Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

President Nominates Porter Goss for CIA Head; State Governors Want Tougher Border Control Laws

Aired August 10, 2004 - 18:00   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.


LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the president has chosen a new head of the CIA. President Bush nominating Congressman Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: Many Democrats say Congressman Goss is too partisan for the job. Many Republicans say the Democrats are simply playing politics. Democratic Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher joins me. I'll also be talking with former top intelligence official Admiral Bobby Inman.

In Broken Borders, the federal government wants hospitals to register illegal aliens who receive medical treatment, and state governors want much tougher border controls.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: It is important that border states work closely together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: Tonight, I'll talk with two of this country's most outspoken critics of our border security policies.

Also tonight, one of America's most respected lawmakers, Senator Robert Byrd, joins me to discuss his book "Losing America." We'll be talking about the campaign and the election.

And, in our special report, The Best Government Money Can Buy, special interest groups and lobbyists spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy access to our lawmakers and to keep their political friends in office.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Tuesday, August 10. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening. Tonight, President Bush faces criticism on Capitol Hill over his choice of a new CIA director. President Bush today nominated Congressman Porter Goss who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a former CIA officer. President Bush on Congressman Goss said he's a leader with strong experience in the fight against terrorism. Many Democrats, but certainly not all, say Congressman Goss is too close to the White House.

We begin our coverage with Elaine Quijano at the White House -- Elaine.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the president calls Porter Goss the right man for the job and says his experience both in Washington and also at the CIA is an asset. Now Porter Goss, as you said, is a Republican congressman from Florida, who's also the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Now, if confirmed by the Senate, it would be a return to an old employer for Goss who also served in the CIA's clandestine service for more than 10 years, starting in 1960. His nomination comes at a time when pressure is mounting on the Bush administration to act quickly on the September 11 commission's recommendations for intelligence reform.

The president says his nominee's background will serve him well, if confirmed for the position.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Porter Goss is a leader with strong experience in intelligence and in the fight against terrorism. He knows the CIA inside and out. He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUIJANO: Now, while President Bush says that his nominee has the respect on both sides of the aisle here in Washington, there is some concern among some Democrats that perhaps Porter Goss, who is a strong supporter of the president's, may be too partisan for the position.

Now the president's Democratic rival John Kerry stayed away from wading into that specific debate, but issued a written statement today saying, "This is a key position in fighting the war on terror and should not be left vacant."

But the most important position is one that hasn't been created yet, national intelligence director, with real control of budgets and personnel.

Now, in choosing Goss, the president passed over the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, who took over after George Tenet resigned. The president's decision to fill this post before the election may quiet some critics out there who said that a permanent CIA director was needed to fight the war on terror -- Lou.

DOBBS: Elaine, thank you. Elaine Quijano reporting from the White House.

On Capitol Hill, leading Democrats say Congressman Goss is too close to the intelligence community and too partisan to be an effective CIA director. Those Democrats say Congressman Goss will find it difficult to resist any White House attempt to shape intelligence, but Republicans say Democrats are simply playing politics.

Congressional Correspondent Joe Johns with the report -- Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, this is sort of the dance they do on Capitol Hill whenever you have a nomination of this type. Obviously, it was pretty well received. A number of members of Congress on both sides, in fact, giving really very warm words for Mr. Goss, talking about, number one, his years of work at the CIA, also his years of work here on Capitol Hill.

Typical of those remarks, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (D), GEORGIA: In this country, Porter brings a vast amount of experience all the way from the Defense Intelligence Agency to the Central Intelligence Agency to his work on Capitol Hill, and, at this critical time in our intelligence world, we need somebody who understands all of these different aspects of our intelligence community and can bring the right people together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Some other Democrats were supportive, too, but not all Democrats, of course, on Capitol Hill. A number of Democrats have actually questioned whether it's a good idea to have a politician -- perhaps any politician -- taking the helm at the CIA at this time.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, served on the Intelligence Committee for years with Porter Goss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), MINORITY LEADER: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't -- a person should not be the director of Central Intelligence who has acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering of analysis and the dissemination of information, of intelligence without any political -- any politics involved at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Now no one I talked to on Capitol Hill today said outright that they would oppose the Goss nomination. Nonetheless, a number of Democrats have said they will use the confirmation process of Porter Goss to try to delve into the administration's policies and positions regarding the 9/11 commission's recommendations. Lou, back to you.

DOBBS: Joe, thank you.

Joe Johns from Capitol Hill.

Former Deputy CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman says the Senate will confirm Congressman Goss and fairly quickly. Admiral Inman is one of this country's most respected former intelligence officers. His career included four years as director of the National Security Agency. Admiral Inman joins us now here in New York.

Good to have you with us.

ADM. BOBBY INMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Thank you.

DOBBS: Porter Goss -- the idea that a person cannot be in elected office, partisan politics, and still be a CIA director. What do you think?

INMAN: George H.W. Bush was even the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He had been a congressman. He was a very effective director of Central Intelligence. I watched at close hand. He then went back to politics.

The concern ought to be, if, on the Congress, they're too close to the intelligence committee. But once they're over in the executive branch, you hope they're as close as they can be so they're watching every day what's going on.

DOBBS: There is, if you will -- perhaps I shouldn't call it strange, given that this is a presidential election year -- it seems a strange bit of maneuvering over this nomination. The idea that Porter Goss has been nominated by the president. The criticism was instantaneous. What are your thoughts?

INMAN: Well, the billet is director of Central Intelligence, also runs the Central Intelligence Agency. There isn't anything else right now to nominate somebody for.

So the issue was: Did you leave a very able public servant as acting who's spending an awful lot of time defending past actions, or did you put somebody else in to get them focused on all the challenges we've got, who may be in the job a few months or a few years?

It's clear that Congressman Goss has wanted this job. So he's obviously happy to serve.

DOBBS: Your reaction to Senator Kerry's statement, in which he really said -- sort of said fine with Porter Goss as the nominee for the president, but the really important job is the 9/11 commission's recommendation for a czar of intelligence, if you will, putting the CIA director sort of in a peculiar position.

INMAN: This is the prospect of a huge change in the way we've organized and run the intelligence functions of the government. I've advocated a lot of change for a long time. But we ought to do it carefully. Speed is not the critical ingredient.

I did want to see the president move to put someone in to make sure that people weren't worried about their jobs or defending the past. Given all the threats we keep hearing about, I wanted to make sure they were focused right now every day on the challenges in front of us.

DOBBS: And you're offering really a rationale for passing over John McLaughlin as the acting CIA director.

INMAN: Here he's a great man in the process, but there's no way he could not spend time defending the past that he was part of.

DOBBS: Given the critical nature of the war against radical Islamist terrorists that we're in, that partisan politics we're watching unfold instantly on the nomination of a CIA director, is there an impact on the intelligence community itself? Is there in point of fact some jeopardy here raised for the effectiveness of our intelligence operations as a result of this partisan politics on both sides? I'm not talking about one side.

INMAN: There is an impact. After the Church and Pike committee hearings, Senator Inouye came to talk to us to say what do I need to do to get away from the partisan approach, and we encouraged the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate committee and that they'd never take a vote purely on partisan lines.

I'm a great fan of Congresswoman Jane Harman. I think she's a terrific talent. But over the last year, she and the chairman, Mr. Goss, have steadily moved apart on issues. So there's been an appearance of more politics in the process. I don't think it's hurt the oversight of the intelligence community.

DOBBS: Admiral Bobby Inman, good to have you with us.

INMAN: Thank you.

DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. The question: Do you think Congressman Porter Goss is qualified for the job of CIA director? Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results later in the broadcast, of course.

Coming right up, the president's choice for a new CIA chief that Democrats say partisanship. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of the House Armed Services Committee joins me.

Also ahead here, cracking down on the flood of illegal aliens crossing our border with Mexico. Brown University Professor Peter Andreas says America's policies have been an utter failure. He'll be with us next to tell us why.

And Senator Robert Byrd has a new book, "Losing America." Senator Byrd says the Bush administration's leadership has put this country in danger. He'll be with us next to tell us why. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My next guest is concerned that President Bush hasn't embraced all of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. She also questions the president's choice of Congressman Porter Goss as the new CIA director. Joining me now Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Good to have you with us.

REP. ELLEN TAUSCHER (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Let's begin with this nomination. Just talking with Admiral Bobby Inman who was, obviously, concerned about the partisan politics -- that includes both parties, of course -- on a nomination of this importance. Do you have real reservations about Porter Goss, or do you think he is a man who should be confirmed as CIA director?

TAUSCHER: Well, Porter Goss is a good man and he may make a fine CIA director, but this was not the right nomination for the president to be making today.

The president should have been nominating the new national director of intelligence. That is the job that the 9/11 commission says we vitally need to fill. That is the job that we have to have to protect the American people. That's the job we have to have to reform the intelligence agencies that we know failed us on September 11 and we know failed us in the Iraq War.

