Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Intel Committee Chair Proposes Break-Up of CIA; New Attack Ad Blasts Kerry for Vietnam Criticism
Aired August 23, 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, a building political firestorm in Washington. The highly respected chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee proposes to break up the CIA and to rebuild the nation's intelligence. Intelligence Committee Chairman Senator Pat Roberts is our guest.
Attack politics. The newest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad blasts Senator John Kerry not for his decorated service in Vietnam, but for his criticism of the Vietnam War. The new ads launched as President Bush calls on all 527 groups, Democratic and Republican, to stop their attack ads.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: The Department of Homeland Security says our broken borders are safe. A shocking new report says they are not. In fact, the majority of Border Patrol agents say they don't have the resources and support to stop terrorists from entering the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER CONTROL COUNCIL: When you do the math with millions of people slipping across our border every year, you have to figure that a few terrorists have gotten by.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Exporting America. Congress soon returns from recess to work on more than two dozen bills designed to stop the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. But will Congress pass those bills? We'll have a special report.
And hundreds of Americans protest new overtime rules that critics say will shrink the paychecks of millions of working Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The middle class is now getting a gut punch on overtime. Today's actions are especially shameful.
(END VIDEO CLIP) DOBBS: And Labor Department Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic, who helped write those new rules, joins us.
CNN ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Monday, August 23. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
Tonight, the political battle to reform this nation's intelligence agencies is more partisan and in some ways more bitter than in the days immediately following the 9/11 commission report.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts shocked many of his Democratic colleagues and perhaps the White House as well by proposing to break up the CIA and rebuild our nation's intelligence agencies. Senator Roberts says he has the support of most Republicans on his committee, but the Democrats on that committee are blasting the proposal and say they were taken by surprise.
Ed Henry reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill, a senior Republican is urging his colleagues to stop the talk and finally take some dramatic action.
SEN. PAT ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: This is more important than politics or turf or agency. There isn't any agency more sacrosanct than our national security.
HENRY: Colleagues knew Roberts wanted a strong national intelligence director, but the actual legislation includes a shocker. He wants to dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency. The Roberts plan would break the CIA into three parts: a national clandestine service, an office of national assessments, and an office of technical support. The reaction has been swift and scathing from the intelligence community and from Democrats on Capitol Hill.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Well, he hasn't shared those documents with me or with Senator Rockefeller, who's the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. I believe it's a mistake to lay down a proposal that only has the support of members of one party.
HENRY: Senator Jay Rockefeller, who normally enjoys a cordial relationship with Roberts, expressed frustration with being left out of the loop. Rockefeller added of the substance "disbanding and scattering the Central Intelligence Agency at such a crucial time would be a severe mistake." An aide to Roberts insisted to CNN that the chairman had shared the details with Rockefeller. Democrats chose not to act, said the aide. So Roberts did.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Chairman Roberts is also facing heat from some fellow Republicans, such as the powerful Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner. He released a statement expressing concern about any plan that curbs the Pentagon's power over programs that "support our men and women in uniform." This is yet another sign that a real turf battle has developed between Warner and Roberts -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ed, thank you very much.
Ed Henry reporting from Washington.
And later here in this broadcast, I'll be talking with the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts. Members of the Senate intelligence community are blasting Senator Roberts, but the intelligence community itself blasting away almost from the moment they heard the proposal. Former CIA Director George Tenet today said the plan will damage U.S. national security more than improve it.
David Ensor is live in Washington with a report for us -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: As you say, Lou, serving CIA officials are calling the plan "reckless" and predicting it would hurt U.S. national security. A former agency official predicts that it would also hurt morale.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK DEVINE, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: It is going to be very demoralizing. We're going to lose people. We're going to not have some of the best and brightest supplied to us, and it's like taking the Marine Corps and saying now we're going to call you something else. It is not a trivial event, and I caution those that do this to think long and hard about the full implications of it.
ENSOR (voice-over): Former director of Central Intelligence George Tenet was even tougher on the proposal, calling it "yet another episode in the mad rush to rearrange writing diagrams in an attempt to be seen as doing something. It is time," Tenet said, "for someone to say stop."
But Roberts says he wanted to lay down a marker, a plan to enact the proposals of the 9/11 commission. The plan would also fold the other big intelligence agencies under a national intelligence director, taking the huge National Security Agency and others out from under the Pentagon's wing in terms of budget and personnel.
Much depends on the view of President Bush. Standing next to a less than enthusiastic Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was noncommittal.
BUSH: Senator Roberts is a good, thoughtful guy who came up with an idea, and we'll look at it. We'll take a look at it and determine, you know, whether or not it works or not.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Hardly a ringing endorsement, but Roberts hopes to build a coalition for the kind of dramatic change he's proposing, starting with the families of 9/11 victims and including, he hopes, some former CIA directors. Interestingly, his proposal got a quick positive comment from the Kerry campaign -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
David Ensor reporting from Washington.
Turning now to a partisan battle over attack ads in this election, President Bush today repeated his call for an end to all advertisements paid for by 527 political groups. However, the president stopped short of condemning ads by the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Jill Dougherty is near the president's ranch in Crawford and has the report for us -- Jill.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the Kerry campaign has been badgering the White House, badgering President Bush to come out and specifically condemn that attack ad that was funded by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Now, today, coming out, speaking briefly with reporters after he met with his top officials on national security issues, the president didn't go that far. But he did go farther than he has so far on this issue. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it, and I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying -- condemning these activities of the 527s. It's -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain- Feingold. I've been disappointed that, for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money, billionaires writing checks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOUGHERTY: So that ad, of course, by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth took aim at Kerry and his record in Vietnam. And now the White House was asked about this statement by the president today saying "that ad," and the White House says there's no change. The president has denounced all ads of these types, these groups, the 527s, soft money groups. He says that he wants an end to them.
By the way, the president, Lou, did mention Senator Kerry. He said that he served admirably in the military, ought to be proud of his record, but the president said the real question here is who can lead the country in this war on terror.
DOBBS: Jill, thank you very much.
Jill Dougherty -- we appreciate it -- reporting from near Crawford, Texas, where the president, of course, is vacationing.
Former Senator Bob Dole today says he didn't mean to offend Senator Kerry when he criticized his Vietnam record. The World War II veteran told CNN yesterday that Senator Kerry "never bled for the three Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam.
Senator Dole also called on Senator Kerry to apologize to Vietnam veterans for criticizing the war and then campaigning as a veteran. Senator Dole today said Senator Kerry called him to say he was disappointed with his comments. Senator Dole said he respects Senator Kerry and was only taking part in a national political debate.
Well, Senator Kerry's anti-war statements are the focus of the newest ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Bill Schneider reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): John Kerry is running for president as a war hero, but Kerry was also an anti-war hero. This week, his critics are putting out a new ad attacking not his war record, but his anti-war record.
SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: ... razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades in North Vietnam in the prison camps took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry was actually quoting other veterans' reports of wartime atrocities, but he endorsed those accusations at the time and he still does.
KERRY: All I know is that it happened as a matter of course.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry's anti-war statements could become a serious problem for him.
ROBERT DOLE, FORMER SENATOR: I think this ad's going to take -- you know, it's going to be tough on Kerry because -- and he says, well, this is all hearsay, what he picked up from other veterans, but he said it.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry's defenders call his anti-war testimony an act of courage.
MAX CLELAND (D), FORMER SENATOR: We knew by this time that the war was a mistake. John was the one with the courage to come out and say it.
SCHNEIDER: But it remains a source of deep resentment to other veterans and the issue that set off their attacks against him.
DAVID WALLACE, SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH: He told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities, that we tortured people, raped women, burned villages without any reason.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry insists he was stating well-documented facts.
KERRY: I can assure you that, you know, in fact, all I did was tell the truth about some of the things that had happened over there.
SCHNEIDER: And he claims he never blamed the soldiers.
KERRY: I asked where's the leadership of the country. I asked where the leaders were, not the soldiers, because it was the leaders in Washington who left the soldiers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: The issue is relevant because Americans are once again fighting overseas, and some of them resent criticism of their mission. A Marine major serving in Iraq writes in "The New York Times," "I believe that when Americans say they support our troops, it should include supporting our mission. They shouldn't denigrate it. That only aids the enemy in defeating us strategically" -- Lou.
DOBBS: The Kerry war record, the -- President Bush's National Guard record -- when, in your best judgment, are we going to see these campaigns focus on the future, which is critically challenged on a host of fronts in this campaign?
SCHNEIDER: When they realize that those issues -- that no one's paying attention to those issues and that there could be a backlash against them for talking about something that happened 35 years ago. So far, we really haven't reached that point, and a lot of Republicans believe that this is damaging to Senator Kerry, and, as long as they believe it's damaging him, they're going to keep it up.
DOBBS: Bill Schneider.
Thank you.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign today again called on the president to specifically denounce the ads that criticize the Senator's war record. Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator John Edwards said the president failed to do the right thing, as he put it, when he chose not to directly reject the Swift Boat Veterans' ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Today, George Bush faced his moment of truth, and he failed. He failed to condemn the specific attacks on John Kerry's military record. We don't -- we didn't need to hear a politician's answer, but, unfortunately, that's what we got, and that's what the American people got today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Senator Edwards, speaking during a campaign appearance in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, said the president needs to take responsibility for the anti-Kerry ads and demand they're taken off the air.
