Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional; WorldCom Accounting Scandal Rocks Wall Street; New Study Says Sparing Rod is Good for Child
Aired June 26, 2002 - 17:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: A federal court rules the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
WorldCom's wrong numbers, a $4 billion shell game.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will fully investigate and hold people accountable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Corporate America is rocked by another massive scandal. What does it mean for you?
Firefighters gain a foothold, but the likelihood of lightning sparks new fears in Arizona.
A violent standoff in the West Bank, and Palestinians face a standoff with the U.S. as Yasser Arafat seems set to run in new elections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I meant what I said, that there needs to be change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And should you spank your kids? A long-term study looks at the long-term consequences.
It's Wednesday, June 26, 2002. Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Jerusalem.
There's been a major court decision. A federal appeals court in San Francisco has issued this decision on the Pledge of Allegiance. That's our top story for that.
Let's go to CNN's Miles O'Brien. He's at the CNN center in Atlanta - Miles.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Wolf. The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. That is the ruling today from a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The reason, according to the judges, the phrase "under God" violates the constitution's establishment clause, which mandates separation of church and state. This is how the White House reacted a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: For more on this very controversial ruling, certainly stirring up a little bit of debate, let's bring in CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, joining us from New York. Jeffrey, good to see you.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right, give us some procedural sign posts here. What happens next? This is, after all, one appeals court, one circuit, nine-state region. Where does it go from here?
TOOBIN: The Justice Department really has two options at this point. They can go to the full 9th Circuit, that is all - a larger number than the three judges who decided this decision. They can go to full 9th Circuit and ask them to reverse this decision, or they can bypass that procedure and go directly to the United States Supreme Court. To be sure, they will do either one of those, because I think this is a decision that is highly vulnerable on further appeal.
O'BRIEN: All right, so this is an express plane to Washington, probably?
TOOBIN: This -- the legal train is not -- has not left -- has left the station, but it has not arrived. This case is far from over.
O'BRIEN: Jeffrey, it says here in this ruling that everybody acknowledges that children are not forced to mouth the pledge. In other words, you can be silent during the Pledge of Allegiance. Is that a significant legal point that will be debated?
TOOBIN: It's very significant. In fact, one of the most significant and indeed moving opinions that the United States Supreme Court has ever written comes from 1943 in the middle of World War II when the Supreme Court ruled that any child could refuse to stay - to say the Pledge of Allegiance in court. It came out of a case involving the Jehovah's Witnesses who had a religious objection and they couldn't be penalized for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
What the court did today was - said that even though this student could not - could refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, the law -- the pledge was still unconstitutional because it was said at all. And I think that's an indication of how far-reaching this decision is. O'BRIEN: All right, on Capitol Hill, they are - I think there's a race under way to the microphones right now to trounce upon this one. It's almost too - it's like low hanging fruit. You might as well go for it. Let's listen in to what the Senate Minority Leader, Trent Lott, had to say about all this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TRENT LOTT, (R-MS), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: This is obviously an unbelievable decision, as far as I'm concerned, and an incorrect ruling and a stupid ruling. Either it's got to be overturned in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by the 9th Circuit or by a higher court or we will do it in the Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: All right, there you have it. The gauntlet has been tossed. What - give us a sense. The higher courts generally, this particular circuit, is known to be perhaps the most left-leaning circuit in the country. And I guess that does not bode well for supporters of this idea that "under God" should be eliminated from the pledge.
TOOBIN: You know, you got to put this decision in context. Our money says "In God We Trust". Every single day that the United States Supreme Court is in session, the martial begins by saying, "God save this honorable court". God is not a forbidden word in the American government, and I think that's an indication that, you know, if any of those nine justices having heard, "God save this honorable court," every single day and there was something wrong with it, someone might have said something.
I think - I've been talking to law professors this afternoon. I think this decision is dead on arrival either in the 9th Circuit or the full - or the full United States Supreme Court. It's just, it really does seem to be outside the mainstream of American legal opinion, and someone's going to get it, I think.
O'BRIEN: What's next, motherhood and apple pie unconstitutional, right? Who knows.
TOOBIN: Well, and you can be sure that the list of politicians attacking this decision will be long and virtually unanimous.
O'BRIEN: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks for the insights, appreciate it. As we have been telling you, this ruling is prompting a significant amount of the debate, a little bit of politics here, you might say.
