentions, but I think he's starting a slippery slope that would be injurious to many, not only in this country, but across the globe. So I think that it is a terrible idea.

WHITFIELD: Well, Dr. Callender, it's interest in that some people do exchange plasma for money. So what is the difference? Why not organs?

CALLENDER: If you would look into your history of it, you'll identify that, as a matter of fact, blood donations, etcetera, were financed. But because of the calamities and the serious tragedies that occurred because paid donors lied and did other things, and they harbored diseases that made their paying for blood no longer possible. Because it is dangerous practice, because it takes away the altruism and the act of doing something for good but turns it into something that's commercial. So that you buy and sell.

WHITFIELD: In fact...

(CROSSTALK)

CALLENDER: Of course, I believe the human body is not for buying and selling.

WHITFIELD: In fact, let me ask you, Mr. Cohen, if you could then respond to that because there are those that say then, this will precipitate yet a new problem, particularly among perhaps poor families, poor individuals who just might see this as a way in which to help finance their family.

COHEN: Well, there's many different possible kinds of organ markets that could be created. The one that I have advocated in print is not one in which organs are purchased from living donors. It's organs from cadavers, and what I'd point out to you is cadavers are neither rich nor poor. Cadavers are merely dead. And so it entitles no sacrifice on the part of the donor to donate the organ.

WHITFIELD: Except a deal has to be made before they're dead.

COHEN: Yes. That's right. The deal has to be made but it's no sacrifice. They don't give up organs until they die. As for the notion of altruism, the thing to keep in mind is that we're living in a very tragic situation now. Something between a half and 75 percent of all available organs that could restore people to health and life are instead being fed to worms. And, the altruism of the current system is a very petty sort of altruism. Let me illustrate it for you this way.

WHITFIELD: Well, I am going to have to cut you off there because we're running out of time. But Dr. Callender, if I can allow you to have the last word on if this is not an option what do you see as an option -- a viable option in order to help increase the availability of organs for people who need them?

CALLENDER: Well, I see genetic engineering. I see stem cell research. And I see the coming age of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) transplantations as a way to address the number one problem in transplantation today -- the shortage of organs.

WHITFIELD: All right. Dr. Clive Callender and Lloyd Cohen, thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us. We appreciate it.

Coming up next, the hunt for shuttle debris moves westward. Searchers find objects that may have come from the doomed spacecraft.

And later, the future of warfare tanks. They -- these tanks may be getting some help from a little brother. That and more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: This jawbone belongs to one of the earliest pre humans discovered in Africa on the banks of the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old. The era when our early cousins, Homo habilis, walked the earth. It is estimated he was about four and a half feet tall, a foot larger than the older and famous fossil Lucy. This hominid, researchers think, also had a bigger brain than Lucy, but still only half the size of ours. Also uncovered, primitive tools researchers say were used to butcher meat. Tool marks and cuts found on large animal bones at he site are some of the earliest indications yet that our early relatives feasted on animals as big as modern day antelopes. They probably didn't hunt at the time but were scavengers. Researchers say these and other findings are helping piece together how we evolved and whether early tool use and the extra protein from eating lots of meat have anything to do with how we humans got bigger brains than the earliest predecessors.

Well, taking now a look at some of the headlines; could foam -- foam just like this acoustic insulation have helped spread in the fire? Apparently tiles made of the very material may have been placed within the club. Often this kind of material is in sound booths, of audio booths, and recording rooms, etcetera. Well, in a press conference earlier today, Governor Donald Carcieri said they're taking a closer look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. DONALD CARCIERI, RHODE ISLAND: There's no question that the composition of the insulating material is a major focus of understanding what that is. And my understanding is we have samples of that. Tests are going on so that we can ascertain what that is, exactly. As you well know, there are some kinds of this material that are highly flammable. There are other types that are flame retardant. And, so, until we know what the material was, and understand that, then we can make a judgment as to whether it was appropriate for that venue in that use.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Rhode Island Governor Carcieri.