Still ahead here tonight, Broken Borders. A shocking number of our Border Patrol agents say they don't have the resources nor the support to keep not only illegal aliens from crossing our borders, but also terrorists. President of the National Border Control Council, T.J. Bonner, joins us next.
And then, Assault on the Middle Class. Working men and women in this country under assault on a number of fronts, and neither political candidate -- national political candidate is focused on defending them. Tonight, we begin a week-long series of special reports.
And then, Exporting America. Congress hopes a number of bills will help stop the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Critics say few of them will make it to the president's desk. Exporting America next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In Broken Borders tonight, there are 11,000 Border Patrol agents patrolling some 6,000 miles of this country's boundaries and borders. A disturbing new survey released today finds two-thirds of those agents say they lack the necessary resources and support to stop illegal aliens and terrorists from crossing our borders. Half the agents surveyed said the United States is no more secure today than on September 11, 2001. That survey conducted by Hart Associates.
T.J. Bonner is the president of the National Border Patrol Council joining us from Washington.
Good to have you with us.
BONNER: Good to be here.
DOBBS: Well, you've got to be alarmed. The Department of Homeland Security has got to be alarmed. These are frightening results.
BONNER: They are, but, Lou, I'm not shocked at all. I have known this all along, and the people on the border have known this all along, and it's time that we spread this message to the American people.
DOBBS: Sixty-four percent in that survey by Peter Hart's group -- 64 percent of the border protection personnel say they're not satisfied with their tools, their training, their support. What can be done?
BONNER: A whole lot can be done. They need to get a lot of things out to the field. They need proper weapons, proper body armor, vehicles, computers. They need databases that talk to each other. And I could just go on through the end of your show listing things off, Lou.
DOBBS: Well -- and according to the same survey, almost two- thirds say they are demoralized. How is this exhibited? What are the symptoms of this right now?
BONNER: Well, the other part -- the other finding of the survey was that almost half of these people have considered leaving the Department of Homeland Security within the last two years, looking for another job.
DOBBS: I think most people are also unaware there's been a hiring freeze since, what, March for the Department of Homeland Security. How is that playing into this?
BONNER: We need more Border Patrol agents. Everybody knows that, and because they ran out of money, they've just hung out the white flag.
DOBBS: Well, the white flag when it comes to our border security isn't an acceptable response. What can be done?
BONNER: I think that someone needs to step up to the plate. The administration needs to step up to the plate. The Congress of the United States needs to step up to the plate. They need to give these front-line personnel the tools, the training, the support they need, and they need to fundamentally revamp our laws so that they can actually secure the borders.
DOBBS: Seventy-six percent of the agents surveyed say the strategy of deterrence -- that is requiring fixed positions -- say this is only somewhat or not at all effective in protecting our borders. What are we to do there?
BONNER: Let them do their job, allow them to go back to patrolling the borders.
DOBBS: You know, T.J., as you and I have talked over the course of time here on this issue, is there a political will -- because we're told that this country is doing everything it can in the war on terror, yet our borders remain absolutely -- I think there's no other way to say it than a joke.
When you have a million people crossing our borders illegally, what's it going to take for Washington to wake up and start dealing with the real -- the very real issues and potentially threatening issues in terms of national security to make our borders safe?
BONNER: I would have thought that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack would have been that wake-up call, but that wasn't it. I don't know what it's going to take, Lou.
DOBBS: T.J. Bonner, on that dispiriting note, we're going to have to say thank you, and we appreciate your sharing those results with us of that survey. And this country always manages to find a way to solve its problems. Let's hope those solutions come soon.
Thank you, T.J. Bonner.
BONNER: Thank you. DOBBS: Coming up next, Exporting America. Dozens of plans to stop the hemorrhaging of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Exporting America. Does any of that legislation stand a chance of being passed and helping real Americans?
Also tonight, an all-out assault on our middle class, yet no one in Washington seems to be taking it seriously. We begin a new series of special reports, Assault on the Middle Class, throughout the week.
And an end to the CIA? The powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says this nation's leading spy agency should be dissolved in the interest of national security. Senator Pat Roberts is our guest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CNN ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues with more news, debate and opinion. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Tonight, Exporting America. When Congress reconvenes early next month, it will take on a barrage of legislative initiatives to prevent U.S. companies from sending American jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. Many in Congress are outraged at the way outsourcing has robbed many Americans of their livelihoods, but, so far, the issue hasn't made as much progress as they would like on the floor of U.S. Congress.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than two dozen bills or proposals in Congress are trying to curtail the negative effects of outsourcing.
REP. BERNARD SANDERS (I), VERMONT: I think any sane person in the United States Congress is prepared to say enough is enough. We cannot condone the collapsing of the middle class, the loss of good- paying jobs, the creation of low-paying jobs. We need fundamental changes in our trade policy. We have got to stop the outsourcing.
PILGRIM: But, in reality, many bills do not attempt to limit outsourcing, but try to give U.S. customers more control over their personal data.
Senator Hillary Clinton introduced a Safe I.D. Act which would require permission from the customer before a company could send personal financial data overseas to an outsource firm. A bill introduced by Senator Daschle on behalf of Senator John Kerry wants call-center employees to say where they are calling from.
But others try to limit federal contracts, tax benefits and job attrition. For example, Senator Christopher Dodd seeks to prohibit some federal contractors from doing contract work overseas. Three proposed bills in the House and two in the Senate seek to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to offer benefits for people who have had their job outsourced overseas.
The hot campaign issue, however, is making slow progress in Congress.
THEA LEE, AFL-CIO: Most of these pieces of legislation aren't moving particularly fast through the pipeline, unfortunately. They are -- they're not really making it through committee, in many cases, and, of course, the Congress has a lot on their plate right now, especially budget and appropriations, which is most of what's going to concern them through the fall.
So many of these bills aren't moving particularly fast, but I think the fact that so many bills are out there and that so of many of them are bipartisan or have bipartisan support shows that people are really, really concerned about this issue.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now there's one piece of legislation that already passed. It stops the Export/Import Bank from approving loans to U.S. companies who set up headquarters overseas in tax havens in order to avoid U.S. taxes, but there are a lot more outsourcing bills to be debated and passed -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
Kitty Pilgrim.
Tonight, we begin a new series of special reports that will run throughout the week on the single most powerful voting block in this country, the middle class. Most people don't think of the middle class as the most important voting block, but that is precisely what it is.
The middle class is comprised of nearly 50 million families that together have an enormous impact on our elections, especially our presidential elections, but this presidential campaign so far seems to be spending a lot of money and time on every other issue but those that directly affect the middle class.
Peter Viles reports from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Teacher Lori Magnuson. Her election concerns: illegal immigration, the high cost of housing, her fear that no one in Washington is listening.
LORI MAGNUSON, MIDDLE-CLASS VOTER: At this point, I'm very -- extremely tired of the Democrats and Republicans fighting against each other, wanting to work for just their ideals versus working together for the people.
VILES: From coast to coast middle-class anxiety is rising. Jobs are at risk, outsourcing on the rise, health-care costs out of control. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, 20, 25 percent of my income is going towards, you know, medical expenses.
VILES: Gas prices are spiking. Real wages are falling.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gas prices are going up, and I'm still making the same, and I still have to -- and support myself all for the same pay that I've been getting.
VILES: Overall, there's a sense of economic anxiety.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the economy is not what it was. I think the economy is much worse for most people.
VILES: Now you would think both parties are listening. The middle classes the ultimate block of swing voters.
JOHN ZOGBY, POLLSTER: I've looked at this group now in every election since 1972. Whichever candidate has won this group, that candidate has won the election. The only exception was that, in 2000, Al Gore won this group, he won the popular vote, but did not win the electoral college.
VILES: There's no official definition of the middle class. The middleclass.org defines it as families making $25,000 to $100,000 a year. That is six in 10 American families, 46 million households.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Most middle-class voters, even if they divide into Democrats and Republicans, want to see bipartisan cooperation and want to see the problems of the nation solved. They're not looking to pit one side against the other. But we're in a climate where the campaign is going to be conducted not to focus on the broad mass of voters in that way, but on the margins.
VILES: In other words, a campaign that ignores voters like Lori Magnuson.
MAGNUSON: The Republican and Democrat Parties are just so interested in just condemning each other and just forgetting about the people.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: One irony here: Middle-class voters are anxious about the future, the future of their jobs, the future of their and health care, yet this campaign has just been dominated in the past week by the past, and not just the recent past, but by discussion of events, Lou, that took place 35 years ago -- Lou.
DOBBS: Peter, thank you very much.
Peter Viles.
Returning now to our stop story of the evening, a controversial new proposal to reform the nation's intelligence agencies, in fact, to dissolve the CIA. Republican Senator Pat Roberts, the highly respected chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, unveiled what he calls a bold action plan and, indeed, that plan includes a dismantling of the CIA, and already many powerful Democrats voicing opposition.
Senator Roberts joins me tonight from Capitol Hill.
Senator, good to have you with us.
ROBERTS: Lou, it's always a pleasure. Thank you.