So this is a -- probably a good nomination. The Senate will decide that. Frankly, it was the wrong job being nominated.

DOBBS: The idea of having a national intelligence czar is recommended by the 9/11 commission, as you point out. One thinks of Homeland Security as a mammoth, gargantuan department with massive bureaucracy. Would that not also be the same effect with a national intelligence czar bringing together all of these agencies? Do we run that risk, in your judgment?

TAUSCHER: I wholeheartedly agree with the 9/11 commission. We had Governor Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton in front of the House Armed Services Committee today, and they very, very smartly told us that we need someone that's going to not only analyze and streamline all of these different groups, but somebody's who's going to manage.

And, frankly, we need one person that's accountable so we don't have cataclysmic failures like we had on September 11 and with the Iraq intelligence. So I'm forced to having somebody that not only has the pedigree and performance, but somebody who's responsible for this job.

DOBBS: Congresswoman Tauscher, I know that you're focused intently on issues of national security, our armed forces, intelligence, foreign policy. But the fact is three-and-a-half years after 9/11, the issue of accountability wasn't really raised in the 9/11 commission report. A brilliant piece of work by any standard, if you would have it so.

But the fact is the CIA director was not fired, the FBI director was not fired, not a single person was fired for intelligence failures or administrative failures or executive failures in the entire federal government. How do you respond?

TAUSCHER: I said that today in the House Armed Services Committee. I said when you have this job spread over seven or eight people, it may be hard to fire seven or eight people. But, you know, if you listen to the kind of threat posture that we're hearing coming forward to the election, if you understand the turbulence that we have in the world right now, we need one person who's responsible.

They need to have a Cabinet-level job so that they have the ear of the president. They need to have budget authority so that they have hiring and firing and have everybody working for them. And, frankly, I want somebody I can fire if we ever have another problem like September 11 or Iraq intelligence, not seven or eight people, not people going like this.

I want one person, and that needs to be someone that the president appoints, is confirmed by the Senate, is in his Cabinet, and has real budget authority.

DOBBS: Are you concerned that the president isn't embracing all of the 9/11 commission recommendations?

TAUSCHER: Sure I am, but he'll get to it. The president eventually gets to it. Think about the Homeland Security Department. He tried to kind of sidestep it and put Tom Ridge in the White House as an adviser, not Cabinet appointed, not Senate confirmed, no testimony, and no budget.

Eventually, he came around to where we were, which was that we had to have somebody with real authority, a real budget, and somebody who would be fired if things didn't go right. And I think he eventually will come around, as he usually does, to hiring a national intelligence director, and, you know, I think that that's what he should have been doing today.

DOBBS: Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.

Good to have you with us.

TAUSCHER: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Coming up next here, border states in the United States and Mexico asking for help in securing the border between the two countries. We'll have a special report, and border security expert Peter Andreas is our guest.

Then a new controversial program, a new program to give emergency health care to illegal aliens, a medical-care program that would require doctors and hospitals to do something they've never done before -- in fact, something that not even our police do in many parts of this country. We'll have a special report. And Senator Robert Byrd has been in Congress long enough to work with 11 presidents, and he says this administration is the most reckless and arrogant of all. He's written a new book. Senator Robert Byrd will be our guest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: In Broken Borders tonight, U.S. and Mexican governors meeting in New Mexico today pledge to coordinate their efforts to stop drug and human smugglers at the border. They also pleaded with the governments of both the United States and Mexico for help.

Casey Wian reports from Santa Fe.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Governors of four U.S. and six Mexican states signing what they call an historic agreement to work together to make their borders more secure. Conference host Bill Richardson of New Mexico says the effort is needed because Washington, D.C., and Mexico City have failed to control the border.

RICHARDSON: We need to stand strong as border states. Sometimes when our federal governments don't act, it is important that border states work closely together.

WIAN: The agreement calls for state police on both sides of the border to work together to fight crime, such as drug smuggling and auto theft. State officers will conduct joint training exercises and coordinate radio communications. Governors admit it's only a first step, and they pleaded for more federal action.

GOV. RICK PERRY (D), TEXAS: I believe federal fishes must not only require stronger safety measures, but they must fund them, too.

WIAN: Mexican border governors gave mixed messages. Chihuahua Governor Martinez said fighting terrorism and securing the boarder are necessary for both nations, but Baja California's governors wants a more open border and expansion of NAFTA.

GOV. EUGENEO ELORDUY WALTHER, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO: There's a movie out which says the title in Spanish. I'll translate it for you. It says "One Day Without Mexicans," and it comes to show the great value of Mexicans and people of other countries, obviously, going to find a better quality of life.

WIAN: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, facing a controversial decision on driver's licenses for illegal aliens in his state, failed to even mention immigration or border security.

(on camera): Mexican President Vicente Fox gave a brief videotaped statement to the conference calling for safeguards for migrant workers and their families.

But the Bush administration did not participate. Border governors say they expect little or no federal action on illegal immigration until after the U.S. presidential election.

Casey Wian, CNN, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: My next guest, a featured speaker at the governors' border conference today in Santa Fe, Peter Andreas, says our border patrol policies have failed. He's assistant professor at Brown University, the author of "Border Games," and joins us tonight from Santa Fe.

Good to have you with us.

PETER ANDREAS, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Thanks for having me.

DOBBS: The idea of border governor states, both Mexican and American, meeting to discuss these important issues, any prospect that anything substantive could be done?

ANDREAS: Well, understandably, these kind of events have high symbolic appeal and value. Good question: What's going to come out of it? I think what is new and novel is we historically think of border security issues as strictly a federal issue, and the border states now are seeming to be taking some initiative in terms of setting the agenda, creating more local level cross-border relations, and, in fact, let's say a natural disaster or terrorist incident happened, it would, in fact, be significantly local-level actors who have to deal with the mess.

DOBBS: But the mess is a million illegal aliens crossing our border every year, the mess is eight million to 12 million illegal aliens residing in this country, and the mess is an immigration policy that makes sense for anyone at all. What are we going to do about that?

ANDREAS: Well, that's the big question. It's certainly not a new question. People have to recognize that in terms of the border, the border has never been fully controlled, is not fully controlled now, and I would say it's unlikely to be fully controlled in the future.

The first thing we have do is recognize that the border is not the source of the problem, probably not the source of the solution, and, realistically speaking, we have to lower our level of expectation of what -- how meaningful a deterrent the border can actually be, a 2,000-mile-long border policed by a Border Patrol agency which has more than doubled in the past decade, but which actually has not reduced the number of unauthorized entries across the border.

So although it's politically...

DOBBS: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, Professor. I mean, if you're going to run all this together, let's start with a couple things. The Border Patrol is told that they can't apprehend, detain and deport illegal aliens, first of all, right now. Two, the number of Border Patrol agents across the northern and southern borders are pitifully small, they're overworked, overtaxed and given an impossible assignment.

So let's go to the issue, as you said. What is the problem? The border's being crossed by people illegally into this country and being hired to do jobs in this country, right?

ANDREAS: Well, what's interesting is what you pointed out at the very end of your comment, which is they're being hired to do jobs illegally. What we have right now is essentially a situation of a kind of prohibitionist policy at the border and a laissez-faire policy in the workplace. In a sense, there's kind of -- this is getting back to my point about focusing on the border obsessively as the source of the problem when people simply wouldn't come...

DOBBS: Well, I'll be glad to focus on anything you want, Professor, but I want...

ANDREAS: I'm just saying...

DOBBS: ... to focus on the problem, and the problem is with people crossing our borders illegally.

ANDREAS: Right. The sheer number of people crossing our borders is economically driven. We have to, in other words, redefine this to some extent as a labor market issue, and there's obviously a very strong demand for this labor in the United States and a very strong supply side in Mexico.

DOBBS: Well, are you suggesting then, because there is an economic incentive for people to cross our borders illegally, it should not be a matter of border security, it should not be a matter of national interest or national referendum on important issues like immigration?

ANDREAS: Oh, all countries obviously should and do protect their borders. The question is: How much effort you put on that line in the sand to deal with the problems such as unauthorized migration? And I'm suggesting it's not a terribly efficient policy response, and it hasn't been, and it's unlikely to be in the future.

DOBBS: Well, let my say -- since you suggest the border isn't the problem, let me suggest to you what I -- is at least a concern, and that is that 300 million Americans, eight million to 12 million of them illegal, but about 300 million of us haven't made a decision about what is the direction of this country, what should be our immigration policies, what should this country look like, what rights should be guaranteed, how secure should our borders be.

My guess is, Professor -- I'd love to hear your thoughts -- I believe that most Americans say they'd like to see that border fairly secure just because amongst a million illegal aliens being apprehended every year, they're afraid that perhaps maybe a couple of terrorists could make it as well.