Well, searchers continue to comb through the rubble in a Toys 'R' Us store in Maryland, where the roof there collapsed yesterday under the weight of heavy snow and rain. Officials sat they are cautiously optimistic that they will not find anyone trapped inside. The collapse injured at least nine people, but none of the injuries was considered life threatening.

The Department of Homeland Security has unveiled a new Web site that gives advice on how to prepare for a terrorist attack. The site, ready.gov is part of a broad campaign to get Americans to put together a home emergency kit, and make plans for what they would do if an attack were to happen.

A NASA satellite gave new view of that huge oil depot fire on Staten Island on Friday. The image from the Sea Wisk (ph) satellite shows a huge brown plume of smoke from the burning fuel spreading across Long Island and the Atlantic Ocean.

Searchers in Nevada have found debris that may have come from the space shuttle Columbia as it broke up in the sky three weeks ago. If the material is in fact from Columbia, it would be the furthest west that shuttle pieces have been found. The material will be sent to NASA investigators for analysis.

Well, as the search for debris from the shuttle Columbia continues, the investigation board looks to see what warning signs NASA had before Columbia broke apart. CNN's space correspondent Miles O'Brien reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The foam that fell off Columbia's external fuel tank and hit the shuttle's wing 82 seconds after launch was the focus of a lot of attention while the doomed spacecraft was in orbit. Engineers employed by shuttle contractor Boeing offered at least three reports during the mission that evaluated the foam strike and its implications. The first report completed five days after launch estimated the foam hit the wing at a relative speed of more than 500 miles an hour, at an angle of less than 20 degrees. The report suggested an impact near Columbia's left main landing gear, a well-known Achilles heel for a shuttle.

RANDY AVERA, FORMER NASA ENGINEER: Anywhere along that center line of the orbiter on the belly of the orbiter or out on the wings, the leading edge of the wings, or even back on the body flap in this area and the trailing edge of the ailerons, these are all critical areas.

O'BRIEN: Another report came in three days later. It said there were actually three pieces of debris, each as long as 20 inches, and it also calculated they hit near the left main landing gear door. In the meantime, another team of Boeing engineers, another report. Using a computer program called "Crater" (ph), they saw the potential for large thermal protection system damage. They concluded that depending on the damage, Columbia's aluminum skin could be exposed to temperatures of between 540 and 790 degrees. But in both cases, the engineers concluded it was no issue.

AVERA: The temperatures of the aluminum skin of the orbiter are not allowed to exceed 350 degrees Fahrenheit for normal operations of orbiter. And I can't understand how it's concluded to be a non-issue with critical systems involved and temperatures that are double the allowed limit.

O'BRIEN: A landing gear expert at NASA's Langley Field, Bob Dougherty weighed in on the what ifing as well, even though he wasn't asked to do so officially. On January 29, he wrote, the current official estimate of damage is seven by 30 inches by half the depth of the tiles. One of the biggest concerns, he writes, is that the gouge may cross the main gear door thermal barrier and permit a breach there. It is a seemingly prophetic e-mail as the independent board investigating Columbia's disintegration says the evidence points to a thermal breach in that wheel well.

SEAN O'KEEFE, NASA ADMINISTRATOR: This is not about who did what where. It's to figure out what happened, how do we fix it, and how do we get back to flying.

O'BRIEN (on camera): No matter who knew what when, during Columbia's mission, it appears the crew's fate was sealed. Even if the problem had been discovered, NASA says there is nothing anyone on the ground or in space could have done to avert disaster. But the Columbia board will also look at three previous shuttle missions in 1983, 1990 and 1992 when big pieces of foam fell off that external tank, to ensure that NASA responded properly then to what might have been the early signs of trouble.