DOBBS: I can't think of much more that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee could have done to create a firestorm than to suggest dissolving the CIA, can you?
ROBERTS: Well, yes, if the chairman did that, but the chairman didn't do that. Basically everybody's talking about the dismantling or the termination of the CIA. That's not correct.
Every time the CIA has come up and testified before the Intelligence Committee, they have asked for more authority, if not more funding or more priorities.
Under the plan that we have put together, there's eight of us on the committee who think that we should have set a marker down for discussion at least, why, you know, we have thought, OK, let's don't dismantle the USA in terms of the function of the people who work there, but let's just realign them, and put them under a different kind of authority that will give them the authority and the funding that they have asked for.
So that's what we have done.
DOBBS: Now, your proposal, Senator Roberts, you say you're not dismantling the CIA or proposing such but at the same time the NID, the national intelligence director would have budgetary authority, the three broadly defined departments of the CIA would encompass then the entire intelligence community directed by new leaders for each one of those three operations.
ROBERTS: Yes.
DOBBS: Where is the CIA in all of that?
ROBERTS: Well, basically the same people that work at Langley, the same people that sit at the desks, the same people that are doing the great job for our national security, they stay right there and they do that job.
And the people who are out in the field risking our lives for our national security, we met with them all, not all of them but certainly a lot of them, and we have a lot of respect for them, they stay there, they do that job. Every time that we have heard from George Tenet or from John McLaughlin or anybody else, they want the authority -- which by the way is in the 1947 National Security Act, but they couldn't execute it. Now we have moved those people over to a new line authority. We've realigned them under an assistant national intelligence director. They'll get that authority and they will be able to function in their job better than they are right now.
DOBBS: Now, there will be three, senator, three of these assistant national intelligence directors?
ROBERTS: Yes, that's correct, and then you've got a fourth situation where we know the tactical intelligence for the military should stay with the secretary of defense. Also something called JMIP, the Joint Military Intelligence Program, that stays with the secretary of defense. There's a four-star general that serves as liaison with the national intelligence director and the secretary of defense.
DOBBS: Now the White House apparently is taken somewhat by surprise by your proposal. The president is saying they're not closing the door on any options, but it wasn't exactly a warm, friendly embrace of your initiative. Were you surprised by the White House reaction?
ROBERTS: I don't know, you know, Lou. The president just called me from Crawford, Texas, you know, by name, said I was a good thoughtful guy. Heck, I think that's pretty good for the president and a member of the Senate.
We're trying to implement the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 commission report. This is a congressional research study where we have tried intelligence reform 38 times since 1949. I mean, what does it take for the 9/11 commission and the families and all that we've gone through with these, oh, my God, how did this happen hearings and the intelligence committee to propose a true and real reform. Now it's not written in stone so we're working with the administration. We have shared our bill with the NSE folks and so we'll see what happens.
DOBBS: And your vice chairman on your committee, Senator Rockefeller, the two of you have been working in tandem, cordially, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and one might say exceptionally so. Senator Rockefeller today bristling at this proposal which he said basically didn't include him.
ROBERTS: Well, basically, Jay and I have had meaningful dialogue, and basically, you know, I like Jay, he's a personal friend, he's a great vice-chairman. He went out to all of his members and got their ideas. I shared all those ideas with ours, but it was a decision, and he had the bill as of Friday, obviously we both didn't have enough time to study every T and every I, and we had a different view, and he said, "don't plant the flag of the intelligence committee, I don't think it's a good idea to do it right now." I said, "Jay, we're running out of time, it's days, not weeks, you have the Republican convention.
What will happen on one hand is you'll have the Democrats or somebody simply introducing the 41 recommendations as a bill, which doesn't work, and on the other side you'll have the administration with some kind of proposal, we'll argue about that and we won't get it done unless it's a lame-duck session of Congress."
I said, "this is real reform." We stood back from the trees. We said, don't take a look at the agencies, don't take a look at the boxes, don't take a look at all the turf, what would you do if you really wanted to reform the intelligence community against the threats that we have in regards to our national security? And that's what we did.
DOBBS: How does it make you feel when former CIA director George Tenet says somebody has to say stop. Presumably he is among those offering that counsel.
ROBERTS: Well, I like George Tenet. He's a good friend of mine, or at least he was. That's fine but 1949 Harry Truman said, "OK, we're not going to have a secretary of war, or war department, we're going to have a department of defense." And the U.S. Army Air Force changed to the U.S. Air Force and there wasn't even a CIA. Those were difficult times, these are difficult times. If George Tenet had the authority of a national intelligence director as spelled out in the 1947 National Security Act, he wouldn't have come to our -- he wouldn't have come to our committee so many times saying, I need priority funding, I need better authority.
DOBBS: I know the Democrats and the White House alike have got to be pleased that you have moved this all beyond the early discussion following the 9/11 commission report about whether or not to empower a national intelligence director to the firestorm that surrounds your ideas today. That is progress by any definition. Senator Pat Roberts, good to have you with us.
ROBERTS: Lou, thank you. It's always a pleasure.
DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Question. "Do you believe the CIA should be dismantled and a super agency created in its place?" Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts. Many of you writing in about our "Exporting America" reports.
Tom Winter of Indianapolis, Indiana. "The corporations in America are given tax cuts that in theory will allow them to hire more Americans. They then move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid taxes and move jobs overseas to avoid fair wages all of which caters to the stockholders not the product, employees, or even the customer. Is this the American way?"
And Jeffrey Raupp of Holly, Michigan. "Too many companies have forgotten that it was the greatness of this country and its workers that allowed them to thrive and grow into what they are but now these one-time American companies are all too willing to turn their backs on us."
Ken Ota in California. "Mr. Dobbs, I'm sick and tired of hearing you whine about so-called "Exporting America." Why don't you just admit that you're just anti-trade, a classic protectionist!"
Well, Ken, I'm actually pro-trade, but I'm alarmed and disgusted at the number of good American jobs being shipped to cheap overseas markets. I'm concerned about free trade at any cost policies that have led to our record trade deficits, and if you want more, Ken, you can pick up my new book "Exporting America."
As they say, it's available in great bookstores near you. If you still want to call me names after that, send me another thought.
We love hearing from you. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com.
Still ahead, drastic changes in overtime pay that will affect millions of hard-working Americans. Victoria Lipnic of the Department of Labor helped write those new rules. She is my guest as is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. He says these new rules mean a costly paycut for millions of American families. He is also my guest tonight.
And water wars, a devastating drought gripping the western United States and experts warn that it is worsening. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: New rules for overtime pay went into effect today, the first such changes in more than half a century. Critics charge these new rules will take money away from hard-working Americans, while supporters say the new rules are needed to eliminate confusion. But it seems there is still plenty of that. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, all you billionaires, give us wages that are fair.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Passion and protest greeted the new rules on overtime at the Department of Labor. Labor groups bringing out the numbers to decry what they say is a major setback for American workers.
KAREN NUSSBAUM, EX. DIR., WORKING AMERICA: We're in this fight because working people in general in this country can't stand a paycut.
TUCKER: But that's just the controversy, will it mean a pay cut?
Here's what the rule changes are. Workers earning less than 455 dollars a week or $23,660 a year are guaranteed overtime. The old minimum was $8,000 a year, making more people eligible for O.T. Hourly paid workers will get overtime. Police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, all continue to get overtime. Nurses are a bit more complicated. Registered nurses have not been eligible for O.T. for 30 years, but other nurses paid by the hour do and will continue to get overtime.
CHRISTOPHER PARLO, EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY: I'm not sure why Congress thinks it need a new piece of legislation to explain why these 55 categories of people are still nonexempt. They were all nonexempt in the first place. So I think there's a lot puffery in an election year to show that you're doing something.
If you make more than 100,000 a year, you won't get overtime. But the rules are less clear and the controversy greatest for those earning between $24,000 and $100,000 a year. For example, supervisors don't get overtime pay. A supervisor is defined as someone who has hiring and firing power or job evaluation responsibilities.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that's the rub for a lot of labor leaders who argue it is now easier to declare an employees a supervisor, and so avoid paying the overtime -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, Bill, we're going to clear all of this up. Our next guest is one of the primary authors of these new overtime rules.
Joining me now is, Victoria Lipnic. She is assistant secretary of the Department of Labor, assistant secretary of Employment Standards. Good to have you with us.
VICTORIA LIPNIC, ASST. SEC. OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS: Thanks for having me.
DOBBS: Well, lets start out with the first question, why in the world was it necessary to touch these rules?
You have set off quite an argument, quite a controversy.
LIPNIC: Well, you're right about that Lou. But the reason that it was necessary to do this is because the fact is, the rules have not been updated in 30 years. And overtime protection has been eroding for millions of people in this country, and the time had come that we had to do something about it, and we had to put overtime protection back into place for America's workforce.
DOBBS: Let me put this to you straightforward -- straightforwardly.
Who came to you with this -- this to suggest it was time?
Was it corporate America? Was it organized labor?
Who was it who came to you and said we really need a change here?
LIPNIC: Well, there's been wide recognition at the Department of Labor that these rules have needed to be updated for 30 years. The fact is this is something that's been on the Department of Labor's agenda since the Carter administration, and every administration has made an attempt at it and just has not put it forward.
DOBBS: Do you better understand why now?