ANDREAS: Well, the allure of fully securing the border is obviously a powerful one. We could build a 2,000-mile-wall. I believe Patrick Buchanan suggested this a number of years ago, and some have joked that, in fact, the high cost of that wall would be much cheaper because we would, in fact, probably use Mexican labor to build it. I just don't actually see that happening realistically in the near and medium future. Some...

DOBBS: Well, I've got to ask you this question. What do you see? I mean, you've got those governors from Mexico and the United States.

ANDREAS: Right.

DOBBS: What did you tell them?

ANDREAS: What did I tell them? I told them that...

DOBBS: Don't worry about it? I mean, what?

ANDREAS: Back to your question regarding the issue of terrorism coming up, what I told them is -- I said, listen, in some ways, the situation is the same old, same old, lots of -- basically a porous border, insecure border, but what's changed post-9/11 is that the national tolerance for that porous being the way it is has decreased significantly. The silver lining here, I should emphasize, is that the United States can and should expect much more cooperation from Mexico in counterterrorism that it can in stopping its own nationals...

DOBBS: Oh, for crying out loud, Mexico won't even cooperate in stopping the illegal traffic of its citizens across our border. I mean, come on. Let's be...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Come on. Let's be straight here.

ANDREAS: Let's also be straight and say it would be political -- it would be political suicide for Mexican politicians to actually stop their citizens from leaving their country. The U.S. has promoted democratization of Mexico for decades. Now they're asking...

DOBBS: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait.

ANDREAS: No, no, no.

DOBBS: Let's talk about Mexico since you brought it up. You always want to shift this back to the United States. Mexico is a sovereign country with almost 110 million citizens. Aren't they responsible for those citizens, their economic and social wellbeing? Aren't they responsible for their borders?

ANDREAS: They're absolutely responsible for their borders, but their constitution actually prohibits them stopping people from leaving their country, and, in fact, I would suggest that the United States...

DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stopping people from leaving their country forcibly. I'm suggesting that the Mexican government, a Mexican state that is rife with corruption, a 40 percent poverty rate perhaps could, through its concerned political leadership, start looking to the well-being of its people and providing that well-being through its policies in that state.

What do you think of that idea?

ANDREAS: I couldn't agree with you more.

DOBBS: And on that, we've got to quit.

You know what? I love it when we agree. Come back, we'll argue.

ANDREAS: Thank you very much for having me.

DOBBS: Some very bad news at the border: eight illegal aliens and their alleged smuggler were killed in Hidalgo, Texas. Their car plunged into an irrigation canal. A ninth illegal alien survived that crash late last night, two miles from the Mexican border.

The aliens crossed the border into Texas. They were picked up by the smuggler. That accident occurred when the smuggler sped away from the area with no lights on to avoid being apprehended by authorities at the border.

The government set aside $1 billion in federal money to pay for emergency room care for illegal aliens in this country, but now to obtain that money, hospitals must do something that's alarming immigration activists and certainly hospital administrators.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The federal government has $1 billion for emergency room medical care for illegal aliens, but to collect it hospitals will have to do what they've never done before, ask a patient's immigration status. Bad idea, say those involved with immigration health issues, as it would intimidate illegal aliens in need of health care.

MARCELA URRUTIA, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA: A significant sector of our population would not seek and would not obtain incredibly needed health care and which would absolutely expose the rest of us to public health consequences.

TUCKER: Doctors and hospital administrators object to the proposal as well, saying they're health care providers, not immigration officers.

CHRISTINE CAPITO BURCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC HOSPITALS: We're hearing from many hospitals that they will not ask these questions. They would find it detrimental to fulfilling their public health commitment to the communities and they won't ask the questions.

TUCKER: The program begins this October, distributing $250 million a year for four years with particular attention given to states with the highest number of illegal alien arrests. Those states are Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, New York and Texas. The idea is not popular with everyone. Some lawmakers calling it simply misguided.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: The fact is, if the federal government does that, what we are doing is giving our hospitals and emergency rooms money to take care of illegals, but not money to take care of our own citizens who don't have health care coverage.

TUCKER: Forty-three million American citizens don't have health insurance and we don't know the impact of illegals on our health care system.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: In May of this year, the General Accounting Office basically admitted failure in its attempts to determine the impact of illegal aliens on uncompensated care costs. The reason, hospitals don't ask, and Lou, immigrants don't tell.

DOBBS: It gets better and better. Bill Tucker, thank you.

Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security today announced bold new plans to expedite the deportation of illegal aliens. Under the new plan illegal aliens caught in this country, crossing into this country, will now be held and returned to their country of origin as quickly as possible. You think that might be too good to be true? Well, it turns out, you're right, it is.

The plan, believe it or not, only pertains to illegal aliens caught within 100 miles of the border who've been in this country for less than 14 days. And here's the kicker, and who are not citizens of Canada or Mexico. And the problem with that? Almost 90 percent of illegal aliens caught at our borders are Mexican.

DHS also said Mexicans with a special border crossing card can extend U.S. visits for up to 30 days now, up from the current limit of three. The number of illegal aliens apprehended this year has already reached 880,000. And it is widely understood and accepted that the actual number of illegal aliens getting past border patrol agents is two to three times the number actually caught.

Joining me now is Michael Cutler, he's former Senior Special Agent for the INS, a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies. Good to have you with us.

MICHAEL CUTLER, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES FELLOW: Thank you for having me. Good to be here.

DOBBS: Let's start with the idea that we're asking, through the provision of $1 billion to hospitals, to provide for emergency medical care, we're asking our hospitals now to do something we won't allow our border patrol agents to do. What's going on?

CUTLER: Well, lunacy is -- I keep saying that nobody would break into an amusement park if they couldn't get to go on the rides. And you know what? We're not only allowing these folks to go on the rides, we're paying for it. And I think it makes common sense to know who we're paying for.

And yet, the politicians consistently show a lack of resolve, a lack of will to do what needs to be done to secure the borders. You can't protect the United States simply at the border. Any illegal alien knows that if they're persistent, if they make effort after effort, if they're willing to get arrested several times by the patrol, ultimately they'll get into the country and they'll get whatever it is they want.

We need meaningful interior enforcement. And nobody from either side of the aisle really wants to talk about that.

DOBBS: We need to have policies in place to prevent border patrol agents from actually apprehending illegal aliens. We have local and state policies in place that prevent law enforcement officers and state patrol from questioning citizenship documentation of those that they arrest.

Let's just start with those elements. What's it going to take to be serious about our border security?

CUTLER: I thought after 9/11 that would have been enough. And incredibly, we keep on resisting common sense. You know, if you look at what happened after December 7th, when America was attacked during the Second World War, we won that war in under four years. We had to build atom bombs and new airplanes and all sorts of things. Here we are nearly three years after 9/11 and we still don't even have a secure passport that's linked to biometrics.

I don't know what it's going take to get the politicians to be shaken out of their complacency and truly protect this country. And you know, it's not just terrorists. When I was assigned to DEA intelligence they did an analysis of arrest statistics and found that 60 percent of the people arrested for drug trafficking in New York were foreign born: 6-0 percent; 30 percent nationwide.

And there's a nexus between drug traffickers and terrorism, and yet we still don't have the resolve the do the right thing. And the new agents going through the academy now, what they now call ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aren't even being taught Spanish language. How can you possibly investigate people you can't communicate with?

DOBBS: It is extraordinary. Michael Cutler, good to have you with us.

CUTLER: Appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about it. I think it's important for the folks out there to understand the magnitude of the problem.

And one last thing: with the backdrop that we keep being told that we're under the threat of yet, further attacks.

DOBBS: Thank you, Michael

CUTLER: Thank you.

DOBBS: Taking a look now at some of your thoughts on these issues. Many of you wrote in about non-citizens gaining the right to vote in this country.

Karen Weisner of Santa Rosa, California: Give non-citizens the vote? Well, we're already giving them our jobs, free medical care and other social services. So, why not make it a clean sweep and give it all away!

Justin Lynch, Gold Valley, Minnesota: Now, I've heard it all. Illegal aliens demand the "right" to vote, thereby giving them input into who makes the laws they have no intention of observing!

We love hearing from you. E-mail us your thoughts at loudobbs@cnn.com.

Coming up next here: "The Best Government Money Can Buy" on our series of special reports all this week. Tonight, we focus on the enormous influence of special interest groups and the ones they most influence in Washington.

Also ahead, Senator Robert Byrd. He'll be joining me to talk about his new book, "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency".

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight: "The Best Government Money Can Buy". We focus tonight on special interest groups who use a number of different strategies to promote the issues they support. And the national party conventions present a unique opportunity for those lobbyists to target specific members of Congress.