Miles O'Brien, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And Miles will continue to stay on top of the shuttle investigation in the weeks and months ahead. But first coming up on NEXT, we'll talk about a weapon system designed to bust Iraqi Scuds before hitting targets such as Israel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WHITFIELD: With fears that Israel will be a target for Iraqi missiles if war breaks out, there's still controversy over how well the Patriot missiles protected Israelis in the last Gulf War. New Arrow missiles will share the task this time. For more on the Arrow, Kelly Wallace is in Jerusalem.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Fredricka, during the Gulf War, the American Patriots did not have much success. They failed to prevent 39 Iraqi Scuds from hitting Israel. But American and Israeli officials believe they have will have more success this time around, namely because of that $2 billion Arrow anti-missile system.

(voice-over): While the Patriot can only knock out an incoming missile near the end of its flight, the Arrow intercepts incoming missiles at a very high altitude, at least 30 miles above the ground and at least 60 miles away from the launch site, which means the Arrow could intercept missiles over neighboring Jordan. The Arrow does not directly strike an incoming missile, instead it tries to get close enough to its target and then it blows itself up. The system was tested as recently as last month when Israeli officials say it was able to hit several incoming missiles at once, but officials also say they know the real test will be in a war.

As a backup to the Arrow, upgraded American Patriot anti-missile batteries started arriving in late December. At least 600 U.S. troops have been on hand in Israel teaming up Israeli forces for joint exercises which wrapped up earlier this month. Israeli officials say they have a two-tier defense. The Arrow which tried to shoot down Scuds at high altitudes and the Patriots would go after Scuds that get past the Arrow. Overall, the Israelis we recently talked to say they're very confident the improved defenses will prevent what happened in 1991 from happening again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The technology is way better than 1991. It's -- I feel that very secure about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the combination of the Arrows, testing, and placement, deployment and the Patriot missiles gives us a psychologically and emotionally as good of feeling as we can have given the situation.

WALLACE (on camera): As part of the coordination between the United States and Israel, an American military liaison team is now at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and will remain there during any possible war. The U.S. wants to prevent Israel from becoming involved in any way. Israel did not retaliate against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, but it is threatening to do so this time around.

Fredricka, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks, Kelly. Joining us now is CNN military analyst and retired general David Grange to help us understand what exactly is at stake. The U.S. wants to avoid involving Israel in the conflict at all, but General, can the U.S. afford not to have a plan in place just in case?

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET): Well, the United States, I believe, has already -- has a plan in place in place with the Israelis. I think the real guts of the plan is to destroy any Scud capability before it's even launched. But as Kelly was just describing, if it does launch, if Scuds are launched against Israel, they're picked up by satellite, handed off to other surveillance radar-type systems, and then with the combination of the Israeli Arrow system, and the Pack 3, which is the upgrade to the U.S. Patriot and some other air defense lower capable type means, they have a very robust layered defense especially compared to '91.

WHITFIELD: Well, as a former field commander in '91 during the Gulf War, do you feel that in company with the Arrow, that the Patriot system is likely to be much more effective this go around if it were to be put into action?

GRANGE: From what I have read and who I have talked to, yes. It's much more capable. The U.S. system has been tested. The Arrow initiative was a joint venture with the Israelis and the United States. The other thing, I believe, is that lessons learned from the Gulf War on how to find Scud hide sites, launch sites, how to destroy them early on, the reconnaissance that it takes to find them. That's much more capable than it was in the past war. And then, Israel itself has a very detailed civil defense program in place, so depending on where the missile may hit -- for instance, a Scud takes six to seven minutes to get to Israel, and there is plans in place on how to react to that in the country of Israel itself. So it's much better than last time.

WHITFIELD: Isn't the feeling that the concentration of missile launch sites from the Iraqi country is primarily in the western part of that region?

GRANGE: Yes. In the western part of Iraq, and I guess the biggest challenge would be multiple launches. Multiple launches, of course, would be the hardest to defend against. But I think that the coalition forces have a pretty good idea where they'll launch from if they're allowed to even launch.