LIPNIC: Well, we've certainly -- we've certainly, you know, stepped -- stepped out here and made sure that, you know, we want to make sure that overtime protection is in place for people.
DOBBS: I know you that you would be as concerned as anybody about people losing their overtime, because in these times, every dollar counts. Under the new regulations, and this comes from the Economic Policy Institute, registered nurses, law enforcement personnel, team leaders, so-called, assistant managers at retail stores,and fast-food restaurants, chefs and others, could lose their right to overtime pay?
Is that a true statement?
LIPNIC: I think that's not true. Now lets talk about some of those, fro example, assistant managers in retail. The fact is we have put in stronger protections for assistant managers, and we have made the test tougher than the test that is currently on the books. If you look at the exemptions today for police and firefighters and EMTs, the fact is we have put new language into these rules for the first time to make sure that their overtime rights are secure. That's something that's unprecedented in the history of these regulations. And we think it will benefit millions of people.
DOBBS: You know, according to your figures, 1.3 million people additionally will have overtime, and no one who has it now will lose it?
LIPNIC: Well, our estimate is that about 107,000 people who make over $100,000 a year, who make over six figures could lose it, but I emphasize could, because you have to look at the job that they actually perform.
DOBBS: What if you're an assistant manager at a retail operation earning $24,000 a year, that's over your threshold, do you get overtime?
LIPNIC: Well, you're very likely that you will. The fact is the way these rules have always worked is, employers cannot just slap a job title on an employee and call you a manager. The fact is you've got to actually manage. Do you direct the work of people. Do you supervise. Employer's have to look at that. And this is in fact a wake up call for employers in this country to make that they are paying people properly.
DOBBS: So the Labor Department says only 107,000 people will lose their right to overtime.
Is that correct?
LIPNIC: That's our estimate.
DOBBS: Your estimate, how about a guarantee?
LIPNIC: A guarantee for...
DOBBS: That only 107,000 people are at risk for losing their overtime? LIPNIC: Well, it's difficult to give an absolute guarantee in this area, because the rules depend on what are the duties people perform in their job.
DOBBS: I understand, but with all the confusion, you just heard Bill Tucker's report, you're being assailed I know from every side, why not simply if it's 100,000 people at risk, because that's not enough to worry about, frankly, in terms of the revenue that is either lost or generated, the profits that are lost or generated.
Why don't you just simply say we're going to add 1.3 million people to the list of those who can achieve overtime, are entitled to overtime, and we think it's not worth the risk to even put 100,000 people at risk?
Why don't you guys do that?
LIPNIC: In fact, we have guaranteed rights for an additional 1.3 million people. And for people who make over the $23,660 threshold, we believe that they're not going to...
DOBBS: You're going to lose me with all that. You have 107,000 people you think are at risk. I'm saying why don't you had forget about losing them losing anything, guarantee that those who have it are going to keep it, and adjust these folks. Because that's the thrust of what you're saying, why not say it in straightforwardly in English language and then all of us can lose our anxiety about people losing overtime.
LIPNIC: Well, I certainly appreciate the people's anxiety, but at the Labor Department, we have to direct our resources to enforce the law. And the fact is...
DOBBS: Well, good grief, you haven't enforced the law then for 30 years. I'm just saying why in the world...
LIPNIC: In fact, that's a problem.
DOBBS: It's a bigger problem if you're among those 107,000 or 6 million people as some are suggesting. I'm just asking, isn't it practicable for the Department of Labor to say we're not going to reduce overtime for anyone who currently has it, because our interest is in working people and therefore we want to provide guidelines that we think will add 1.3 million people to those who are entitled to overtime?
LIPNIC: In fact, for the people who are -- the 107,000, over $100,000 per year, again, what we have said is they could, and they could lose, and that does not apply to blue-collar workers. The fact is we believe that most of those people are already people who are exempt from overtime.
DOBBS: It was just a thought of trying to persuade you, but we'll try it again, Victoria Lipnic. We hope your statistics are absolutely right. Not everyone, as you know, quite agrees with your assessment, but we thank you for sharing your thoughts with us tonight.
LIPNIC: Thank you very much for having me.
DOBBS: "Tonight's Thought" is on work, "Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." Those the words of President Theodore Roosevelt. Great words indeed.
Still ahead, a very different view on the Bush administration's new overtime pay regulations. I'll be joined by Senator Tom Harkin. He says they rules are an assault on American workers and their families. Senator Harkin, joins me next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Senator Tom Harkin has led the effort to block the Bush administration's new overtime rules. Today he rallied outside the Labor Department with AFL-CIO and other union workers calling on the administration to repeal these regulations that went into effect today. Senator Harkin says the new overtime rules will take money out of the pockets of millions of working Americans. He joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Senator, good to have you here.
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D), IOWA: Hi, Lou. Thanks for having me on.
DOBBS: I presume, I hope that you heard Secretary Lipnic of the Labor Department saying that only 107,000 people are at risk. You obviously feel that it's far more -- a far larger number than that?
HARKIN: Don't just listen to me, Lou. There are three former high-ranking DOL officials, none of whom I know personally, by the way, who have worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations, one of whom had actually worked in this administration -- all three of them testified that literally millions of Americans are now at jeopardy of losing their overtime. Not 100,000, millions.
DOBBS: Well, you just heard Secretary Lipnic say that their purpose was not to take overtime away from anyone, and I asked her why not just then eliminate whatever rules would cause harm to those 100,000 people? Just because it's fewer people doesn't mean the pain is any less. She said, that's just the way it had to be under the law. What's your reaction to that?
HARKIN: Well, a couple of things. First of all, you know, you asked a question about who was instigating this. Well, I'm not saying that the Fair Labor Standards Act should never be amended or changed, and there's a proper way to go about it. If there is some change that needs to be made, the best way to do that is to bring together management, labor, experts in the field, and everybody sort of discuss what changes really need to be made.
You know, that's not the way it was done here. This administration came out with this proposed rule about a year and a half ago, a little over a year and a half ago, without having one public hearing. Not one public hearing was held on that before they issued the proposed rule.
So, again, the way they went about it was wrong, without calling everyone together first.
Secondly, in terms of whether or not the rules are broader or tighter, think about it this way, Lou. The administration says they want to raise the base from 8,000 to basically $23,660. That's one thing. Secondly, they want to deny anyone making over $100,000 a year the right to overtime.
Fine, that takes up one page. There are 500 pages in this regulation. What are the other 499 pages all about?
DOBBS: You mean, Senator, the government is not here to help?
HARKIN: Not in this instance. You know, I know you talked about the assistant manager earlier also.
DOBBS: Right.
HARKIN: In the rules that we had before, there were some ironclad guarantees. If, for example, you were an assistant manager, but if you worked at least 20 percent of your time -- well, out of a five-day week, that would be one day, if you worked 20 percent of your time the same as your subordinates, you were automatically eligible for overtime.
That rule has been done away with, and Mrs. -- your person from the Department of Labor didn't mention that.
DOBBS: Yeah, we should point this out. Sears, you apparently at that conference today, that rally, said that as a result of the new overtime rule less than 1 percent of Sears' 190,000 employees now classified as exempt will be reclassified. Sears is referenced -- Sears pointed out you had referenced an incorrect newspaper article. In point of fact, Sears says that these new overtime rules won't have an effect on any more than that, certainly in the company. Were you aware of that?
HARKIN: No, I wasn't. I was just reading from the "Chicago Sun- Times" who have reported this, and then I had reported accurately what was in the "Chicago Sun-Times."
DOBBS: Your reporting was excellent, I think is a fair way to say it, Sears even better, giving us an authoritative source.
HARKIN: On the impact.
DOBBS: Working men and women in this country don't need to lose any more right now in their struggles financially. What's the next step, the administration, have you talked with the administration? Are they in any way open to reconvening on this issue?
HARKIN: Well, look, we've had three votes in the Senate on this, Lou. We've passed it twice. We passed it last year -- that is, passed my amendment that would have stopped these rules from going into effect.
DOBBS: Right.
HARKIN: Then in the appropriations bill last year, they threw it out. I've attached it again to a jobs bill, but that's in conference, and I don't know what's going to happen there, but we have had good bipartisan support. As you'll notice today at our rally...
DOBBS: Well, you said, Senator, you said good bipartisan support, we have got new regulations today?
HARKIN: Well, I'm saying on the Congress side, we had bipartisan support to stop the administration from doing this. You know...
DOBBS: Senator, I'm sorry, we're going to have to -- we are literally running out of time here.
HARKIN: I'm sorry.
DOBBS: Senator Tom Harkin, I appreciate you taking the time to be with us.
HARKIN: It's millions, Lou.
DOBBS: Got it. Thank you very much, Senator.
HARKIN: All right. Thanks.
DOBBS: Still ahead, the results of our poll, and we'll tell you what lies ahead tomorrow evening. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Results of our poll tonight: 48 percent of you say the CIA should be dismantled, and a super agency should be created in its place. As often happens here, a bit of division on viewpoint. Fifty- two percent of you say you do not believe that that should occur.