Lisa Sylvester has the story from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congressman Joe Baca has a pretty good swing. He got to show off his skills at a tournament during the Democratic National Convention, co-sponsored by American Express. Representative Barney Frank attended a luncheon hosted by the major accounting firms. Both men sit on the House committee regulating the banking industry. Neither sees a conflict of interest.

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I meet with a wide range of employees. No problem.

SYLVESTER: Congress suspends its ethics rules during the political conventions, which normally limit lawmakers to gifts of no more than $50. But the conventions have become a free-for-all.

Corporations can donate an unlimited amount of money to help pay for the conventions and their lavish party: one of the few areas left where corporate donors can openly buy access to lawmakers.

The American Gas Association, for example, threw this party at a swanky Boston club. The Association will spend $700,000 on events between the two conventions.

FRED WERTHEIMER, PRESIDENT, DEMOCRACY 21: These can cost $100,000, $250,000 or more. That's a huge financial favor for a powerful member of Congress.

SYLVESTER: Special interest groups have found other ways to spend unlimited money to not only buy access to lawmakers, but also to keep their friends in office. One way is by channeling money to outside groups, not restricted by Campaign Finance laws. The IRS has designations for various political groups named after sections in the tax code: 527s, like move-on.org are the new magnets for soft money.

But there are other shadow groups operating under the radar: 501(c)s like "Americans for Job Security," located in this nondescript building and founded by pro-business interest. The group spent $10 million in 2000 running political ads according to tax records.

CRAIG HOLMAN, LOBBYIST, PUBLIC CITIZEN: The real problem with the 501(c)s, unlike Section 527 groups, that I think a lot of people have heard of already, with 501(c)s there's no disclosure of where they're getting their money from.

SYLVESTER: And unlike the 527s, the 501(c)s do not have to file IRS forms to show how much they spent until after the election.

MICHAEL DUBKE, AMERICANS FOR JOB SECURITY: We don't disclose that. We used to when we first started; found that that was a distraction to the issues that we wanted to talk about and decided back in 1998, that at that point, it became too much of a distraction.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: That means anyone with enough cash cannot only influence public policy, but can also sway votes while remaining anonymous.

Critics blame the Federal Election Commission for not reigning in these political group. The chairman of the FEC, Bradley Smith, insists his agency is just enforcing existing Campaign Finance laws, and if Congress does not like the 527s or the political 501(c)s then it is up to them to change the law.

Lou.

DOBBS: A rather nifty arrangement, as they say.

Lisa, thank you. Lisa Sylvester. When we continue here: taxes and the middle class. Election year politics in full swing. We'll have something for you on the very latest in high level political maneuvering on Capitol Hill.

And ahead, my next guest says the U.S. Constitution itself is in danger. He's written a new book criticizing President Bush and the U.S. Congress: Senator Robert Byrd joins me. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My guest is one of the longest serving members of the U.S. Congress, the author of a new book highly critical of the Bush administration. Senator Robert Byrd's new book is entitled "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency."

Senator Byrd joins us tonight from Washington. Senator, good to have you with us.

You refer to the Bush administration, President Bush, as a rogue White House. Why is that?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Because they seem to have a contempt for the constitutional checks and balances. And this troubles me.

I've been in this government now for over 51 years. I served with 11 presidents. I've never seen an administration that is grasping for power, so contemptuous of the Legislative Branch and so contemptuous of the Constitution; and always grasping for more power.

I'm concerned about this and this is why I wrote this book "Losing America."

DOBBS: You write that you're concerned about the slow unraveling of the people's liberties since September 11th, referring to the PATRIOT Act and other actions. Has there been, in your judgment, a sufficient role for Congress -- and all of this Congress passed the Act and enacted the legislation -- to what degree does Congress bear responsibility for any recklessness or any policy change that you don't approve of here?

BYRD: Congress bears a great deal of responsibility for having passed these acts -- and I'm talking about the PATRIOT Act -- and also the legislation that shifted the power to declare war from the Congress to one man, namely the President of the United States. Congress did not stand up to its responsibilities in these instances and I criticize the Congress for this.

DOBBS: Congress, in terms of turning over power to the presidency, the growth in power of the Executive Branch well documented: turning over power and the ability to declare war, to wage war, turning over fast track authority to create trade agreements. All of this done in the name of efficiency and the necessity for speed. You reject that rationale?

BYRD: Yes, I do. The framers did not intend for this constitutional form of government to be a government of efficiency. That's the purpose of the Senate is to debate and to make decisions. And we have not stood up to our responsibilities in this regard.

I've long been against these trade acts that don't give the Senate a chance to debate and to amend. And this is the fault of the Congress itself. We should not have supported such acts. We ought to always keep in mind the role of the Senate in debating and in amending. And we ought to protect that role. We have failed to do that.

DOBBS: That's going to be tested once again when the Senate will be voting on confirmation of Porter Goss, now the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to be CIA director. What do you think of Congressman Goss; his prospects to be confirmed?

BYRD: Well, i think he's a very able man. He's a man of great experience, but I also have to say that I don't believe that a politician should be nominated to this position. The people of this country want to trust the government. They want to trust the intelligence process and to name a politician at this particular moment in time, I think is a mistake.

DOBBS: Admiral Bobby Inman, Senator, earlier in the broadcast, pointed out that President George Bush's father also served in elective politics, partisan politics and with CIA director. And certainly Admiral Inman, whom I assume you respect greatly...

BYRD: I do.

DOBBS: ... felt that he had been an outstanding CIA director.

BYRD: Well, I think he was a good CIA director, but we've been through a situation here, in which the people have had their trust in government severely tried. And their trust in the intelligence community: things went wrong when it came to invading a nation that had not attacked our own country. And a part of that was the fault of the intelligence-gathering entities and the analyzation (sic) of the intelligence that was on hand.

I think the people need to have trust in the intelligence community and I think that at this particular time, they should not have to choose a politician.

DOBBS: Senator Robert Byrd. The book is "Losing America." We thank you for being with us here.

BYRD: Well, I thank you. And I want to say that I wrote this book "Losing America" in order to save this book, which contains the Constitution of the United States. Thank you very much.

DOBBS: Thank you, Senator. Senator Byrd, always with his pocket U.S. Constitution. Not a bad idea for any of us.

A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight: do you think Congressman Porter Goss is qualified for the job of CIA director? Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you a little later here.

When we return, many middle class Americans are counting on $1,000 tax breaks that are now caught in election-year politics. CNN Political Analyst Carlos Watson joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The $1.3 trillion tax cuts that Congress passed back in 2001, begin to phase out this year. The White House pushing to make those cuts permanent. The President has asked Congress to take up the issue in the September session, just weeks of course, before the presidential election.

Our CNN Political Analyst Carlos Watson joins us tonight from Mountain View, California. Carlos, what is the Republican thinking to drive this tax strategy in September?

CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: There's both a policy and a political strategy here, Low.

Policy-wise, the White House has wanted to make these extensions permanent. Back in July, they could have gotten extended for two years, but they said let's hold off, with the belief that by bringing it up in September, they could get these extensions for five years.

But politically, though, the strategy is bring up an important issue, with a couple weeks to go before the election; it not only gives you leverage on the policy-side, but it could reintroduce the issue in both the presidential and the congressional elections.

DOBBS: Carlos, I think I would go along with you in most cases, but Senator Kerry is straightforward. He says he's going to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. And the Republicans: are they united on the idea of making permanent these tax cuts?

WATSON: Not united. In fact, John McCain, Olympia Snow and couple other senators on both sides of the aisle have pushed back and said with a record deficit, let's not do this, certainly long term or even for five years.

But in 2002, Lou, the Republicans saw that by saving an issue until the fall, namely the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, they were able to create an important campaign issue that led to them re-taking the Senate. Remember people like Max Cleland in Georgia, people like Jane Carnahan in Missouri, although they had honest disagreements, ultimately lost, and their nuances weren't heard.

DOBBS: The voters, who have to do the hearing, what do the voters think about taxes in this election?

WATSON: Right now it's even: 48-47 in our latest poll, in terms of who they trust, Kerry versus Bush. Although some of the battleground states like Arizona, New Hampshire, Florida, the President may enjoy a slight lead.

DOBBS: Carlos Watson, good to talk with you.

WATSON: Good to talk to you.

DOBBS: Still ahead: the results of our poll tonight.

A reminder to check our Web site for the complete list of companies we've confirmed to be exporting America. cnn.com/lou.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Well, only 15 percent of you say Congressman Porter Goss is qualified to be director of the CIA.

Now we'll find out what the U.S. Senate says.

Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow: Congresswoman Jane Harman, Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, joins us to talk about the 9/11 Commission Report and the need for sweeping intelligence reform. And we'll also be talking to her about the nomination by President Bush of Porter Goss.

In "Face Off" the power of independent political groups over our political process. Has it gone too far? We'll have a debate. Please be with us.