WHITFIELD: We're talking about this H-2 and H-3, right? Can you explain that?

GRANGE: That area habitually is -- it notices the Scud box. It is an area that was used in the '91 war by Iraq to fire missiles into Israel. We know the area very well now. Our armed forces -- to include the coalition partners.

It's a -- they have to fire from there because of the range involved with the Scuds that may be used.

WHITFIELD: All right. General Grange. Thank you very much. Always good to see you. GRANGE: My pleasure.

WHITFIELD: Well, lots more coming up in our next hour, up NEXT@CNN, including a look at whether the Pentagon is getting the biggest bang for its billion-dollar a day budget.

And later in the show, we'll hear from Arthel Neville at the site of tonight's Grammy Awards, right from the red carpet. You can see right now, people are starting to assemble. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back to NEXT@CNN. Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea, the U.S. military needs different tools for these different threats.

The Bush administration wants a beefed up Pentagon budget roughly a billion dollars a day, but is that budget getting the best bang for its buck?

Joining us from our Washington bureau, Frank Gaffney, former official in Ronald Reagan's Defense Department, now the president of the Center for Security Policy.

Also in our Washington studio, Christopher Hellman, a senior research analyst at the Center for Defense Information.

Good to see both of you.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER HELLMAN, CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION: Thanks.

WHITFIELD: All right. Everyone agrees that it costs a lot of money to develop and refine tools of weaponry for the Department of Defense. But the disagreement comes on what areas are more deserving than the others.

So let's begin with the B-22 Osprey, which has been quite controversial for quite awhile. Frank?

GAFFNEY: It has been, principally because it's been plagued by some technical developmental problems and some fatal crashes that resulted from them.

However, the reason it's still going and the reason why I'm confident that it will be ultimately deployed and widely used by the Defense Department -- not just, by the way, the marines and the special operation forces but, I think, in a host of applications -- is because it really is a transformational technology.

It is one that has been understood as a real revolutionary system for many years but particularly in the kinds of environments that we're dealing with today, the war on terror in which you've got to be able to move forces quickly over long distances, stealthily and in a survivable way. This is really an instrument of choice and it's just a shame that it's not available already.

WHITFIELD: Well, Christopher, no one disputes that the Osprey appears to be very versatile or at least it was designed to be very versatile.

But at what point do you make a decision on how much money needs to be sunk into a project when it doesn't seem to be a perfect project?

HELLMAN: Well, that really is -- yes, that's really a good question. What we've seen in the case of the Osprey is that it's been delayed for, you know, years. This is a program that Secretary of Defense Cheney in 1992 tried to cut as being unnecessary and too expensive, and since then, the cost of the program -- per unit cost of the unit has basically trebled.

So the question then becomes, you know, are we throwing good money after bad in this program?

The future of the marine corps may very well be tilt rotor technology but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be the Osprey.

WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk about the F-22 Raptor. This is created for air combat.

Christopher, I want to let you address that, then, first. Does the U.S. necessarily have an enemy to threaten its air warfare while in the air?

HELLMAN: Well, at this point, we probably don't, but that's only really part of the problem. What we have to look at with the F-22 and make no mistake, if it works as advertised, it's going to be the most profoundly advanced fire aircraft that we have ever seen.

The problem you run into is that the staggering per unit cost of the thing is putting in the situation where we simply won't be able to purchase enough of them to buy enough air frames, to do all the things that the air force says it needs to be able to do.

WHITFIELD: All right, Frank, how do you defend the Raptor?

GAFFNEY: Well, in -- a point that ought to be made about both this and the B-22, for that matter, is we've deferred modernization of what the services have been using for these jobs. We're going to have to replace aircraft one way or the other.

I agree with Christopher. I think the F-22 will dramatically improve the capabilities of the United States air force. I think we do need to get it into production, we do need to actually start getting those unit costs down.