Thanks for being with us. Please join us here tomorrow. An explosion in population growth threatening the environment and, many say, the American way of life. Barbara Engelman (ph) of Population Action International, professor David Pimentel of Cornell University will be among our guests. We hope you will 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 23, 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, a building political firestorm in Washington. The highly respected chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee proposes to break up the CIA and to rebuild the nation's intelligence. Intelligence Committee Chairman Senator Pat Roberts is our guest.
Attack politics. The newest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad blasts Senator John Kerry not for his decorated service in Vietnam, but for his criticism of the Vietnam War. The new ads launched as President Bush calls on all 527 groups, Democratic and Republican, to stop their attack ads.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: The Department of Homeland Security says our broken borders are safe. A shocking new report says they are not. In fact, the majority of Border Patrol agents say they don't have the resources and support to stop terrorists from entering the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER CONTROL COUNCIL: When you do the math with millions of people slipping across our border every year, you have to figure that a few terrorists have gotten by.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Exporting America. Congress soon returns from recess to work on more than two dozen bills designed to stop the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. But will Congress pass those bills? We'll have a special report.
And hundreds of Americans protest new overtime rules that critics say will shrink the paychecks of millions of working Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The middle class is now getting a gut punch on overtime. Today's actions are especially shameful.
(END VIDEO CLIP) DOBBS: And Labor Department Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic, who helped write those new rules, joins us.
CNN ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Monday, August 23. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
Tonight, the political battle to reform this nation's intelligence agencies is more partisan and in some ways more bitter than in the days immediately following the 9/11 commission report.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts shocked many of his Democratic colleagues and perhaps the White House as well by proposing to break up the CIA and rebuild our nation's intelligence agencies. Senator Roberts says he has the support of most Republicans on his committee, but the Democrats on that committee are blasting the proposal and say they were taken by surprise.
Ed Henry reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill, a senior Republican is urging his colleagues to stop the talk and finally take some dramatic action.
SEN. PAT ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: This is more important than politics or turf or agency. There isn't any agency more sacrosanct than our national security.
HENRY: Colleagues knew Roberts wanted a strong national intelligence director, but the actual legislation includes a shocker. He wants to dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency. The Roberts plan would break the CIA into three parts: a national clandestine service, an office of national assessments, and an office of technical support. The reaction has been swift and scathing from the intelligence community and from Democrats on Capitol Hill.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Well, he hasn't shared those documents with me or with Senator Rockefeller, who's the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. I believe it's a mistake to lay down a proposal that only has the support of members of one party.
HENRY: Senator Jay Rockefeller, who normally enjoys a cordial relationship with Roberts, expressed frustration with being left out of the loop. Rockefeller added of the substance "disbanding and scattering the Central Intelligence Agency at such a crucial time would be a severe mistake." An aide to Roberts insisted to CNN that the chairman had shared the details with Rockefeller. Democrats chose not to act, said the aide. So Roberts did.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Chairman Roberts is also facing heat from some fellow Republicans, such as the powerful Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner. He released a statement expressing concern about any plan that curbs the Pentagon's power over programs that "support our men and women in uniform." This is yet another sign that a real turf battle has developed between Warner and Roberts -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ed, thank you very much.
Ed Henry reporting from Washington.
And later here in this broadcast, I'll be talking with the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts. Members of the Senate intelligence community are blasting Senator Roberts, but the intelligence community itself blasting away almost from the moment they heard the proposal. Former CIA Director George Tenet today said the plan will damage U.S. national security more than improve it.
David Ensor is live in Washington with a report for us -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: As you say, Lou, serving CIA officials are calling the plan "reckless" and predicting it would hurt U.S. national security. A former agency official predicts that it would also hurt morale.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK DEVINE, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: It is going to be very demoralizing. We're going to lose people. We're going to not have some of the best and brightest supplied to us, and it's like taking the Marine Corps and saying now we're going to call you something else. It is not a trivial event, and I caution those that do this to think long and hard about the full implications of it.
ENSOR (voice-over): Former director of Central Intelligence George Tenet was even tougher on the proposal, calling it "yet another episode in the mad rush to rearrange writing diagrams in an attempt to be seen as doing something. It is time," Tenet said, "for someone to say stop."
But Roberts says he wanted to lay down a marker, a plan to enact the proposals of the 9/11 commission. The plan would also fold the other big intelligence agencies under a national intelligence director, taking the huge National Security Agency and others out from under the Pentagon's wing in terms of budget and personnel.
Much depends on the view of President Bush. Standing next to a less than enthusiastic Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was noncommittal.
BUSH: Senator Roberts is a good, thoughtful guy who came up with an idea, and we'll look at it. We'll take a look at it and determine, you know, whether or not it works or not.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Hardly a ringing endorsement, but Roberts hopes to build a coalition for the kind of dramatic change he's proposing, starting with the families of 9/11 victims and including, he hopes, some former CIA directors. Interestingly, his proposal got a quick positive comment from the Kerry campaign -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
David Ensor reporting from Washington.
Turning now to a partisan battle over attack ads in this election, President Bush today repeated his call for an end to all advertisements paid for by 527 political groups. However, the president stopped short of condemning ads by the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Jill Dougherty is near the president's ranch in Crawford and has the report for us -- Jill.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the Kerry campaign has been badgering the White House, badgering President Bush to come out and specifically condemn that attack ad that was funded by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Now, today, coming out, speaking briefly with reporters after he met with his top officials on national security issues, the president didn't go that far. But he did go farther than he has so far on this issue. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it, and I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying -- condemning these activities of the 527s. It's -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain- Feingold. I've been disappointed that, for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money, billionaires writing checks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOUGHERTY: So that ad, of course, by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth took aim at Kerry and his record in Vietnam. And now the White House was asked about this statement by the president today saying "that ad," and the White House says there's no change. The president has denounced all ads of these types, these groups, the 527s, soft money groups. He says that he wants an end to them.
By the way, the president, Lou, did mention Senator Kerry. He said that he served admirably in the military, ought to be proud of his record, but the president said the real question here is who can lead the country in this war on terror.
DOBBS: Jill, thank you very much.
Jill Dougherty -- we appreciate it -- reporting from near Crawford, Texas, where the president, of course, is vacationing.
Former Senator Bob Dole today says he didn't mean to offend Senator Kerry when he criticized his Vietnam record. The World War II veteran told CNN yesterday that Senator Kerry "never bled for the three Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam.
Senator Dole also called on Senator Kerry to apologize to Vietnam veterans for criticizing the war and then campaigning as a veteran. Senator Dole today said Senator Kerry called him to say he was disappointed with his comments. Senator Dole said he respects Senator Kerry and was only taking part in a national political debate.
Well, Senator Kerry's anti-war statements are the focus of the newest ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Bill Schneider reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): John Kerry is running for president as a war hero, but Kerry was also an anti-war hero. This week, his critics are putting out a new ad attacking not his war record, but his anti-war record.
SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: ... razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades in North Vietnam in the prison camps took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry was actually quoting other veterans' reports of wartime atrocities, but he endorsed those accusations at the time and he still does.
KERRY: All I know is that it happened as a matter of course.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry's anti-war statements could become a serious problem for him.
ROBERT DOLE, FORMER SENATOR: I think this ad's going to take -- you know, it's going to be tough on Kerry because -- and he says, well, this is all hearsay, what he picked up from other veterans, but he said it.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry's defenders call his anti-war testimony an act of courage.
MAX CLELAND (D), FORMER SENATOR: We knew by this time that the war was a mistake. John was the one with the courage to come out and say it.
SCHNEIDER: But it remains a source of deep resentment to other veterans and the issue that set off their attacks against him.
DAVID WALLACE, SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH: He told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities, that we tortured people, raped women, burned villages without any reason.
SCHNEIDER: Kerry insists he was stating well-documented facts.
KERRY: I can assure you that, you know, in fact, all I did was tell the truth about some of the things that had happened over there.
SCHNEIDER: And he claims he never blamed the soldiers.
KERRY: I asked where's the leadership of the country. I asked where the leaders were, not the soldiers, because it was the leaders in Washington who left the soldiers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: The issue is relevant because Americans are once again fighting overseas, and some of them resent criticism of their mission. A Marine major serving in Iraq writes in "The New York Times," "I believe that when Americans say they support our troops, it should include supporting our mission. They shouldn't denigrate it. That only aids the enemy in defeating us strategically" -- Lou.
DOBBS: The Kerry war record, the -- President Bush's National Guard record -- when, in your best judgment, are we going to see these campaigns focus on the future, which is critically challenged on a host of fronts in this campaign?
SCHNEIDER: When they realize that those issues -- that no one's paying attention to those issues and that there could be a backlash against them for talking about something that happened 35 years ago. So far, we really haven't reached that point, and a lot of Republicans believe that this is damaging to Senator Kerry, and, as long as they believe it's damaging him, they're going to keep it up.
DOBBS: Bill Schneider.
Thank you.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign today again called on the president to specifically denounce the ads that criticize the Senator's war record. Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator John Edwards said the president failed to do the right thing, as he put it, when he chose not to directly reject the Swift Boat Veterans' ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Today, George Bush faced his moment of truth, and he failed. He failed to condemn the specific attacks on John Kerry's military record. We don't -- we didn't need to hear a politician's answer, but, unfortunately, that's what we got, and that's what the American people got today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Senator Edwards, speaking during a campaign appearance in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, said the president needs to take responsibility for the anti-Kerry ads and demand they're taken off the air.