For all of us here: good night from New York.

"ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.

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


Aired August 10, 2004 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the president has chosen a new head of the CIA. President Bush nominating Congressman Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: Many Democrats say Congressman Goss is too partisan for the job. Many Republicans say the Democrats are simply playing politics. Democratic Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher joins me. I'll also be talking with former top intelligence official Admiral Bobby Inman.

In Broken Borders, the federal government wants hospitals to register illegal aliens who receive medical treatment, and state governors want much tougher border controls.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: It is important that border states work closely together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: Tonight, I'll talk with two of this country's most outspoken critics of our border security policies.

Also tonight, one of America's most respected lawmakers, Senator Robert Byrd, joins me to discuss his book "Losing America." We'll be talking about the campaign and the election.

And, in our special report, The Best Government Money Can Buy, special interest groups and lobbyists spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy access to our lawmakers and to keep their political friends in office.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Tuesday, August 10. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening. Tonight, President Bush faces criticism on Capitol Hill over his choice of a new CIA director. President Bush today nominated Congressman Porter Goss who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a former CIA officer. President Bush on Congressman Goss said he's a leader with strong experience in the fight against terrorism. Many Democrats, but certainly not all, say Congressman Goss is too close to the White House.

We begin our coverage with Elaine Quijano at the White House -- Elaine.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the president calls Porter Goss the right man for the job and says his experience both in Washington and also at the CIA is an asset. Now Porter Goss, as you said, is a Republican congressman from Florida, who's also the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Now, if confirmed by the Senate, it would be a return to an old employer for Goss who also served in the CIA's clandestine service for more than 10 years, starting in 1960. His nomination comes at a time when pressure is mounting on the Bush administration to act quickly on the September 11 commission's recommendations for intelligence reform.

The president says his nominee's background will serve him well, if confirmed for the position.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Porter Goss is a leader with strong experience in intelligence and in the fight against terrorism. He knows the CIA inside and out. He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUIJANO: Now, while President Bush says that his nominee has the respect on both sides of the aisle here in Washington, there is some concern among some Democrats that perhaps Porter Goss, who is a strong supporter of the president's, may be too partisan for the position.

Now the president's Democratic rival John Kerry stayed away from wading into that specific debate, but issued a written statement today saying, "This is a key position in fighting the war on terror and should not be left vacant."

But the most important position is one that hasn't been created yet, national intelligence director, with real control of budgets and personnel.

Now, in choosing Goss, the president passed over the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, who took over after George Tenet resigned. The president's decision to fill this post before the election may quiet some critics out there who said that a permanent CIA director was needed to fight the war on terror -- Lou.

DOBBS: Elaine, thank you. Elaine Quijano reporting from the White House.

On Capitol Hill, leading Democrats say Congressman Goss is too close to the intelligence community and too partisan to be an effective CIA director. Those Democrats say Congressman Goss will find it difficult to resist any White House attempt to shape intelligence, but Republicans say Democrats are simply playing politics.

Congressional Correspondent Joe Johns with the report -- Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, this is sort of the dance they do on Capitol Hill whenever you have a nomination of this type. Obviously, it was pretty well received. A number of members of Congress on both sides, in fact, giving really very warm words for Mr. Goss, talking about, number one, his years of work at the CIA, also his years of work here on Capitol Hill.

Typical of those remarks, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (D), GEORGIA: In this country, Porter brings a vast amount of experience all the way from the Defense Intelligence Agency to the Central Intelligence Agency to his work on Capitol Hill, and, at this critical time in our intelligence world, we need somebody who understands all of these different aspects of our intelligence community and can bring the right people together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Some other Democrats were supportive, too, but not all Democrats, of course, on Capitol Hill. A number of Democrats have actually questioned whether it's a good idea to have a politician -- perhaps any politician -- taking the helm at the CIA at this time.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, served on the Intelligence Committee for years with Porter Goss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), MINORITY LEADER: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't -- a person should not be the director of Central Intelligence who has acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering of analysis and the dissemination of information, of intelligence without any political -- any politics involved at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Now no one I talked to on Capitol Hill today said outright that they would oppose the Goss nomination. Nonetheless, a number of Democrats have said they will use the confirmation process of Porter Goss to try to delve into the administration's policies and positions regarding the 9/11 commission's recommendations. Lou, back to you.

DOBBS: Joe, thank you.

Joe Johns from Capitol Hill.

Former Deputy CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman says the Senate will confirm Congressman Goss and fairly quickly. Admiral Inman is one of this country's most respected former intelligence officers. His career included four years as director of the National Security Agency. Admiral Inman joins us now here in New York.

Good to have you with us.

ADM. BOBBY INMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Thank you.

DOBBS: Porter Goss -- the idea that a person cannot be in elected office, partisan politics, and still be a CIA director. What do you think?

INMAN: George H.W. Bush was even the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He had been a congressman. He was a very effective director of Central Intelligence. I watched at close hand. He then went back to politics.

The concern ought to be, if, on the Congress, they're too close to the intelligence committee. But once they're over in the executive branch, you hope they're as close as they can be so they're watching every day what's going on.

DOBBS: There is, if you will -- perhaps I shouldn't call it strange, given that this is a presidential election year -- it seems a strange bit of maneuvering over this nomination. The idea that Porter Goss has been nominated by the president. The criticism was instantaneous. What are your thoughts?

INMAN: Well, the billet is director of Central Intelligence, also runs the Central Intelligence Agency. There isn't anything else right now to nominate somebody for.

So the issue was: Did you leave a very able public servant as acting who's spending an awful lot of time defending past actions, or did you put somebody else in to get them focused on all the challenges we've got, who may be in the job a few months or a few years?

It's clear that Congressman Goss has wanted this job. So he's obviously happy to serve.

DOBBS: Your reaction to Senator Kerry's statement, in which he really said -- sort of said fine with Porter Goss as the nominee for the president, but the really important job is the 9/11 commission's recommendation for a czar of intelligence, if you will, putting the CIA director sort of in a peculiar position.

INMAN: This is the prospect of a huge change in the way we've organized and run the intelligence functions of the government. I've advocated a lot of change for a long time. But we ought to do it carefully. Speed is not the critical ingredient.

I did want to see the president move to put someone in to make sure that people weren't worried about their jobs or defending the past. Given all the threats we keep hearing about, I wanted to make sure they were focused right now every day on the challenges in front of us.

DOBBS: And you're offering really a rationale for passing over John McLaughlin as the acting CIA director.

INMAN: Here he's a great man in the process, but there's no way he could not spend time defending the past that he was part of.

DOBBS: Given the critical nature of the war against radical Islamist terrorists that we're in, that partisan politics we're watching unfold instantly on the nomination of a CIA director, is there an impact on the intelligence community itself? Is there in point of fact some jeopardy here raised for the effectiveness of our intelligence operations as a result of this partisan politics on both sides? I'm not talking about one side.

INMAN: There is an impact. After the Church and Pike committee hearings, Senator Inouye came to talk to us to say what do I need to do to get away from the partisan approach, and we encouraged the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate committee and that they'd never take a vote purely on partisan lines.

I'm a great fan of Congresswoman Jane Harman. I think she's a terrific talent. But over the last year, she and the chairman, Mr. Goss, have steadily moved apart on issues. So there's been an appearance of more politics in the process. I don't think it's hurt the oversight of the intelligence community.

DOBBS: Admiral Bobby Inman, good to have you with us.

INMAN: Thank you.

DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. The question: Do you think Congressman Porter Goss is qualified for the job of CIA director? Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results later in the broadcast, of course.

Coming right up, the president's choice for a new CIA chief that Democrats say partisanship. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of the House Armed Services Committee joins me.

Also ahead here, cracking down on the flood of illegal aliens crossing our border with Mexico. Brown University Professor Peter Andreas says America's policies have been an utter failure. He'll be with us next to tell us why.

And Senator Robert Byrd has a new book, "Losing America." Senator Byrd says the Bush administration's leadership has put this country in danger. He'll be with us next to tell us why. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My next guest is concerned that President Bush hasn't embraced all of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. She also questions the president's choice of Congressman Porter Goss as the new CIA director. Joining me now Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Good to have you with us.

REP. ELLEN TAUSCHER (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Let's begin with this nomination. Just talking with Admiral Bobby Inman who was, obviously, concerned about the partisan politics -- that includes both parties, of course -- on a nomination of this importance. Do you have real reservations about Porter Goss, or do you think he is a man who should be confirmed as CIA director?

TAUSCHER: Well, Porter Goss is a good man and he may make a fine CIA director, but this was not the right nomination for the president to be making today.

The president should have been nominating the new national director of intelligence. That is the job that the 9/11 commission says we vitally need to fill. That is the job that we have to have to protect the American people. That's the job we have to have to reform the intelligence agencies that we know failed us on September 11 and we know failed us in the Iraq War.