But I think the truth of the matter is we don't know what the future's going to look like and whether it's air to air threats of the future or whether it's surface to air threats of the future. Having a stealthy aircraft with the performance characteristics of this, I think, will be well worth the investment. And I think we'll get there later, probably, rather than sooner but we will have this aircraft in the inventory.

WHITFIELD: Well, Frank, let me -- Let me stick with you as we move on to another somewhat controversial defense system, and that's the missile defense system, some saying that it really still is very much a pipe dream.

GAFFNEY: Well, it's not. It's actually proving itself day after day. There are, as with a number of these programs, developmental challenges.

We have not been working in this area as assiduously and, I think, as effectively as we should have. Principally because, until very recently, until really the president withdrew from the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, we couldn't. We were unable to do the full kinds of testing and take full advantage of the technology available.

But one thing I would say is I believe that what we will do very quickly is utilize the navy's Aegis fleet air defense system, an existing system in the inventory today, as a missile defender if, God forbid, somebody lets fly with one of the missiles that's out there, perhaps a short-range missile off of a ship, and destroys some place we care about whether it's the Middle East or perhaps here.

That's something that we will do. I wish that we were doing it more aggressively now so that we'd have a defense in place. Unfortunately, we still don't have such a defense in place, but I think the idea that we're in a world in which you can live without missile defense is naive and increasingly reckless.

WHITFIELD: All right. Christopher, then, would the same argument -- or could the same argument be made for the B-1B Lancers? Lancer bomber?

HELLMAN: Well, I'm not sure what the analogy is there. The B- 1's been in the inventory for over 20 years now. The problem is it hasn't been operationally very much value to us until the last few years because it was -- there were development problems and then it was -- it was actually tasked to do the nuclear mission well into the mid-1990s.

It's only just now being sort of retasked, reconfigured, so it can perform conventionally. But that's an expensive thing to do, and one of the things that the air force is looking at, as a way to fund that, is actually retire a portion of the fleet in order to make the remaining portion of the fleet operationally more suitable for the current environment.

WHITFIELD: All right. Frank, would you agree with that?

GAFFNEY: Well, the system that I wish we were doing more procurement of is not the B-1 but the B-2, the stealth bomber. And I think it's a terrible mistake that the Pentagon made earlier this year -- you were talking about the F-22. One of the shortcomings of, no pun intended, of that aircraft is it has relatively short range.

WHITFIELD: All right.

GAFFNEY: Having a long-range bomber for the future is critically important. I think the B-2 is the obvious choice.

WHITFIELD: All right. Frank Gaffney and Christopher Hellman, thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us.

GAFFNEY: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Appreciate it.

HELLMAN: My pleasure.

WHITFIELD: Well, next up on NEXT@CNN, we'll have more on military might, 70 tons of military might, as a matter of fact. Find out why the most advanced tank in the world may already be outmoded.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The weapons the U.S. would use in a war against Iraq go beyond what was available in the 1991 Gulf War and the next generation of weapons systems is now on the drawing board.

Art Harris got a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Engage on contact.

ART HARRIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The best tank in the world may already be a dinosaur, too heavy at 70 tons.

The Abrams tank is a gas guzzler. Even with a 500-gallon tank, that still won't get it as far as the family car.

And it's too big to move quickly from war zone to war zone.

HARRIS (on camera): Seventy tons is tough to get somewhere overnight.

BRIG. GEN. ROBERT NIXON, FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY: That's right.

HARRIS: FedEx can't take it.

NIXON: That's right.

HARRIS: So what are you looking for?

NIXON: Well, we're looking for something much smaller, much lighter, that fits inside the air force aircraft, the navy ships. It may be 50, 20 tons or somewhere in between there is the current line of thinking.

HARRIS (voice-over): It will need to be a lot smaller to squeeze through narrow city streets.

NIXON: Much of our future combat is going to occur in towns and villages and cities.