Still ahead here tonight, Broken Borders. A shocking number of our Border Patrol agents say they don't have the resources nor the support to keep not only illegal aliens from crossing our borders, but also terrorists. President of the National Border Control Council, T.J. Bonner, joins us next.
And then, Assault on the Middle Class. Working men and women in this country under assault on a number of fronts, and neither political candidate -- national political candidate is focused on defending them. Tonight, we begin a week-long series of special reports.
And then, Exporting America. Congress hopes a number of bills will help stop the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Critics say few of them will make it to the president's desk. Exporting America next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In Broken Borders tonight, there are 11,000 Border Patrol agents patrolling some 6,000 miles of this country's boundaries and borders. A disturbing new survey released today finds two-thirds of those agents say they lack the necessary resources and support to stop illegal aliens and terrorists from crossing our borders. Half the agents surveyed said the United States is no more secure today than on September 11, 2001. That survey conducted by Hart Associates.
T.J. Bonner is the president of the National Border Patrol Council joining us from Washington.
Good to have you with us.
BONNER: Good to be here.
DOBBS: Well, you've got to be alarmed. The Department of Homeland Security has got to be alarmed. These are frightening results.
BONNER: They are, but, Lou, I'm not shocked at all. I have known this all along, and the people on the border have known this all along, and it's time that we spread this message to the American people.
DOBBS: Sixty-four percent in that survey by Peter Hart's group -- 64 percent of the border protection personnel say they're not satisfied with their tools, their training, their support. What can be done?
BONNER: A whole lot can be done. They need to get a lot of things out to the field. They need proper weapons, proper body armor, vehicles, computers. They need databases that talk to each other. And I could just go on through the end of your show listing things off, Lou.
DOBBS: Well -- and according to the same survey, almost two- thirds say they are demoralized. How is this exhibited? What are the symptoms of this right now?
BONNER: Well, the other part -- the other finding of the survey was that almost half of these people have considered leaving the Department of Homeland Security within the last two years, looking for another job.
DOBBS: I think most people are also unaware there's been a hiring freeze since, what, March for the Department of Homeland Security. How is that playing into this?
BONNER: We need more Border Patrol agents. Everybody knows that, and because they ran out of money, they've just hung out the white flag.
DOBBS: Well, the white flag when it comes to our border security isn't an acceptable response. What can be done?
BONNER: I think that someone needs to step up to the plate. The administration needs to step up to the plate. The Congress of the United States needs to step up to the plate. They need to give these front-line personnel the tools, the training, the support they need, and they need to fundamentally revamp our laws so that they can actually secure the borders.
DOBBS: Seventy-six percent of the agents surveyed say the strategy of deterrence -- that is requiring fixed positions -- say this is only somewhat or not at all effective in protecting our borders. What are we to do there?
BONNER: Let them do their job, allow them to go back to patrolling the borders.
DOBBS: You know, T.J., as you and I have talked over the course of time here on this issue, is there a political will -- because we're told that this country is doing everything it can in the war on terror, yet our borders remain absolutely -- I think there's no other way to say it than a joke.
When you have a million people crossing our borders illegally, what's it going to take for Washington to wake up and start dealing with the real -- the very real issues and potentially threatening issues in terms of national security to make our borders safe?
BONNER: I would have thought that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack would have been that wake-up call, but that wasn't it. I don't know what it's going to take, Lou.
DOBBS: T.J. Bonner, on that dispiriting note, we're going to have to say thank you, and we appreciate your sharing those results with us of that survey. And this country always manages to find a way to solve its problems. Let's hope those solutions come soon.
Thank you, T.J. Bonner.
BONNER: Thank you. DOBBS: Coming up next, Exporting America. Dozens of plans to stop the hemorrhaging of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Exporting America. Does any of that legislation stand a chance of being passed and helping real Americans?
Also tonight, an all-out assault on our middle class, yet no one in Washington seems to be taking it seriously. We begin a new series of special reports, Assault on the Middle Class, throughout the week.
And an end to the CIA? The powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says this nation's leading spy agency should be dissolved in the interest of national security. Senator Pat Roberts is our guest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CNN ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues with more news, debate and opinion. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Tonight, Exporting America. When Congress reconvenes early next month, it will take on a barrage of legislative initiatives to prevent U.S. companies from sending American jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. Many in Congress are outraged at the way outsourcing has robbed many Americans of their livelihoods, but, so far, the issue hasn't made as much progress as they would like on the floor of U.S. Congress.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than two dozen bills or proposals in Congress are trying to curtail the negative effects of outsourcing.
REP. BERNARD SANDERS (I), VERMONT: I think any sane person in the United States Congress is prepared to say enough is enough. We cannot condone the collapsing of the middle class, the loss of good- paying jobs, the creation of low-paying jobs. We need fundamental changes in our trade policy. We have got to stop the outsourcing.
PILGRIM: But, in reality, many bills do not attempt to limit outsourcing, but try to give U.S. customers more control over their personal data.
Senator Hillary Clinton introduced a Safe I.D. Act which would require permission from the customer before a company could send personal financial data overseas to an outsource firm. A bill introduced by Senator Daschle on behalf of Senator John Kerry wants call-center employees to say where they are calling from.
But others try to limit federal contracts, tax benefits and job attrition. For example, Senator Christopher Dodd seeks to prohibit some federal contractors from doing contract work overseas. Three proposed bills in the House and two in the Senate seek to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to offer benefits for people who have had their job outsourced overseas.
The hot campaign issue, however, is making slow progress in Congress.
THEA LEE, AFL-CIO: Most of these pieces of legislation aren't moving particularly fast through the pipeline, unfortunately. They are -- they're not really making it through committee, in many cases, and, of course, the Congress has a lot on their plate right now, especially budget and appropriations, which is most of what's going to concern them through the fall.
So many of these bills aren't moving particularly fast, but I think the fact that so many bills are out there and that so of many of them are bipartisan or have bipartisan support shows that people are really, really concerned about this issue.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now there's one piece of legislation that already passed. It stops the Export/Import Bank from approving loans to U.S. companies who set up headquarters overseas in tax havens in order to avoid U.S. taxes, but there are a lot more outsourcing bills to be debated and passed -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
Kitty Pilgrim.
Tonight, we begin a new series of special reports that will run throughout the week on the single most powerful voting block in this country, the middle class. Most people don't think of the middle class as the most important voting block, but that is precisely what it is.
The middle class is comprised of nearly 50 million families that together have an enormous impact on our elections, especially our presidential elections, but this presidential campaign so far seems to be spending a lot of money and time on every other issue but those that directly affect the middle class.
Peter Viles reports from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Teacher Lori Magnuson. Her election concerns: illegal immigration, the high cost of housing, her fear that no one in Washington is listening.
LORI MAGNUSON, MIDDLE-CLASS VOTER: At this point, I'm very -- extremely tired of the Democrats and Republicans fighting against each other, wanting to work for just their ideals versus working together for the people.
VILES: From coast to coast middle-class anxiety is rising. Jobs are at risk, outsourcing on the rise, health-care costs out of control. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, 20, 25 percent of my income is going towards, you know, medical expenses.
VILES: Gas prices are spiking. Real wages are falling.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gas prices are going up, and I'm still making the same, and I still have to -- and support myself all for the same pay that I've been getting.
VILES: Overall, there's a sense of economic anxiety.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the economy is not what it was. I think the economy is much worse for most people.
VILES: Now you would think both parties are listening. The middle classes the ultimate block of swing voters.
JOHN ZOGBY, POLLSTER: I've looked at this group now in every election since 1972. Whichever candidate has won this group, that candidate has won the election. The only exception was that, in 2000, Al Gore won this group, he won the popular vote, but did not win the electoral college.
VILES: There's no official definition of the middle class. The middleclass.org defines it as families making $25,000 to $100,000 a year. That is six in 10 American families, 46 million households.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Most middle-class voters, even if they divide into Democrats and Republicans, want to see bipartisan cooperation and want to see the problems of the nation solved. They're not looking to pit one side against the other. But we're in a climate where the campaign is going to be conducted not to focus on the broad mass of voters in that way, but on the margins.
VILES: In other words, a campaign that ignores voters like Lori Magnuson.
MAGNUSON: The Republican and Democrat Parties are just so interested in just condemning each other and just forgetting about the people.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: One irony here: Middle-class voters are anxious about the future, the future of their jobs, the future of their and health care, yet this campaign has just been dominated in the past week by the past, and not just the recent past, but by discussion of events, Lou, that took place 35 years ago -- Lou.
DOBBS: Peter, thank you very much.
Peter Viles.
Returning now to our stop story of the evening, a controversial new proposal to reform the nation's intelligence agencies, in fact, to dissolve the CIA. Republican Senator Pat Roberts, the highly respected chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, unveiled what he calls a bold action plan and, indeed, that plan includes a dismantling of the CIA, and already many powerful Democrats voicing opposition.
Senator Roberts joins me tonight from Capitol Hill.
Senator, good to have you with us.
ROBERTS: Lou, it's always a pleasure. Thank you.
DOBBS: I can't think of much more that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee could have done to create a firestorm than to suggest dissolving the CIA, can you?