Let's talk about it, though, with some people who know the law well. David Cole is a law professor at Georgetown University; Ken Connor is the president of the Family Research Council. They're both in Washington.
Professor Cole, let's start with you. Jeffrey Toobin brings up a good point. It's on our money. It's inscribed in granite all over Washington - the word "God". It's not exactly unprecedented to have it intertwined in the fabric of our government. Why is the pledge any different?
DAVID COLE, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, that's right. I mean, and the court has said that certain expressions of religious belief are so common and so sort of part of the mainstream of American life that they have become secularized and no longer have religious significance and therefore have - or have diminimous religious significance and therefore are constitutional ...
O'BRIEN: But this is different ...
COLE: On the other hand ...
O'BRIEN: ... this is different than that?
COLE: Well yes, on the other hand what the court said the establishment clause stands for, above all, is that the government may not engage in official endorsement of religion. And this term, "under God", was added in 1954 to the pledge precisely to distinguish us as a religious country from Russia, the Soviet Union, as a communist and atheistic country, and Congress explicitly said so. So Congress said the purpose of this is to say that we are a religious country.
That's unconstitutional. The establishment clause does not permit the government to say we are a religious country. We are a country that allows all religions to flourish, but also allows people who don't believe in religion to flourish. And when the government takes an official stand, endorsing religion, it raises very serious constitutional concerns. The only question is whether this is such a diminimous endorsement that it's going to be acceptable.
O'BRIEN: All right. Ken Connor, here's what the ruling says. I'll just quote it briefly. It says the school distract is conveying a message of state endorsement of religious belief when it requires public schools teachers to recite and leave the recitation of the current form of the pledge.
I'm not an lawyer, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but based on what I know about the Bill of Rights, that's very clear cut. That violates the separation of church and state. How do you see it?
KEN CONNOR, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Oh, this is a bunch of judicial poppy-cock. This is a case of political correctness run amok in the courtroom, plain and simple. You know Justice William O. Douglas was no member of the religious right, but he made the observation in the case of Zorac versus Claussen (ph) in 1951, that our institution presuppose the existence of a supreme being and there's no requirement that government be hostile to religion.
The Declaration of Independence makes three distinct references to God in the very first paragraph. It references nature's God. It says we've been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights that appeals to divine providence for the supreme judge of the universe for the rectitude of our intentions. What this decision seeks to do is stamp out any reference to a God, who's animating intention was to insure that people would be permitted to worship. O'BRIEN: All right, David Cole. Let's talk about, for example, the Declaration of Independence. I mean, without getting too far down the road here, could someone rule that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional, and how absurd would that be?
COLE: Well the Declaration of Independence, number one, preceded the constitution. So it's not -- it's not going to be ...
O'BRIEN: So it's grandfathered in.
COLE: ... unconstitutional. Number two -- number two is not -- the pledge is an affirmation that in California, at least, every school has to engage in every morning. And so the state is leading an official endorsement of religion. It's not that it uses the term "God." It is rather that it expresses a message that we are a nation "under God". That's a normative statement. That's a statement that we are a religious nation and Congress intended it to be that.
(CROSSTALK)
COLE: And that ...
(CROSSTALK)
COLE: And that ...
(CROSSTALK)
COLE: That's what ...
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: ... baloney. What's happened here is this court has said, the First Amendment, which has historically protected freedom of speech, says that it means that people have a right to be free of exposure to speech they don't agree with it. I think this decision has profound negative implications for First Amendment free speech rights.
O'BRIEN: All right, we're going to have to leave it -- gentlemen, we're going to have to throw it -- leave it at that. I believe we have Senator Daschle, is that correct? Is he live right now? All right, Senator Daschle live in the -- well, in the Senate.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE, (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: ... most of you heard, but I think it would be appropriate for scheduling purposes for us to have the vote and then to accommodate other senators who wish to be heard. We will certainly allow the floor to be available for the purposes of additional comment by our colleagues.
Let me also ask that senators vote from their desk on this particular vote. I think it'd be appropriate given the strength of feeling we have on the issue that we draw distinction between this and other votes, and I would ask that senators vote from their desks. So Mr. President, and I would also note that as we have already announced through our cloak rooms, that all senators will be listed as a co- sponsor unless they asked to be removed from that list.