HARRIS (on camera): Like Baghdad?

NIXON: Perhaps. Baghdad is one of several. Might be the next battlefield.

HARRIS (voice-over): At Fort Knox, Kentucky, General Robert Nixon is helping redesign the way the U.S. army will fight in the future.

NIXON: We want to find them before they ever see us.

HARRIS: Tanks that can work out of sight and fire ammo that can curve above a city.

NIXON: Which means it doesn't fly a straight line path. It actually flies up and over the buildings.

HARRIS: Now in the testing stage, a microchip soldier, a robot that can find targets and lead tanks to them.

(on camera): That sounds like R2D2.

NIXON: Well, in some ways, it may look that way. We anticipate robots doing a variety of tasks in support of soldiers.

For example, looking for mines and booby traps, flushing out enemies from a cave or from a building and you know, we're doing some of that, have done, in Afghanistan recently. We have used robots in caves.

HARRIS: The goal: to spot the enemy and search from afar. An unseen assassin.

NIXON: There's no place to hide, no place to run. And we're not going to have a fair fight. We have no intention of having the old gunfight in the OK Coral.

HARRIS: Advanced scouts, or drones, call in a target. Computers in the tanks help do the rest.

Just click of the button?

NIXON: It's a click of the button. I mean, it seems like Nintendo in some cases.

HARRIS: Still, in the end, soldiers may have to finish the fight on foot.

NIXON: It's not going to make it any less dangerous in many ways than it is right now. War is still a bloody, dangerous, hard business.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And art is with us now, live right here in Atlanta.

And Art, let's talk a little bit more about these tanks and the new technology. Tanks, particularly.

How well did U.S. tanks do during the Gulf War?

HARRIS: Fredricka, it was no match. They decimated Iraqi armor, left them flaming in the desert, their commanders running for cover.

Their commanders reported that later that they did not even see American armor coming, did not know they were in the neighborhood until they were hit. And so, the U.S. had a tremendous advantage in technology.

They can go at 45 miles per hour, hit targets two miles away, while they're moving, acquire four targets at a time.

And some things, thought, that need to be improved are what a commander sees on the battlefield so he can make sure his troops can always be identified and there are no friendly fire episodes.

But U.S. tanks and armor did not lose one tank to enemy fire in the Gulf War.

WHITFIELD: Now Art, there's been a lot of talk about, if there is a war with Iraq, that this would indeed employ kind of an urban warfare technology that would go into place.

Would these new kinds of tanks be better for urban warfare?

HARRIS: They would be lighter, they would be smaller. They could get down alleys in a place like Baghdad, for example, much easier than the kind of tank that you see here, which is the M-182. They only have a certain elevation with their barrels so they would have a hard time taking out, say, a machine nest at the top of a building.

The new lighter tanks might not be able to run over a car like the old ones can. But, the new tanks would have an improved protection system where they could possibly vaporize an incoming round before it hit them.

WHITFIELD: Wow.

HARRIS: So here you see tanks and troops fighting together. The idea in the new force could be that soldiers would not have to get as close to know what the enemy is doing because the robot soldiers could see over buildings.

WHITFIELD: And are these tanks virtually indestructible?

HARRIS: Well, the new tanks, as I said, Paula -- I mean, Fredricka, excuse me -- would have a kind of system where they could possibly vaporize incoming rounds.

WHITFIELD: OK.

HARRIS: The old tanks have uranium depleted armor.

WHITFIELD: All right. Art Harris, thanks very much.

HARRIS: Thanks, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Well, coming up, a wondrous come back for migrating monarchs. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back.

Taking a look at some next news headlines, a former U.S. Forest Service employee received a six-year federal prison sentence on Friday for starting the largest fire in Colorado history. The fire in Pike National Forest last June destroyed nearly 140,000 acres and more than 600 structures.

Terry Lynn Barton could have been sentenced to pay restitution, but the judge declined saying, quote, "You can't ascribe a value to a natural resource."