ROBERTS: Well, yes, if the chairman did that, but the chairman didn't do that. Basically everybody's talking about the dismantling or the termination of the CIA. That's not correct.
Every time the CIA has come up and testified before the Intelligence Committee, they have asked for more authority, if not more funding or more priorities.
Under the plan that we have put together, there's eight of us on the committee who think that we should have set a marker down for discussion at least, why, you know, we have thought, OK, let's don't dismantle the USA in terms of the function of the people who work there, but let's just realign them, and put them under a different kind of authority that will give them the authority and the funding that they have asked for.
So that's what we have done.
DOBBS: Now, your proposal, Senator Roberts, you say you're not dismantling the CIA or proposing such but at the same time the NID, the national intelligence director would have budgetary authority, the three broadly defined departments of the CIA would encompass then the entire intelligence community directed by new leaders for each one of those three operations.
ROBERTS: Yes.
DOBBS: Where is the CIA in all of that?
ROBERTS: Well, basically the same people that work at Langley, the same people that sit at the desks, the same people that are doing the great job for our national security, they stay right there and they do that job.
And the people who are out in the field risking our lives for our national security, we met with them all, not all of them but certainly a lot of them, and we have a lot of respect for them, they stay there, they do that job. Every time that we have heard from George Tenet or from John McLaughlin or anybody else, they want the authority -- which by the way is in the 1947 National Security Act, but they couldn't execute it. Now we have moved those people over to a new line authority. We've realigned them under an assistant national intelligence director. They'll get that authority and they will be able to function in their job better than they are right now.
DOBBS: Now, there will be three, senator, three of these assistant national intelligence directors?
ROBERTS: Yes, that's correct, and then you've got a fourth situation where we know the tactical intelligence for the military should stay with the secretary of defense. Also something called JMIP, the Joint Military Intelligence Program, that stays with the secretary of defense. There's a four-star general that serves as liaison with the national intelligence director and the secretary of defense.
DOBBS: Now the White House apparently is taken somewhat by surprise by your proposal. The president is saying they're not closing the door on any options, but it wasn't exactly a warm, friendly embrace of your initiative. Were you surprised by the White House reaction?
ROBERTS: I don't know, you know, Lou. The president just called me from Crawford, Texas, you know, by name, said I was a good thoughtful guy. Heck, I think that's pretty good for the president and a member of the Senate.
We're trying to implement the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 commission report. This is a congressional research study where we have tried intelligence reform 38 times since 1949. I mean, what does it take for the 9/11 commission and the families and all that we've gone through with these, oh, my God, how did this happen hearings and the intelligence committee to propose a true and real reform. Now it's not written in stone so we're working with the administration. We have shared our bill with the NSE folks and so we'll see what happens.
DOBBS: And your vice chairman on your committee, Senator Rockefeller, the two of you have been working in tandem, cordially, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and one might say exceptionally so. Senator Rockefeller today bristling at this proposal which he said basically didn't include him.
ROBERTS: Well, basically, Jay and I have had meaningful dialogue, and basically, you know, I like Jay, he's a personal friend, he's a great vice-chairman. He went out to all of his members and got their ideas. I shared all those ideas with ours, but it was a decision, and he had the bill as of Friday, obviously we both didn't have enough time to study every T and every I, and we had a different view, and he said, "don't plant the flag of the intelligence committee, I don't think it's a good idea to do it right now." I said, "Jay, we're running out of time, it's days, not weeks, you have the Republican convention.
What will happen on one hand is you'll have the Democrats or somebody simply introducing the 41 recommendations as a bill, which doesn't work, and on the other side you'll have the administration with some kind of proposal, we'll argue about that and we won't get it done unless it's a lame-duck session of Congress."
I said, "this is real reform." We stood back from the trees. We said, don't take a look at the agencies, don't take a look at the boxes, don't take a look at all the turf, what would you do if you really wanted to reform the intelligence community against the threats that we have in regards to our national security? And that's what we did.
DOBBS: How does it make you feel when former CIA director George Tenet says somebody has to say stop. Presumably he is among those offering that counsel.
ROBERTS: Well, I like George Tenet. He's a good friend of mine, or at least he was. That's fine but 1949 Harry Truman said, "OK, we're not going to have a secretary of war, or war department, we're going to have a department of defense." And the U.S. Army Air Force changed to the U.S. Air Force and there wasn't even a CIA. Those were difficult times, these are difficult times. If George Tenet had the authority of a national intelligence director as spelled out in the 1947 National Security Act, he wouldn't have come to our -- he wouldn't have come to our committee so many times saying, I need priority funding, I need better authority.
DOBBS: I know the Democrats and the White House alike have got to be pleased that you have moved this all beyond the early discussion following the 9/11 commission report about whether or not to empower a national intelligence director to the firestorm that surrounds your ideas today. That is progress by any definition. Senator Pat Roberts, good to have you with us.
ROBERTS: Lou, thank you. It's always a pleasure.
DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Question. "Do you believe the CIA should be dismantled and a super agency created in its place?" Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts. Many of you writing in about our "Exporting America" reports.
Tom Winter of Indianapolis, Indiana. "The corporations in America are given tax cuts that in theory will allow them to hire more Americans. They then move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid taxes and move jobs overseas to avoid fair wages all of which caters to the stockholders not the product, employees, or even the customer. Is this the American way?"
And Jeffrey Raupp of Holly, Michigan. "Too many companies have forgotten that it was the greatness of this country and its workers that allowed them to thrive and grow into what they are but now these one-time American companies are all too willing to turn their backs on us."
Ken Ota in California. "Mr. Dobbs, I'm sick and tired of hearing you whine about so-called "Exporting America." Why don't you just admit that you're just anti-trade, a classic protectionist!"
Well, Ken, I'm actually pro-trade, but I'm alarmed and disgusted at the number of good American jobs being shipped to cheap overseas markets. I'm concerned about free trade at any cost policies that have led to our record trade deficits, and if you want more, Ken, you can pick up my new book "Exporting America."
As they say, it's available in great bookstores near you. If you still want to call me names after that, send me another thought.
We love hearing from you. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com.
Still ahead, drastic changes in overtime pay that will affect millions of hard-working Americans. Victoria Lipnic of the Department of Labor helped write those new rules. She is my guest as is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. He says these new rules mean a costly paycut for millions of American families. He is also my guest tonight.
And water wars, a devastating drought gripping the western United States and experts warn that it is worsening. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: New rules for overtime pay went into effect today, the first such changes in more than half a century. Critics charge these new rules will take money away from hard-working Americans, while supporters say the new rules are needed to eliminate confusion. But it seems there is still plenty of that. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, all you billionaires, give us wages that are fair.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Passion and protest greeted the new rules on overtime at the Department of Labor. Labor groups bringing out the numbers to decry what they say is a major setback for American workers.
KAREN NUSSBAUM, EX. DIR., WORKING AMERICA: We're in this fight because working people in general in this country can't stand a paycut.
TUCKER: But that's just the controversy, will it mean a pay cut?
Here's what the rule changes are. Workers earning less than 455 dollars a week or $23,660 a year are guaranteed overtime. The old minimum was $8,000 a year, making more people eligible for O.T. Hourly paid workers will get overtime. Police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, all continue to get overtime. Nurses are a bit more complicated. Registered nurses have not been eligible for O.T. for 30 years, but other nurses paid by the hour do and will continue to get overtime.
CHRISTOPHER PARLO, EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY: I'm not sure why Congress thinks it need a new piece of legislation to explain why these 55 categories of people are still nonexempt. They were all nonexempt in the first place. So I think there's a lot puffery in an election year to show that you're doing something.
If you make more than 100,000 a year, you won't get overtime. But the rules are less clear and the controversy greatest for those earning between $24,000 and $100,000 a year. For example, supervisors don't get overtime pay. A supervisor is defined as someone who has hiring and firing power or job evaluation responsibilities.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that's the rub for a lot of labor leaders who argue it is now easier to declare an employees a supervisor, and so avoid paying the overtime -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, Bill, we're going to clear all of this up. Our next guest is one of the primary authors of these new overtime rules.
Joining me now is, Victoria Lipnic. She is assistant secretary of the Department of Labor, assistant secretary of Employment Standards. Good to have you with us.
VICTORIA LIPNIC, ASST. SEC. OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS: Thanks for having me.
DOBBS: Well, lets start out with the first question, why in the world was it necessary to touch these rules?
You have set off quite an argument, quite a controversy.
LIPNIC: Well, you're right about that Lou. But the reason that it was necessary to do this is because the fact is, the rules have not been updated in 30 years. And overtime protection has been eroding for millions of people in this country, and the time had come that we had to do something about it, and we had to put overtime protection back into place for America's workforce.
DOBBS: Let me put this to you straightforward -- straightforwardly.
Who came to you with this -- this to suggest it was time?
Was it corporate America? Was it organized labor?
Who was it who came to you and said we really need a change here?
LIPNIC: Well, there's been wide recognition at the Department of Labor that these rules have needed to be updated for 30 years. The fact is this is something that's been on the Department of Labor's agenda since the Carter administration, and every administration has made an attempt at it and just has not put it forward.
DOBBS: Do you better understand why now?