So senators will automatically be listed as co-sponsors. We've had so many requests on both sides of the aisle, that it was our view that it would be appropriate for us to do that. I would also ask ...
O'BRIEN: All right, we might have jumped the gun just a little bit on going to the Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle. We're going to be listening to his comments right now and as soon as he addresses the issue at hand, the Pledge of Allegiance, we will get that to you.
And if you're curious about the person who brought this lawsuit in the first place, join Connie Chung tonight and you'll meet him. Michael Newdow joins Connie Chung at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 Pacific and while we listen to Senator Daschle, let's send it back to Wolf Blitzer in Jerusalem - Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Miles. A huge financial scandal has rocked the world today, the business world from Main Street to Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, throughout Europe, Asia, even here in the Middle East. The giant telecommunications company WorldCom says it did indeed misreport billions of dollars in expenses, saying that while the company showed profits, that may not necessarily have been the case.
Let's get some details now. CNN's Deborah Feyerick is standing by in New York -- Deborah.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, what WorldCom represents as misrepresenting information others are calling outright fraud. This comes in the wake of the Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals. Investors asking when will this all end.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): From long distance ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello.
FEYERICK: ... to cell phones and the Internet, WorldCom built itself into a telecom giant. Its 70 companies and 20 million customers worldwide making it once a hot stock to have. Then Tuesday, in the blink of an eye, last year's profits vanished -- $3.8 billion evaporated. The reason?
MARK HOLLAND, INVESTMENT MANAGER: Earnings they reported over the last couple of years aren't there. They simply aren't there. They lied about their earnings.
FEYERICK: WorldCom officials hid expenses by listing them as investments to be paid in the future. The cash flow looked bigger, the profits larger than they actually were.
MARGARET FINRERTY, FRAUD PROTECTION ATTORNEY: It seems to me that maybe they got too big too fast. I mean this was a trend that we - we're still seeing this trend and I think companies get out ahead of themselves and they incur a tremendous amount of debt and then they can't handle it.
FEYERICK: With WorldCom facing bankruptcy, some analysts say consumers may not get the same level of services, a blow for the company that broke up the AT&T monopoly and brought long distance competition.
GENE KIMMELMAN, CONSUMER UNION: This is really a double-whammy. We have consumers here possibly losing one of the best competitors in long distance and potential competitors against local phone monopolies, and then consumers as investors were just scammed. They were misled about the viability of this company.
FEYERICK: WorldCom stock reached a high of $62 a share in June 1999. It's been dropping since then after suffering a series of setbacks, including an SEC investigation. Following the company's announcement about restating profits, the stock plummeted to 83 cents a share. A crisis, says investment manager Michael Holland, that dwarfs the Enron scandal.
HOLLAND: This one is worse because the issue of trust has been broken. These people simply lied about the numbers. They said something that wasn't true and the markets understand that very readily.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: But as with Enron, analysts say some people may have lost their life savings. And as for the future, there's no word on whether banks will continue extending credit to a company facing bankruptcy and possible criminal prosecution -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Deborah Feyerick in New York. Let's go back to Miles O'Brien. He's got more news at the CNN center in Atlanta -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right, thank you very much, Wolf. We're watching Washington right now. Let's go back to the Senate where we have been watching the Pledge of Allegiance discussion. There's a vote underway and we're going to try to get you some more information about it in just a moment here as we watch.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Carper, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Fitzgerald ...
O'BRIEN: All right. The legal matters in the 9th Circuit have led to political matters posthaste. The U.S. Senate is voting now on a resolution essentially condemning the 9th Circuit decision on the Pledge of Allegiance. That's indicating that the Pledge of Allegiance itself is unconstitutional. Once again, we will be monitoring things in Washington for you. As soon as we get a tally on that vote we'll bring it to you. Let's send it back it Wolf in Jerusalem.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Miles, and we have a lot more news coming up. Also this -- is a meeting scheduled between the director of the FBI and a Muslim group a good idea or a bad idea? Robert Mueller, is he simply reaching out to the Muslim community? A debate on the controversy when we come back.
Also, and spare the rod, spoil the child. A leading doctor says don't do it. The two sides duke it out over spanking.