Exotic Newcastle disease spread to yet another California poultry farm this week despite efforts to control it. More than 2 million birds have been destroyed, and a quarantine zone has been established.

The disease is harmless to humans and doesn't affect the safety of meat or eggs, but it's easily spread and can wipe out entire flocks of birds.

The migration of the monarch butterfly from Canada to Mexico is always a mystery but now more so. Last year, storms and cold weather killed up to 80 percent of the butterflies there.

Yet this year, the bugs were back in droves, twice as many as researchers had expected.

Well, don't go away. Coming up next, Arthel Neville will be in New York to tell us how you can watch tonight's Grammy awards without a ticket or even a television set.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. And the winners are -- we'll find out in a few hours when the 45th annual Grammy Awards begin.

Some of the nominees include Avril Lavigne, Nickelback and *NSync.

Arthel Neville joins us live from the red carpet with Mitch Roth of Grammy.com, who is hoping to take the show online.

There you are. All dolled up.

ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And you know what, Fred, let me tell you something. The stars are definitely out tonight. Bonnie Raitt is right over there. Gwen Stefani from No Doubt was just with me, India.Arie.

But Mitch Roth right now is a star because Mitch will tell us how to go to Grammy.com and find out what's going on behind the scenes as the show is going on. Right?

MITCH ROTH, GRAMMY.COM: That's correct. Grammy.com provides unique, online and exclusive access to really everything that's going on at the Grammy awards. Whether...

NEVILLE: So what will I see if I go to Grammy.com during the show?

ROTH: You will see what's going on behind the scenes. What's going on -- how the artists move through the media center. How they get their pictures taken...

NEVILLE: Media center, that means when they go behind backstage to talk to the reporters after they make their acceptance speeches?

ROTH: They'll talk to reporters. They'll get their photos taken. Photos that people just typically don't get to see.

They'll go on to the one on one rooms for a lot of the major networks. So they'll get to go and see and do things that the public typically doesn't get to see on Grammy.com.

NEVILLE: So basically, you go to Grammy.com and you're going to feel like a star yourself, you're going to feel like a VIP because you'll be right in the mix as it's all happening?

ROTH: That's correct. Nobody else has it. You'll see it on Grammy.com and on AOL. AOL's our exclusive partner. AOL will have webcams in rooms that nobody else is going to have. So you'd be able to see it there, as well.

NEVILLE: I see. Well, you know what? Look, we're talking about Grammy.com. It's all about music here. I'm looking around, because I'm seeing so many stars. Who are you looking forward to seeing tonight?

ROTH: Me personally? The Boss.

NEVILLE: Well, of course you are. Of course you are. So that means you're going to be hoping that he walks away with a Grammy or two tonight?

ROTH: I would like to see that, yes. Yes, I would.

NEVILLE: Yes, I see. Well, I've got to tell you something: it's tough out here because, I mean, the competition -- I just was talking to Gwen Stefani. You saw her, right? With No Doubt?

Gwen Stefani is up against Avril Lavigne, Pink and Norah Jones for Best Pop Vocal Album. I wouldn't know who to vote for.

ROTH: Neither would I.

All right, Mitch Roth, thank you so much. Nice to see you. Thank you very much.

All right, Fred, you know what? The music will roll tonight here in New York City. And they will do it none other than Big Apple style.

Back to you, Fred, in Atlanta.

WHITFIELD: All right, Arthel. You'll be rolling right along with them. All right. Thanks a lot. Good to see you.

Well, that's all the time we have for now. But before we go, here's a peek at what's coming up next week.

It's that time of year, again. Time for Alaska's annual Iditarod sled dog race. We'll tell you about a big change in store for mushers this year.

That story and much more coming up next week. Hope you'll join us.

Coming up next, "AMERICAN STORIES."

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Drive Up Defense Costs; Grammy Awards Get Under Way Tonight>