LIPNIC: Well, we've certainly -- we've certainly, you know, stepped -- stepped out here and made sure that, you know, we want to make sure that overtime protection is in place for people.
DOBBS: I know you that you would be as concerned as anybody about people losing their overtime, because in these times, every dollar counts. Under the new regulations, and this comes from the Economic Policy Institute, registered nurses, law enforcement personnel, team leaders, so-called, assistant managers at retail stores,and fast-food restaurants, chefs and others, could lose their right to overtime pay?
Is that a true statement?
LIPNIC: I think that's not true. Now lets talk about some of those, fro example, assistant managers in retail. The fact is we have put in stronger protections for assistant managers, and we have made the test tougher than the test that is currently on the books. If you look at the exemptions today for police and firefighters and EMTs, the fact is we have put new language into these rules for the first time to make sure that their overtime rights are secure. That's something that's unprecedented in the history of these regulations. And we think it will benefit millions of people.
DOBBS: You know, according to your figures, 1.3 million people additionally will have overtime, and no one who has it now will lose it?
LIPNIC: Well, our estimate is that about 107,000 people who make over $100,000 a year, who make over six figures could lose it, but I emphasize could, because you have to look at the job that they actually perform.
DOBBS: What if you're an assistant manager at a retail operation earning $24,000 a year, that's over your threshold, do you get overtime?
LIPNIC: Well, you're very likely that you will. The fact is the way these rules have always worked is, employers cannot just slap a job title on an employee and call you a manager. The fact is you've got to actually manage. Do you direct the work of people. Do you supervise. Employer's have to look at that. And this is in fact a wake up call for employers in this country to make that they are paying people properly.
DOBBS: So the Labor Department says only 107,000 people will lose their right to overtime.
Is that correct?
LIPNIC: That's our estimate.
DOBBS: Your estimate, how about a guarantee?
LIPNIC: A guarantee for...
DOBBS: That only 107,000 people are at risk for losing their overtime? LIPNIC: Well, it's difficult to give an absolute guarantee in this area, because the rules depend on what are the duties people perform in their job.
DOBBS: I understand, but with all the confusion, you just heard Bill Tucker's report, you're being assailed I know from every side, why not simply if it's 100,000 people at risk, because that's not enough to worry about, frankly, in terms of the revenue that is either lost or generated, the profits that are lost or generated.
Why don't you just simply say we're going to add 1.3 million people to the list of those who can achieve overtime, are entitled to overtime, and we think it's not worth the risk to even put 100,000 people at risk?
Why don't you guys do that?
LIPNIC: In fact, we have guaranteed rights for an additional 1.3 million people. And for people who make over the $23,660 threshold, we believe that they're not going to...
DOBBS: You're going to lose me with all that. You have 107,000 people you think are at risk. I'm saying why don't you had forget about losing them losing anything, guarantee that those who have it are going to keep it, and adjust these folks. Because that's the thrust of what you're saying, why not say it in straightforwardly in English language and then all of us can lose our anxiety about people losing overtime.
LIPNIC: Well, I certainly appreciate the people's anxiety, but at the Labor Department, we have to direct our resources to enforce the law. And the fact is...
DOBBS: Well, good grief, you haven't enforced the law then for 30 years. I'm just saying why in the world...
LIPNIC: In fact, that's a problem.
DOBBS: It's a bigger problem if you're among those 107,000 or 6 million people as some are suggesting. I'm just asking, isn't it practicable for the Department of Labor to say we're not going to reduce overtime for anyone who currently has it, because our interest is in working people and therefore we want to provide guidelines that we think will add 1.3 million people to those who are entitled to overtime?
LIPNIC: In fact, for the people who are -- the 107,000, over $100,000 per year, again, what we have said is they could, and they could lose, and that does not apply to blue-collar workers. The fact is we believe that most of those people are already people who are exempt from overtime.
DOBBS: It was just a thought of trying to persuade you, but we'll try it again, Victoria Lipnic. We hope your statistics are absolutely right. Not everyone, as you know, quite agrees with your assessment, but we thank you for sharing your thoughts with us tonight.
LIPNIC: Thank you very much for having me.
DOBBS: "Tonight's Thought" is on work, "Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." Those the words of President Theodore Roosevelt. Great words indeed.
Still ahead, a very different view on the Bush administration's new overtime pay regulations. I'll be joined by Senator Tom Harkin. He says they rules are an assault on American workers and their families. Senator Harkin, joins me next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Senator Tom Harkin has led the effort to block the Bush administration's new overtime rules. Today he rallied outside the Labor Department with AFL-CIO and other union workers calling on the administration to repeal these regulations that went into effect today. Senator Harkin says the new overtime rules will take money out of the pockets of millions of working Americans. He joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Senator, good to have you here.
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D), IOWA: Hi, Lou. Thanks for having me on.
DOBBS: I presume, I hope that you heard Secretary Lipnic of the Labor Department saying that only 107,000 people are at risk. You obviously feel that it's far more -- a far larger number than that?
HARKIN: Don't just listen to me, Lou. There are three former high-ranking DOL officials, none of whom I know personally, by the way, who have worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations, one of whom had actually worked in this administration -- all three of them testified that literally millions of Americans are now at jeopardy of losing their overtime. Not 100,000, millions.
DOBBS: Well, you just heard Secretary Lipnic say that their purpose was not to take overtime away from anyone, and I asked her why not just then eliminate whatever rules would cause harm to those 100,000 people? Just because it's fewer people doesn't mean the pain is any less. She said, that's just the way it had to be under the law. What's your reaction to that?
HARKIN: Well, a couple of things. First of all, you know, you asked a question about who was instigating this. Well, I'm not saying that the Fair Labor Standards Act should never be amended or changed, and there's a proper way to go about it. If there is some change that needs to be made, the best way to do that is to bring together management, labor, experts in the field, and everybody sort of discuss what changes really need to be made.
You know, that's not the way it was done here. This administration came out with this proposed rule about a year and a half ago, a little over a year and a half ago, without having one public hearing. Not one public hearing was held on that before they issued the proposed rule.
So, again, the way they went about it was wrong, without calling everyone together first.
Secondly, in terms of whether or not the rules are broader or tighter, think about it this way, Lou. The administration says they want to raise the base from 8,000 to basically $23,660. That's one thing. Secondly, they want to deny anyone making over $100,000 a year the right to overtime.
Fine, that takes up one page. There are 500 pages in this regulation. What are the other 499 pages all about?
DOBBS: You mean, Senator, the government is not here to help?
HARKIN: Not in this instance. You know, I know you talked about the assistant manager earlier also.
DOBBS: Right.
HARKIN: In the rules that we had before, there were some ironclad guarantees. If, for example, you were an assistant manager, but if you worked at least 20 percent of your time -- well, out of a five-day week, that would be one day, if you worked 20 percent of your time the same as your subordinates, you were automatically eligible for overtime.
That rule has been done away with, and Mrs. -- your person from the Department of Labor didn't mention that.
DOBBS: Yeah, we should point this out. Sears, you apparently at that conference today, that rally, said that as a result of the new overtime rule less than 1 percent of Sears' 190,000 employees now classified as exempt will be reclassified. Sears is referenced -- Sears pointed out you had referenced an incorrect newspaper article. In point of fact, Sears says that these new overtime rules won't have an effect on any more than that, certainly in the company. Were you aware of that?
HARKIN: No, I wasn't. I was just reading from the "Chicago Sun- Times" who have reported this, and then I had reported accurately what was in the "Chicago Sun-Times."
DOBBS: Your reporting was excellent, I think is a fair way to say it, Sears even better, giving us an authoritative source.
HARKIN: On the impact.
DOBBS: Working men and women in this country don't need to lose any more right now in their struggles financially. What's the next step, the administration, have you talked with the administration? Are they in any way open to reconvening on this issue?
HARKIN: Well, look, we've had three votes in the Senate on this, Lou. We've passed it twice. We passed it last year -- that is, passed my amendment that would have stopped these rules from going into effect.
DOBBS: Right.
HARKIN: Then in the appropriations bill last year, they threw it out. I've attached it again to a jobs bill, but that's in conference, and I don't know what's going to happen there, but we have had good bipartisan support. As you'll notice today at our rally...
DOBBS: Well, you said, Senator, you said good bipartisan support, we have got new regulations today?
HARKIN: Well, I'm saying on the Congress side, we had bipartisan support to stop the administration from doing this. You know...
DOBBS: Senator, I'm sorry, we're going to have to -- we are literally running out of time here.
HARKIN: I'm sorry.
DOBBS: Senator Tom Harkin, I appreciate you taking the time to be with us.
HARKIN: It's millions, Lou.
DOBBS: Got it. Thank you very much, Senator.
HARKIN: All right. Thanks.
DOBBS: Still ahead, the results of our poll, and we'll tell you what lies ahead tomorrow evening. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Results of our poll tonight: 48 percent of you say the CIA should be dismantled, and a super agency should be created in its place. As often happens here, a bit of division on viewpoint. Fifty- two percent of you say you do not believe that that should occur.
Thanks for being with us. Please join us here tomorrow. An explosion in population growth threatening the environment and, many say, the American way of life. Barbara Engelman (ph) of Population Action International, professor David Pimentel of Cornell University will be among our guests. We hope you will 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