Plus, the pill may not cause cancer after all. Must-see medical news, it's all coming up, but first, our news quiz.
Taking an oral contraceptive can help protect a woman from which two of the following? Breast cancer? Ovarian cancer? Pregnancy? Sexually transmitted disease? The answer coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. There is news tonight on another financial investigation, this one involving Martha Stewart. The "Wall Street Journal" is reporting that the household maven already under investigation for possible insider trading may now face obstruction of justice charges. Let's get some details on that. "Newsweek" magazine's Marc Peyser, who's written a cover story about all of this, is joining us now live.
Marc, what do you make of this latest suggestion from the "Wall Street Journal"?
MARC PEYSER, "NEWSWEEK": You know, it's really hard to say, because we thought for a while that there were plausible reasons that Martha may be exonerated, that the story that she had told about trading her stock the day before there was a bombshell of an FDA announcement about a company called ImClone could actually hold up.
But now the accusation is that somebody in her -- at Merrill Lynch, who was her stockbroker -- got the assistant for her stockbroker to sort of change his story to fit the story that she and her stockbroker had told. It (UNINTELLIGIBLE) raises more and more questions. The inconsistencies start to mount up. It looks more and more difficult for her to sort of get out of this.
BLITZER: It's obstruction of justice, obviously being a very serious charge. But isn't it very difficult to prove the whole insider trading thing? You write in "Newsweek" magazine, to be convicted of insider training, Stewart would have to know both that she was acting on insider information when she sold the ImClone stock and that the person who gave her the information was trying to illegally tip her off. Isn't that extremely difficult to prove?
PEYSER: Absolutely. There has to be clear intent proved on her part to show that she knew what she was doing and she knew it was illegal. So why someone would try to get another person to change their story, if that - I mean if she was telling the right story to begin with, seems very sort of implausible. It's almost as if they got scared or they're just trying to figure out a way out of the whole mess, which just keeps getting worse.
BLITZER: If she had a verbal standing order to her broker, nothing written, to go ahead and sell if that ImClone stock went below 60, which is - which is her suggestion, how do you prove or disprove that these two people may have discussed that?
PEYSER: You can't really disprove it if they both stick to their story. That's where the sort of - the latest problem comes in. The assistant to the stockbroker now says that he was - he was told that he had to say that that $60 sell order had been in place all along, when he didn't believe it was. It makes it harder to believe that the story that the stockbroker told and Martha told wasn't true from the beginning, which is why the investigation has been ratcheted up and is now spreading.
BLITZER: Mark Peyser, before I let you go, what is your bottom line assessment? Where is all of this going?
PEYSER: Well, we've got to hear from the stockbroker. He's refused to testify thusfar. He now is reportedly asking for immunity before he says anything. He's the guy who's probably going to make or break Martha. But now that the accusations are going out from there, who knows if it'll be enough for him to get her clear.
BLITZER: OK, Mark Peyser, thank you very much. Here's your chance to weigh in, by the way, on this story. Our Web question of the day is this. Do you trust corporate America?
Go to my Web page, cnn.com/wolf. That's where you can vote. While you're there, let me know what you're thinking. Send me your comments and I'll try to read some on the air each day at the end of this program. That's also where you can read my daily online column, cnn.com/wolf.
The Palestinian Authority is now officially calling for new elections. When we come back, will that move satisfy Israeli and American demands? I'll have the latest news from here in the Middle East.
Plus is the FBI director meeting with a terrorist-linked group tomorrow? We'll have the latest on that controversy.
And the pill may have been getting a bad wrap. We'll help you sort out the latest medical news that impact thousands, indeed, millions of women. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Jerusalem. Palestinians say they feel like they're between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, Israel is stepping up its anti-terror campaign on the West Bank. On the other hand, the Bush administration is demanding that Palestinian Authority reinvent itself.
It didn't take the Palestinians very long to respond to President Bush's call for major reforms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAEB ERAKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: President Arafat officially declares today that the elections of the president of the Palestinian Authority and the election of the Palestinian Council will be held on January 2003. The date will be between the 10th and the 20th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: From the Bush administration's perspective, that was good news. The bad news, an aide to the Palestinian leader says Arafat will run again. At the G-8 summit in Canada, President Bush didn't back away from his call for a new Palestinian leadership.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I meant what I said, that there needs to be change. If people are interested in peace, something else has got to happen. We're mired in a situation now where there's terror on the one hand and hopelessness on the other and that's unacceptable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: U.S. officials privately go further, insisting neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Colin Powell has any intention of meeting with Arafat in the near future. The U.S. objective now, to try to isolate the Palestinian leader. That, of course, is welcome news to Israeli officials. Their forces continue to consolidate positions on the West Bank, including in Hebron, an action, the Israelis say, designed to preempt Palestinian terrorist strikes.