So this is a -- probably a good nomination. The Senate will decide that. Frankly, it was the wrong job being nominated.

DOBBS: The idea of having a national intelligence czar is recommended by the 9/11 commission, as you point out. One thinks of Homeland Security as a mammoth, gargantuan department with massive bureaucracy. Would that not also be the same effect with a national intelligence czar bringing together all of these agencies? Do we run that risk, in your judgment?

TAUSCHER: I wholeheartedly agree with the 9/11 commission. We had Governor Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton in front of the House Armed Services Committee today, and they very, very smartly told us that we need someone that's going to not only analyze and streamline all of these different groups, but somebody's who's going to manage.

And, frankly, we need one person that's accountable so we don't have cataclysmic failures like we had on September 11 and with the Iraq intelligence. So I'm forced to having somebody that not only has the pedigree and performance, but somebody who's responsible for this job.

DOBBS: Congresswoman Tauscher, I know that you're focused intently on issues of national security, our armed forces, intelligence, foreign policy. But the fact is three-and-a-half years after 9/11, the issue of accountability wasn't really raised in the 9/11 commission report. A brilliant piece of work by any standard, if you would have it so.

But the fact is the CIA director was not fired, the FBI director was not fired, not a single person was fired for intelligence failures or administrative failures or executive failures in the entire federal government. How do you respond?

TAUSCHER: I said that today in the House Armed Services Committee. I said when you have this job spread over seven or eight people, it may be hard to fire seven or eight people. But, you know, if you listen to the kind of threat posture that we're hearing coming forward to the election, if you understand the turbulence that we have in the world right now, we need one person who's responsible.

They need to have a Cabinet-level job so that they have the ear of the president. They need to have budget authority so that they have hiring and firing and have everybody working for them. And, frankly, I want somebody I can fire if we ever have another problem like September 11 or Iraq intelligence, not seven or eight people, not people going like this.

I want one person, and that needs to be someone that the president appoints, is confirmed by the Senate, is in his Cabinet, and has real budget authority.

DOBBS: Are you concerned that the president isn't embracing all of the 9/11 commission recommendations?

TAUSCHER: Sure I am, but he'll get to it. The president eventually gets to it. Think about the Homeland Security Department. He tried to kind of sidestep it and put Tom Ridge in the White House as an adviser, not Cabinet appointed, not Senate confirmed, no testimony, and no budget.

Eventually, he came around to where we were, which was that we had to have somebody with real authority, a real budget, and somebody who would be fired if things didn't go right. And I think he eventually will come around, as he usually does, to hiring a national intelligence director, and, you know, I think that that's what he should have been doing today.

DOBBS: Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.

Good to have you with us.

TAUSCHER: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Coming up next here, border states in the United States and Mexico asking for help in securing the border between the two countries. We'll have a special report, and border security expert Peter Andreas is our guest.

Then a new controversial program, a new program to give emergency health care to illegal aliens, a medical-care program that would require doctors and hospitals to do something they've never done before -- in fact, something that not even our police do in many parts of this country. We'll have a special report. And Senator Robert Byrd has been in Congress long enough to work with 11 presidents, and he says this administration is the most reckless and arrogant of all. He's written a new book. Senator Robert Byrd will be our guest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: In Broken Borders tonight, U.S. and Mexican governors meeting in New Mexico today pledge to coordinate their efforts to stop drug and human smugglers at the border. They also pleaded with the governments of both the United States and Mexico for help.

Casey Wian reports from Santa Fe.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Governors of four U.S. and six Mexican states signing what they call an historic agreement to work together to make their borders more secure. Conference host Bill Richardson of New Mexico says the effort is needed because Washington, D.C., and Mexico City have failed to control the border.

RICHARDSON: We need to stand strong as border states. Sometimes when our federal governments don't act, it is important that border states work closely together.

WIAN: The agreement calls for state police on both sides of the border to work together to fight crime, such as drug smuggling and auto theft. State officers will conduct joint training exercises and coordinate radio communications. Governors admit it's only a first step, and they pleaded for more federal action.

GOV. RICK PERRY (D), TEXAS: I believe federal fishes must not only require stronger safety measures, but they must fund them, too.

WIAN: Mexican border governors gave mixed messages. Chihuahua Governor Martinez said fighting terrorism and securing the boarder are necessary for both nations, but Baja California's governors wants a more open border and expansion of NAFTA.

GOV. EUGENEO ELORDUY WALTHER, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO: There's a movie out which says the title in Spanish. I'll translate it for you. It says "One Day Without Mexicans," and it comes to show the great value of Mexicans and people of other countries, obviously, going to find a better quality of life.

WIAN: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, facing a controversial decision on driver's licenses for illegal aliens in his state, failed to even mention immigration or border security.

(on camera): Mexican President Vicente Fox gave a brief videotaped statement to the conference calling for safeguards for migrant workers and their families.

But the Bush administration did not participate. Border governors say they expect little or no federal action on illegal immigration until after the U.S. presidential election.

Casey Wian, CNN, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: My next guest, a featured speaker at the governors' border conference today in Santa Fe, Peter Andreas, says our border patrol policies have failed. He's assistant professor at Brown University, the author of "Border Games," and joins us tonight from Santa Fe.

Good to have you with us.

PETER ANDREAS, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Thanks for having me.

DOBBS: The idea of border governor states, both Mexican and American, meeting to discuss these important issues, any prospect that anything substantive could be done?

ANDREAS: Well, understandably, these kind of events have high symbolic appeal and value. Good question: What's going to come out of it? I think what is new and novel is we historically think of border security issues as strictly a federal issue, and the border states now are seeming to be taking some initiative in terms of setting the agenda, creating more local level cross-border relations, and, in fact, let's say a natural disaster or terrorist incident happened, it would, in fact, be significantly local-level actors who have to deal with the mess.

DOBBS: But the mess is a million illegal aliens crossing our border every year, the mess is eight million to 12 million illegal aliens residing in this country, and the mess is an immigration policy that makes sense for anyone at all. What are we going to do about that?

ANDREAS: Well, that's the big question. It's certainly not a new question. People have to recognize that in terms of the border, the border has never been fully controlled, is not fully controlled now, and I would say it's unlikely to be fully controlled in the future.

The first thing we have do is recognize that the border is not the source of the problem, probably not the source of the solution, and, realistically speaking, we have to lower our level of expectation of what -- how meaningful a deterrent the border can actually be, a 2,000-mile-long border policed by a Border Patrol agency which has more than doubled in the past decade, but which actually has not reduced the number of unauthorized entries across the border.

So although it's politically...

DOBBS: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, Professor. I mean, if you're going to run all this together, let's start with a couple things. The Border Patrol is told that they can't apprehend, detain and deport illegal aliens, first of all, right now. Two, the number of Border Patrol agents across the northern and southern borders are pitifully small, they're overworked, overtaxed and given an impossible assignment.

So let's go to the issue, as you said. What is the problem? The border's being crossed by people illegally into this country and being hired to do jobs in this country, right?

ANDREAS: Well, what's interesting is what you pointed out at the very end of your comment, which is they're being hired to do jobs illegally. What we have right now is essentially a situation of a kind of prohibitionist policy at the border and a laissez-faire policy in the workplace. In a sense, there's kind of -- this is getting back to my point about focusing on the border obsessively as the source of the problem when people simply wouldn't come...

DOBBS: Well, I'll be glad to focus on anything you want, Professor, but I want...

ANDREAS: I'm just saying...

DOBBS: ... to focus on the problem, and the problem is with people crossing our borders illegally.

ANDREAS: Right. The sheer number of people crossing our borders is economically driven. We have to, in other words, redefine this to some extent as a labor market issue, and there's obviously a very strong demand for this labor in the United States and a very strong supply side in Mexico.

DOBBS: Well, are you suggesting then, because there is an economic incentive for people to cross our borders illegally, it should not be a matter of border security, it should not be a matter of national interest or national referendum on important issues like immigration?

ANDREAS: Oh, all countries obviously should and do protect their borders. The question is: How much effort you put on that line in the sand to deal with the problems such as unauthorized migration? And I'm suggesting it's not a terribly efficient policy response, and it hasn't been, and it's unlikely to be in the future.

DOBBS: Well, let my say -- since you suggest the border isn't the problem, let me suggest to you what I -- is at least a concern, and that is that 300 million Americans, eight million to 12 million of them illegal, but about 300 million of us haven't made a decision about what is the direction of this country, what should be our immigration policies, what should this country look like, what rights should be guaranteed, how secure should our borders be.

My guess is, Professor -- I'd love to hear your thoughts -- I believe that most Americans say they'd like to see that border fairly secure just because amongst a million illegal aliens being apprehended every year, they're afraid that perhaps maybe a couple of terrorists could make it as well.