Amid all of this, the president and the Bush Administration are trying to reach out, continuing efforts to win some support among American Muslims. This campaign will include a meeting Friday: the FBI director, Robert Mueller, scheduled to address one organization, the American Muslim Council. That has caused major controversy, given some of the positions of the American Muslim Council in the past. Joining me now to discuss this issue are two guests: Eric Vickers, he's executive director of the American Muslim Council. And from Chicago, David Harris, executive director of American-Jewish Committee. Thanks to both of you for joining us.
What's wrong, David, with the Bush Administration reaching out to American Muslims?
DAVID HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN-JEWISH COMMITTEE: There is absolutely nothing wrong with reaching out to Muslims. To the contrary, the administration should be reaching out to Muslims. The problem is, with whom? And our view here, Wolf, is the fact that they've chosen the wrong organization, and they're going to make the problem worse, not better.
BLITZER: Why? What's wrong with this organization? HARRIS: The American Muslim Council for years has been identified with terrorist organizations, both abroad and here at home. They have been closely linked to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are organizations that our government has declared terrorist organizations. Here at home, they've been linked to the Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief Foundation, and others that the administration has shut down since September 11 as being terrorist front groups. Why would the FBI director want to meet with a group that has served as an apologist and spokesman for terrorist operations, especially after September 11?
BLITZER: All right. Let's get a response from Eric. What do you say about that?
ERIC VICKERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN MUSLIM COUNCIL: Well, there has been this continuing process of Mr. Harris and others trying to subvert the ability of the 7 million Muslims in this country having a dialogue with their government.
It is entirely appropriate for Director Mueller to meet with the Muslim Council. The American Muslim Council has been in this country since 1990. It is a mainstream organization. All these allegations of links to terrorism are simply baseless. They are a way for the adversaries to try to obfuscate the real issue that's involved, which is the disagreement with the policy stands that the AMC has taken. And what they have attempted to do is to sabotage our confidence, to undermine the ability of American citizens to meet with their government. And this should be denounced.
The position that Mr. Harris is taking is un-American position. Americans have a right to meet with the FBI director, particularly since Muslim Americans and Middle Easterners are the ones who are being impacted the most by the policies of the Justice Department. So it's entirely appropriate for them to meet -- I'm sorry.
BLITZER: David, what specific evidence -- let me bring back David. What specific evidence do you have that the American Muslim Council is engaged in supporting, endorsing any terrorism?
HARRIS: Wolf, the record is a long one, and in fact it led Mr. Mueller's predecessor, Louis Freeh, in 1998, to withdraw from his previous acceptance of an invitation to speak to the American Muslim Council. Mr. Vickers can try and use smear tactics by referring to his opponents as un-American, but that's simply absurd and it doesn't do him any credit. The fact of the matter is that this organization has honored the Holy Land Foundation in the year 2000.
This organization has had spokesmen who have stood in front of the White House and have publicly praised Hamas and Hezbollah. These things have been caught on videotape. The transcripts are available. The FBI has them. The only question is, why would the FBI director choose to meet with such a group? Mr. Vickers tries to portray this differently and falsely. He says this is all about talking to Muslims. Let me be clear. This is not about talking to Muslims. This is about which organizations the FBI will...
BLITZER: Let me...
HARRIS: The FBI going to...
BLITZER: Mr. Vickers, go ahead and respond. Does your group support Hamas, Hezbollah, groups the State Department has branded as terrorist organizations?
VICKERS: Absolutely not. We have consistently condemned acts of terrorism by any organization, whether it's by al Qaeda, by Hamas, or whether it is acts of aggression carried out by the government of Israel. We stand opposed to that, and that is what Mr. Harris and our other critics dislike the most, is our position that there ought to be a Palestinian state., that there is a resistance movement occurring there, and we support that resistance movement, just as we have supported other resistance movements in the past.