ANDREAS: Well, the allure of fully securing the border is obviously a powerful one. We could build a 2,000-mile-wall. I believe Patrick Buchanan suggested this a number of years ago, and some have joked that, in fact, the high cost of that wall would be much cheaper because we would, in fact, probably use Mexican labor to build it. I just don't actually see that happening realistically in the near and medium future. Some...

DOBBS: Well, I've got to ask you this question. What do you see? I mean, you've got those governors from Mexico and the United States.

ANDREAS: Right.

DOBBS: What did you tell them?

ANDREAS: What did I tell them? I told them that...

DOBBS: Don't worry about it? I mean, what?

ANDREAS: Back to your question regarding the issue of terrorism coming up, what I told them is -- I said, listen, in some ways, the situation is the same old, same old, lots of -- basically a porous border, insecure border, but what's changed post-9/11 is that the national tolerance for that porous being the way it is has decreased significantly. The silver lining here, I should emphasize, is that the United States can and should expect much more cooperation from Mexico in counterterrorism that it can in stopping its own nationals...

DOBBS: Oh, for crying out loud, Mexico won't even cooperate in stopping the illegal traffic of its citizens across our border. I mean, come on. Let's be...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Come on. Let's be straight here.

ANDREAS: Let's also be straight and say it would be political -- it would be political suicide for Mexican politicians to actually stop their citizens from leaving their country. The U.S. has promoted democratization of Mexico for decades. Now they're asking...

DOBBS: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait.

ANDREAS: No, no, no.

DOBBS: Let's talk about Mexico since you brought it up. You always want to shift this back to the United States. Mexico is a sovereign country with almost 110 million citizens. Aren't they responsible for those citizens, their economic and social wellbeing? Aren't they responsible for their borders?

ANDREAS: They're absolutely responsible for their borders, but their constitution actually prohibits them stopping people from leaving their country, and, in fact, I would suggest that the United States...

DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stopping people from leaving their country forcibly. I'm suggesting that the Mexican government, a Mexican state that is rife with corruption, a 40 percent poverty rate perhaps could, through its concerned political leadership, start looking to the well-being of its people and providing that well-being through its policies in that state.

What do you think of that idea?

ANDREAS: I couldn't agree with you more.

DOBBS: And on that, we've got to quit.

You know what? I love it when we agree. Come back, we'll argue.

ANDREAS: Thank you very much for having me.

DOBBS: Some very bad news at the border: eight illegal aliens and their alleged smuggler were killed in Hidalgo, Texas. Their car plunged into an irrigation canal. A ninth illegal alien survived that crash late last night, two miles from the Mexican border.

The aliens crossed the border into Texas. They were picked up by the smuggler. That accident occurred when the smuggler sped away from the area with no lights on to avoid being apprehended by authorities at the border.

The government set aside $1 billion in federal money to pay for emergency room care for illegal aliens in this country, but now to obtain that money, hospitals must do something that's alarming immigration activists and certainly hospital administrators.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The federal government has $1 billion for emergency room medical care for illegal aliens, but to collect it hospitals will have to do what they've never done before, ask a patient's immigration status. Bad idea, say those involved with immigration health issues, as it would intimidate illegal aliens in need of health care.

MARCELA URRUTIA, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA: A significant sector of our population would not seek and would not obtain incredibly needed health care and which would absolutely expose the rest of us to public health consequences.

TUCKER: Doctors and hospital administrators object to the proposal as well, saying they're health care providers, not immigration officers.

CHRISTINE CAPITO BURCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC HOSPITALS: We're hearing from many hospitals that they will not ask these questions. They would find it detrimental to fulfilling their public health commitment to the communities and they won't ask the questions.

TUCKER: The program begins this October, distributing $250 million a year for four years with particular attention given to states with the highest number of illegal alien arrests. Those states are Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, New York and Texas. The idea is not popular with everyone. Some lawmakers calling it simply misguided.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: The fact is, if the federal government does that, what we are doing is giving our hospitals and emergency rooms money to take care of illegals, but not money to take care of our own citizens who don't have health care coverage.

TUCKER: Forty-three million American citizens don't have health insurance and we don't know the impact of illegals on our health care system.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: In May of this year, the General Accounting Office basically admitted failure in its attempts to determine the impact of illegal aliens on uncompensated care costs. The reason, hospitals don't ask, and Lou, immigrants don't tell.

DOBBS: It gets better and better. Bill Tucker, thank you.

Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security today announced bold new plans to expedite the deportation of illegal aliens. Under the new plan illegal aliens caught in this country, crossing into this country, will now be held and returned to their country of origin as quickly as possible. You think that might be too good to be true? Well, it turns out, you're right, it is.

The plan, believe it or not, only pertains to illegal aliens caught within 100 miles of the border who've been in this country for less than 14 days. And here's the kicker, and who are not citizens of Canada or Mexico. And the problem with that? Almost 90 percent of illegal aliens caught at our borders are Mexican.

DHS also said Mexicans with a special border crossing card can extend U.S. visits for up to 30 days now, up from the current limit of three. The number of illegal aliens apprehended this year has already reached 880,000. And it is widely understood and accepted that the actual number of illegal aliens getting past border patrol agents is two to three times the number actually caught.

Joining me now is Michael Cutler, he's former Senior Special Agent for the INS, a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies. Good to have you with us.

MICHAEL CUTLER, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES FELLOW: Thank you for having me. Good to be here.

DOBBS: Let's start with the idea that we're asking, through the provision of $1 billion to hospitals, to provide for emergency medical care, we're asking our hospitals now to do something we won't allow our border patrol agents to do. What's going on?

CUTLER: Well, lunacy is -- I keep saying that nobody would break into an amusement park if they couldn't get to go on the rides. And you know what? We're not only allowing these folks to go on the rides, we're paying for it. And I think it makes common sense to know who we're paying for.

And yet, the politicians consistently show a lack of resolve, a lack of will to do what needs to be done to secure the borders. You can't protect the United States simply at the border. Any illegal alien knows that if they're persistent, if they make effort after effort, if they're willing to get arrested several times by the patrol, ultimately they'll get into the country and they'll get whatever it is they want.

We need meaningful interior enforcement. And nobody from either side of the aisle really wants to talk about that.

DOBBS: We need to have policies in place to prevent border patrol agents from actually apprehending illegal aliens. We have local and state policies in place that prevent law enforcement officers and state patrol from questioning citizenship documentation of those that they arrest.

Let's just start with those elements. What's it going to take to be serious about our border security?

CUTLER: I thought after 9/11 that would have been enough. And incredibly, we keep on resisting common sense. You know, if you look at what happened after December 7th, when America was attacked during the Second World War, we won that war in under four years. We had to build atom bombs and new airplanes and all sorts of things. Here we are nearly three years after 9/11 and we still don't even have a secure passport that's linked to biometrics.

I don't know what it's going take to get the politicians to be shaken out of their complacency and truly protect this country. And you know, it's not just terrorists. When I was assigned to DEA intelligence they did an analysis of arrest statistics and found that 60 percent of the people arrested for drug trafficking in New York were foreign born: 6-0 percent; 30 percent nationwide.

And there's a nexus between drug traffickers and terrorism, and yet we still don't have the resolve the do the right thing. And the new agents going through the academy now, what they now call ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aren't even being taught Spanish language. How can you possibly investigate people you can't communicate with?

DOBBS: It is extraordinary. Michael Cutler, good to have you with us.

CUTLER: Appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about it. I think it's important for the folks out there to understand the magnitude of the problem.

And one last thing: with the backdrop that we keep being told that we're under the threat of yet, further attacks.

DOBBS: Thank you, Michael

CUTLER: Thank you.

DOBBS: Taking a look now at some of your thoughts on these issues. Many of you wrote in about non-citizens gaining the right to vote in this country.

Karen Weisner of Santa Rosa, California: Give non-citizens the vote? Well, we're already giving them our jobs, free medical care and other social services. So, why not make it a clean sweep and give it all away!

Justin Lynch, Gold Valley, Minnesota: Now, I've heard it all. Illegal aliens demand the "right" to vote, thereby giving them input into who makes the laws they have no intention of observing!

We love hearing from you. E-mail us your thoughts at loudobbs@cnn.com.

Coming up next here: "The Best Government Money Can Buy" on our series of special reports all this week. Tonight, we focus on the enormous influence of special interest groups and the ones they most influence in Washington.

Also ahead, Senator Robert Byrd. He'll be joining me to talk about his new book, "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency".

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight: "The Best Government Money Can Buy". We focus tonight on special interest groups who use a number of different strategies to promote the issues they support. And the national party conventions present a unique opportunity for those lobbyists to target specific members of Congress.