The South African resistance movement against apartheid is similar. But Mr. Harris and the others would drive this wedge between the United States governments and its citizens to deny them the opportunity to have a dialogue with an elected official. That is un- American.
BLITZER: All right. Unfortunately, we have to leave it right there. David Harris and Eric Vickers, we'll continue this debate on another occasion. But we have to leave it right there. Thanks to both of you for joining us. Let's move on now.
While we all remember, of course, the major anthrax scare in the United States last fall, last night we broke a story saying investigators appear to be moving in a little bit closer on someone who might be a suspect of that investigation. Let's get the latest. CNN's justice correspondent Kelli Arena has that.
KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This scientist's apartment next to the Fort Detrick Army base in Maryland is just one of more than a dozen searched as part of the investigation into who sent the deadly anthrax letters last fall. This search, investigators say, turned up nothing incriminating. Individuals in the scientific community, including some at Fort Detrick's bio-weapons lab, are a focus of investigators and have volunteered to not only have their homes searched, but to being polygraphed and interviewed by law enforcement.
RONALD ATLAS, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY: There are times I look over my shoulder, and then there are times that I get very angry at myself for doing that, because these are my colleagues and my friends that -- people that I have worked with. And it upsets me that we've all become suspects, in many ways.
ARENA: CNN has learned there is a working and evolving list of more than 50, whom investigators call "people of interest." Part of a group of individuals with expertise in anthrax and recent access to labs. But no suspects.
HARRY KELLY, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: You don't necessarily have to have an enormous facility to produce a dangerous amount of these toxins. And that's what make the law enforcement challenge so enormously difficult.
ARENA: The government has long been operating under the premise that the culprit has a high level of experience and skill. Scientific testing on the anthrax is being done to try to determine exactly where it came from. Testing has already revealed that it was made in the last two years, suggesting the culprit had recent access to a lab.
KELLY: There is no evidence that, whatever the means were, that they obtained the material or that they used to produce the material can't be reproduced or isn't being reproduced.
ARENA: Investigators say they are conducting a process of elimination to try to hone in on a smaller group of possible suspects.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Now that process is highly dependent upon cooperation from the scientific community, which is not eager to publicize its role. And that's why investigators have mostly remained silent when asked for specifics -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Kelli Arena, thank you very much. Let's get back to Miles O'Brien at the CNN Center -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: Thank you very much, Wolf. Discipline handed out by many parents, and through the generations for that matter, now being hotly debated: to spank or not to spank our children. Stay tuned for our debate on that subject, or I'll tan your hide.
The Pledge of Allegiance controversy has swiftly moved from the courts to the land of politics. Let's take a look at a live picture of the U.S. Senate. Vote under way right now. You -- probably not going to be a cliff-hanger, but the resolution is:
"Be it resolved that the Senate authorize and instructs the Senate legal counsel to seek to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance."
The vote still continuing. And shall we listen to Zell Miller, or shall we move on? Let's move on, and we'll give you the vote in second. We're sorry about all the fits and starts on the Pledge of Allegiance vote. We should give you the main event in all this.
Michael Newdow from Sacramento is the person who brought this entire suit before, ultimately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He brought this on behalf of his second grade daughter, who he felt should not be compelled in any way, nor should she be forced to stand around, while other students say the Pledge. Let's listen to him for a moment.
MICHAEL NEWDOW: I actually expected to win. First of all, because the law is on my side and the Constitution is on my side and the judges appear to be on my side. I wasn't surprised. I didn't know it was going to happen today.
O'BRIEN: All right. The vote is in: 99-0, 99-nothing. The Senate has voted that the Senate will authorize and instruct its legal counsel to seek to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Put that in the category of motherhood and apple pie. As a matter of fact, just before that vote, or concurrent with it, on the steps of Capitol we witnessed this scene.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: I assume you noticed the emphasis for those two words out of the 31-word pledge: under God. Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, both houses of the legislature, took the opportunity then to sing "God Bless America."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS: ... stand beside her, and guide her through the night with the light from above. From the mountains to the prairies, to the oceans ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: All right. No one there quitting their day job, we hope. And we will pledge to you right now that this will be a political issue for many days to come.