Lisa Sylvester has the story from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congressman Joe Baca has a pretty good swing. He got to show off his skills at a tournament during the Democratic National Convention, co-sponsored by American Express. Representative Barney Frank attended a luncheon hosted by the major accounting firms. Both men sit on the House committee regulating the banking industry. Neither sees a conflict of interest.

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I meet with a wide range of employees. No problem.

SYLVESTER: Congress suspends its ethics rules during the political conventions, which normally limit lawmakers to gifts of no more than $50. But the conventions have become a free-for-all.

Corporations can donate an unlimited amount of money to help pay for the conventions and their lavish party: one of the few areas left where corporate donors can openly buy access to lawmakers.

The American Gas Association, for example, threw this party at a swanky Boston club. The Association will spend $700,000 on events between the two conventions.

FRED WERTHEIMER, PRESIDENT, DEMOCRACY 21: These can cost $100,000, $250,000 or more. That's a huge financial favor for a powerful member of Congress.

SYLVESTER: Special interest groups have found other ways to spend unlimited money to not only buy access to lawmakers, but also to keep their friends in office. One way is by channeling money to outside groups, not restricted by Campaign Finance laws. The IRS has designations for various political groups named after sections in the tax code: 527s, like move-on.org are the new magnets for soft money.

But there are other shadow groups operating under the radar: 501(c)s like "Americans for Job Security," located in this nondescript building and founded by pro-business interest. The group spent $10 million in 2000 running political ads according to tax records.

CRAIG HOLMAN, LOBBYIST, PUBLIC CITIZEN: The real problem with the 501(c)s, unlike Section 527 groups, that I think a lot of people have heard of already, with 501(c)s there's no disclosure of where they're getting their money from.

SYLVESTER: And unlike the 527s, the 501(c)s do not have to file IRS forms to show how much they spent until after the election.

MICHAEL DUBKE, AMERICANS FOR JOB SECURITY: We don't disclose that. We used to when we first started; found that that was a distraction to the issues that we wanted to talk about and decided back in 1998, that at that point, it became too much of a distraction.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: That means anyone with enough cash cannot only influence public policy, but can also sway votes while remaining anonymous.

Critics blame the Federal Election Commission for not reigning in these political group. The chairman of the FEC, Bradley Smith, insists his agency is just enforcing existing Campaign Finance laws, and if Congress does not like the 527s or the political 501(c)s then it is up to them to change the law.

Lou.

DOBBS: A rather nifty arrangement, as they say.

Lisa, thank you. Lisa Sylvester. When we continue here: taxes and the middle class. Election year politics in full swing. We'll have something for you on the very latest in high level political maneuvering on Capitol Hill.

And ahead, my next guest says the U.S. Constitution itself is in danger. He's written a new book criticizing President Bush and the U.S. Congress: Senator Robert Byrd joins me. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My guest is one of the longest serving members of the U.S. Congress, the author of a new book highly critical of the Bush administration. Senator Robert Byrd's new book is entitled "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency."

Senator Byrd joins us tonight from Washington. Senator, good to have you with us.

You refer to the Bush administration, President Bush, as a rogue White House. Why is that?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Because they seem to have a contempt for the constitutional checks and balances. And this troubles me.

I've been in this government now for over 51 years. I served with 11 presidents. I've never seen an administration that is grasping for power, so contemptuous of the Legislative Branch and so contemptuous of the Constitution; and always grasping for more power.

I'm concerned about this and this is why I wrote this book "Losing America."

DOBBS: You write that you're concerned about the slow unraveling of the people's liberties since September 11th, referring to the PATRIOT Act and other actions. Has there been, in your judgment, a sufficient role for Congress -- and all of this Congress passed the Act and enacted the legislation -- to what degree does Congress bear responsibility for any recklessness or any policy change that you don't approve of here?

BYRD: Congress bears a great deal of responsibility for having passed these acts -- and I'm talking about the PATRIOT Act -- and also the legislation that shifted the power to declare war from the Congress to one man, namely the President of the United States. Congress did not stand up to its responsibilities in these instances and I criticize the Congress for this.

DOBBS: Congress, in terms of turning over power to the presidency, the growth in power of the Executive Branch well documented: turning over power and the ability to declare war, to wage war, turning over fast track authority to create trade agreements. All of this done in the name of efficiency and the necessity for speed. You reject that rationale?

BYRD: Yes, I do. The framers did not intend for this constitutional form of government to be a government of efficiency. That's the purpose of the Senate is to debate and to make decisions. And we have not stood up to our responsibilities in this regard.

I've long been against these trade acts that don't give the Senate a chance to debate and to amend. And this is the fault of the Congress itself. We should not have supported such acts. We ought to always keep in mind the role of the Senate in debating and in amending. And we ought to protect that role. We have failed to do that.

DOBBS: That's going to be tested once again when the Senate will be voting on confirmation of Porter Goss, now the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to be CIA director. What do you think of Congressman Goss; his prospects to be confirmed?

BYRD: Well, i think he's a very able man. He's a man of great experience, but I also have to say that I don't believe that a politician should be nominated to this position. The people of this country want to trust the government. They want to trust the intelligence process and to name a politician at this particular moment in time, I think is a mistake.

DOBBS: Admiral Bobby Inman, Senator, earlier in the broadcast, pointed out that President George Bush's father also served in elective politics, partisan politics and with CIA director. And certainly Admiral Inman, whom I assume you respect greatly...

BYRD: I do.

DOBBS: ... felt that he had been an outstanding CIA director.

BYRD: Well, I think he was a good CIA director, but we've been through a situation here, in which the people have had their trust in government severely tried. And their trust in the intelligence community: things went wrong when it came to invading a nation that had not attacked our own country. And a part of that was the fault of the intelligence-gathering entities and the analyzation (sic) of the intelligence that was on hand.

I think the people need to have trust in the intelligence community and I think that at this particular time, they should not have to choose a politician.

DOBBS: Senator Robert Byrd. The book is "Losing America." We thank you for being with us here.

BYRD: Well, I thank you. And I want to say that I wrote this book "Losing America" in order to save this book, which contains the Constitution of the United States. Thank you very much.

DOBBS: Thank you, Senator. Senator Byrd, always with his pocket U.S. Constitution. Not a bad idea for any of us.

A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight: do you think Congressman Porter Goss is qualified for the job of CIA director? Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you a little later here.

When we return, many middle class Americans are counting on $1,000 tax breaks that are now caught in election-year politics. CNN Political Analyst Carlos Watson joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The $1.3 trillion tax cuts that Congress passed back in 2001, begin to phase out this year. The White House pushing to make those cuts permanent. The President has asked Congress to take up the issue in the September session, just weeks of course, before the presidential election.

Our CNN Political Analyst Carlos Watson joins us tonight from Mountain View, California. Carlos, what is the Republican thinking to drive this tax strategy in September?

CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: There's both a policy and a political strategy here, Low.

Policy-wise, the White House has wanted to make these extensions permanent. Back in July, they could have gotten extended for two years, but they said let's hold off, with the belief that by bringing it up in September, they could get these extensions for five years.

But politically, though, the strategy is bring up an important issue, with a couple weeks to go before the election; it not only gives you leverage on the policy-side, but it could reintroduce the issue in both the presidential and the congressional elections.

DOBBS: Carlos, I think I would go along with you in most cases, but Senator Kerry is straightforward. He says he's going to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. And the Republicans: are they united on the idea of making permanent these tax cuts?

WATSON: Not united. In fact, John McCain, Olympia Snow and couple other senators on both sides of the aisle have pushed back and said with a record deficit, let's not do this, certainly long term or even for five years.

But in 2002, Lou, the Republicans saw that by saving an issue until the fall, namely the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, they were able to create an important campaign issue that led to them re-taking the Senate. Remember people like Max Cleland in Georgia, people like Jane Carnahan in Missouri, although they had honest disagreements, ultimately lost, and their nuances weren't heard.

DOBBS: The voters, who have to do the hearing, what do the voters think about taxes in this election?

WATSON: Right now it's even: 48-47 in our latest poll, in terms of who they trust, Kerry versus Bush. Although some of the battleground states like Arizona, New Hampshire, Florida, the President may enjoy a slight lead.

DOBBS: Carlos Watson, good to talk with you.

WATSON: Good to talk to you.

DOBBS: Still ahead: the results of our poll tonight.

A reminder to check our Web site for the complete list of companies we've confirmed to be exporting America. cnn.com/lou.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Well, only 15 percent of you say Congressman Porter Goss is qualified to be director of the CIA.

Now we'll find out what the U.S. Senate says.

Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow: Congresswoman Jane Harman, Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, joins us to talk about the 9/11 Commission Report and the need for sweeping intelligence reform. And we'll also be talking to her about the nomination by President Bush of Porter Goss.

In "Face Off" the power of independent political groups over our political process. Has it gone too far? We'll have a debate. Please be with us.

For all of us here: good night from New York.

"ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.

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