Let's move on and talk about spanking. To spank or not to spank? A new report, sure to stir up controversy, says the long-term damage caused by spanking outweighs any short-term benefit. Based on a review of six decades of research, the report says children who are spanked may become aggressive, antisocial and chronically defiant. Psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff, who wrote the report, joining us from New York. Dr. Den Trumbull, a pediatrician who has conducted his own research of the research is in Montgomery, Alabama. We welcome you both to the program.
ELIZABETH GERSHOFF, PSYCHOLOGIST: Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Dr. Gershoff, just give us a sense of how you were able to pull all this together. I assume there's a lot of anecdotal information out there, but it must be difficult in some cases to separate cause from effect when you have a child who, for lack of a better term, is a problem child.
GERSHOFF: That's true. What I did was look at the actual research that's been done over the last 60 years and do a statistical analysis on it, combining them all together and look at what the data said. And the data showed me that, in the long-term, corporal punishment by parents is associated with no long-term positive effects for children. Only negative.
O'BRIEN: How were you able to determine that? How were you able to make that link?
GERSHOFF: I looked at studies that asked parents how often or how severely they spank their children. And then these same studies measured outcomes for children. They measured things like aggression, delinquency, long-term compliance and things like the risk that children will be physically abused later in life.
O'BRIEN: So bottom line, from your perspective, is it ever appropriate, even a tap, a light spanking, if there's a case where a child, young, doesn't understand, is about to put his finger in the socket or whatever. Are there cases where it's appropriate ever to do it?
GERSHOFF: I don't think so. I think there are always other techniques that are effective with children that don't have the possibility of long-term negative effects.
O'BRIEN: All right. Dr. Trumbull, I assume you disagree on that: there are occasions when a little bit of corporal punishment will do. Give us your sense of what the parameters are.
DEN TRUMBULL, PEDIATRICIAN: Well, Miles, let me first of all comment on Dr. Gershoff's review. It suffers from two fatal flaws, that unfortunately most of the anti-spanking research today suffers from. First of all, you noticed she said association. There is no causal evidence; there's no scientific evidence in her review, in any of the studies, that spanking, as we would ordinarily refer to it, causes detrimental outcomes. It's the association. What she doesn't take into effect is the frequency of childhood misbehavior prior to the spanking that might, in fact, lead to a more detrimental outcome after the spanking.
Secondly, included in her review, over 65% of the studies did not separate ordinary spanking from severe forms of corporal punishment, such as hitting, punching, biting. One study even included hitting to the point of bruising and even of cutting. When you include these obviously inappropriate and abusive forms of corporal punishment, you get the detrimental effects that she came up with.
O'BRIEN: Dr. Trumbull, I still would like to know the parameters. I'm sure there are some parents out there who would like to know what is appropriate, if you're going to make the assumption, you know, spare the rod, spoil the child?
TRUMBULL: Well, first of all, spanking is inappropriately -- you have detrimental outcome or it can be counterproductive when reactively used. I recommend that it be proactively used. The best studies ...
O'BRIEN: What does that mean? That gives them time to think about it, go pick a switch? That kind of stuff?
TRUMBULL: Proactively means you forewarn the child of the consequence for the misbehavior. And when the child commits that misbehavior, then you follow through with your promise. You don't let the misbehavior escalate, escalate, escalate with numerous threats to the point of you blowing up and reactively spanking the child.
That's where spanking, or corporal punishment in general, has received its bad name. The problem is there are not enough behavioral techniques available to mothers and fathers of young children to adequately control behavior and misbehavior. And proper behavioral control with young children is extremely essential to an optimal developmental outcome.
O'BRIEN: I have to cut you off. We're running short of time, unfortunately, because of all the breaking news. And I'm fascinated by this whole subject. But it seems to me there's an interesting point here. As I recall, my childhood, it was more the threat of spanking, you know, when your father comes home, there will be some trouble, that had an impact on my behavior than the actual corporal punishment itself. And that seems to be what somewhat what Dr. Trumbull is saying. Would you go along with that at all?
GERSHOFF: Well, I think what you're speaking to is the idea that there's fear behind there, that it's out of fear that children are complying. I think what we need to teach children is they need to comply for reasons of their own. They need to comply because it's appropriate to treat people effectively and nicely, that we want them to do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because there's a parent waiting in the wings, ready to spank them.
O'BRIEN: All right. Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it at that. I apologize for the abbreviated interview, we had some breaking news. Elizabeth Gershoff, Dr. Den Trumbull, thank you both for being with us here.
It's time for us to take a break. Then some good news for women who use oral contraceptives. The Pill may actually be safer than previously thought. Our medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen with more on its possible links to breast cancer or maybe not.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Earlier we asked: "Taking an oral contraceptive can help protect a woman from which two of the following: Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Pregnancy, Sexually Transmitted Disease."
Studies showed that taking an oral contraceptive not only prevents pregnancy but also helps to protect against ovarian cancer.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's talk about the pill, shall we? The pill is supposed to have some downside effects relating to breast cancer; maybe not so.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Maybe not so, that's what this new study says.
There's been some concern that maybe the birth control pill causes breast cancer. Well, this study, which was large, 10,000 women, some people are calling it definitive, say it does not lead to breast cancer, even if a woman has a family history of breast cancer, even if she takes the pill for a long time. So that should make many women feel better. It's still important to remember the pill is without not without side effects. It can cause strokes. It's rare, but it can. And for women over age 35 who smoke, it can cause heart attacks. But as far as breast cancer goes, this report says it's clean.
O'BRIEN: All right. That's all we have time for. I have some questions for you but...
COHEN: Later.
O'BRIEN: Let's talk about that another time. Elizabeth Cohen, our medical correspondent, thank you very much. We appreciate you dropping by ever so briefly.
The leading edge of technology is on display once again at the annual Tech X New York PC Expo. That's a mouthful. It's not only a preview of products, but a key indicator of where technology is heading. Suzanne Kantra has some highlights. She's the technology editor for "Popular Science" magazine. Suzanne, I understand you've kind of put together some trends from the show for us.
SUZANNE KANTRA, "POPULAR SCIENCE": I certainly have. And really the show is not about the laptops and the desktops. But it's more about how are they being used, and the products that you're going to be using with your computers.
One of the biggest things that we've seen is wireless. We're seeing that integrated into laptops; also into tiny devices like this BlackBerry that is a phone and a two-way pager. Other things that we're seeing is a lot with digital photography. This product here from Logitech is about the size of a business card, and it's great for sharing photos on the Web and also up to 4-by-6 prints. Casio's Exilim S1 is also a great camera, because it's pocket-sized, take it anywhere that you want to go. And it's good for 4-by-6 and 5-by-7 prints.
And then another trend we're seeing is going to be digital video editing. And people are going to want to take movies to share them with their family and friends. As you can see, it's more about how you're going to be using those PCs than about the products themselves.
O'BRIEN: All right. Suzanne, we've got to leave it at that, unfortunately. Thanks for stopping by, and we'll be checking in for another report on the show as the week progresses.
Now let's go to New York again and get a preview of "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE," which begins at the top of the hour with, who else, Lou Dobbs. Hello, Lou.
LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE": Miles, thank you very much. Coming up tonight, the fallout from the worst corporal scandal in weeks. WorldCom is struggling to survive after it admits it overstated earnings by nearly $4 billion in the course of a year and three months. We'll have full coverage.
And tonight, implications of a court decision to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. And the second in our series of MONEYLINE/"Economist" magazine special report. Tonight, focusing on the emerging alliance between the United States and Russia. All of that and a great deal more at the top of the hour. Please join us. Now we go to Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Lou. Only two minutes to weigh in on our Web question of the day, which is this: Do you trust corporate America? Go to my Web site: cnn.com/wolf. That's where you can vote. The results when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: And time now to check your e-mail. Let's get a couple examples. Elvis writes this: "There is no future for peace in the Middle East as long as right wing politicians are in charge, whether Israeli or Palestinian. Bush should demand a change of the old guard for both sides. Otherwise, you just have two old bulldogs escalating the conflict."
Barb asks this: "What happens if the Palestinian Authority holds elections and the people vote for Yasser Arafat? How would that affect President Bush's plan for the Middle East?"
And Steve writes: "President Bush's new policy is insightful, gutsy, and brave. He finally said things that should have been said years ago."
That's all the time we have today. I'll be back tomorrow at 5 p.m. Eastern. Until then, thanks very much for watching. For Miles O'Brien, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Jerusalem. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
