Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Lines End to View Pope; U.S. Delegation Arrives, Pays Respects; Kurd Selected Iraq's President

Aired April 06, 2005 - 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, HOST: Tonight, a remarkable scene at the Vatican. President Bush, two former presidents with him, kneeling before the body of Pope John Paul II. We'll have that story and the latest on the plans to elect a new pontiff.
In "Broken Borders," our special report tonight, many of our schools in this country are swamped by illegal aliens, hurting educational opportunities for millions of American children and offering only a limited education for those illegal alien students.

And my guest tonight is a former counsel to the 9/11 Commission who says the Minuteman Project is nothing less than a wake-up call for our national government, a government that refuses to enforce border security.

And in our "Face Off" tonight, the executive director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He joins us to debate me on our coverage here of the illegal alien crisis in this country, whether, as he claims, it's one sided or fair and balanced, as some would have it. It promises to be an interesting discussion.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.

DOBBS: Good evening.

The Vatican today announced that the College of Cardinals will begin their deliberations to choose a new pope on April 18. The announcement came as hundreds of thousands of people continue to file past the body of Pope John Paul II.

Tonight, authorities appeal to mourners to stay away from the center of Rome, because that city simply cannot cope with any more pilgrims.

Alessio Vinci has our report from St. Peter's Square in Vatican City -- Alessio.

ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Lou.

Yes, by the thousands, however, they continue to arrive here in Rome, regardless of the fact that they can no longer be or put themselves in line. Waiting time now estimated between 12 and 15 hours, and so Vatican officials as well as the Italian officials have asked that police not to allow anybody to get himself in line, because by the time they get here they will not be able to get into the basilica here behind me, simply because it closes tomorrow because they have to prepare, of course, the area as well as the body of Pope John Paul II for the funeral.

What is incredible, however, Lou, about this line is that while they've been waiting here, day and night, for hours and hours and hours, once they get inside the basilica, pilgrims and faithful and tourists are only able to spend just a few seconds inside that basilica, looking at the pope for just 20 seconds perhaps. Perhaps time for a short prayer or a thought.

And then they are moved away, because of course, there's another throng of people coming behind them.

The atmosphere in there is beautiful. It's calm. There is prayer. There is music. There is a lot of calmness, if you want. A lot of people there, obviously sad that John Paul II has died.

Lou, back to you.

DOBBS: Alessio, thank you. Alessio Vinci from Vatican City.

President Bush tonight arrived in Rome. He went straight to the Vatican to pay his last respects to Pope John Paul II. During his stay in Rome President Bush will hold meetings, as well, with other world leaders, including the Italian president and the Italian prime minister.

Our senior White House correspondent, John King, now reports from Vatican City -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the president came directly, upon landing at the airport here in Rome, leading the U.S. delegation, the five-member delegation that includes two former presidents, as well as his wife, First Lady Laura Bush, and the secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Several of the president's top staffers also on hand.

A quick 30-minute drive from the airport to St. Peter's. The president, we're told by aides, wanting, along with other members of the delegation, to take a few minutes to offer their personal reflections and personal mourning, personal prayers for Pope John Paul II.

Mr. Bush will lead that delegation, of course, at the funeral on Friday. That a more official event, if you will. The president and the delegation taking time, kneeling down, the 41st, the 42nd, and the 43rd president of the United States, again, along with Mrs. Bush and Secretary Rice.

A few moments of prayers in St. Peter's. Aides say Mr. Bush wanted to do that and his father, the former president, and Bill Clinton, the former president, quickly agreed so that they would have a chance to convey their personal thoughts, their personal gratitude, if you will, to the late pontiff.

All three of these presidents, they are three of the five U.S. presidents who served during the 26 years Pope John Paul II ruled the Vatican. All three of them, of course, at one time or another on the receiving end of lectures from this pope. But on this day they are paying tribute, leading and representing their nation, if you will.

As you noted, Lou, tomorrow the president does have official meetings: a courtesy call on the Italian president, a dinner with the Italian prime minister. Iraq will come up in those discussions. So not all of this trip dedicated to paying homage to the pope.

But for the most part, that will be the president's overwhelming focus. Out of deference to the pope, those meetings with Prime Minister Berlusconi and President Ciampi will be closed, no press coverage at all. Mr. Bush, the White House says, is here to pay his personal tributes and the tributes of his nation to Pope John Paul II -- Lou.

DOBBS: And not all of this trip focused on the responsibilities of Mr. Bush as head of state. Politics continues, John, to surround even this trip. There are conflicting reports, as you know, tonight about why former President Jimmy Carter was not in the U.S. delegation to attend the pope's funeral. Can you give us any insight into that controversy?

KING: At a minimum, Lou, miscommunication between the White House and former President Carter's staff. Mr. Carter going out of his way tonight to try to damp down any political controversy that might take away from the tribute to John Paul II. President Carter issuing a statement tonight saying there is no dissension at all between him or his office and the White House over the arrangements for this funeral.

But we do hear from Carter aides that they believe they did not get the direct message from the White House, the urgency, if you will, that Mr. Bush very much wanted the living former presidents, with the exception of Gerald Ford, who is not healthy enough to travel. But that he very much wanted Mr. Carter, and the Carter side said they did not get the word that President Clinton and the former President Bush would be coming, as well.

At the White House, they say as soon as they had word, the commitments from the 41st and 42nd president, they relayed that to Mr. Carter's staff. So certainly, a communications breakdown. The White House says it tried to keep in touch with Mr. Carter as best it could. Mr. Carter tonight, Lou, issuing that statement, trying to end any political debate, if you will, as the former presidents of the United States and, indeed, the whole word pays tribute to this pope.

DOBBS: Perhaps an act of political graciousness, John, on the part of the former president, President Carter. But at the same time one would have thought, irrespective of all the considerations that you've just iterated, that he would have wanted to be at the Vatican.

Some surprised to see the White House chief of staff in that front row with three -- three presidents. An explanation?

KING: It is a tough one to explain, Lou, because you do get the conflicting accounts.

Our Dana Bash back in Washington spent much of her day trying to report this story, and she was told by senior officials that it was, indeed, Andy Card -- you mentioned the president's chief of staff -- who called not once but at least twice down to President Carter's office and said that Mr. Bush very much wanted him to be part of the delegation.

In the first call, we are told, he said it was unclear whether Mr. Clinton and the former President Bush would be part of the delegation. And the White House says Andy Card called back again and told Mr. Carter that the former presidents had agreed to come, Mr. Carter -- Mr. Clinton, excuse me, and Mr. Bush, and that he wanted Mr. Carter to come. And at that point Mr. Carter said no.

So certainly some miscommunication. We will continue to try to resolve the conflicting accounts.

DOBBS: John King, and you have a very good track record in doing so, sir. John King, our senior White House correspondent, tonight reporting from Vatican City.

Turning now to the global war against radical Islamist terrorists. Eighteen people were killed today when a U.S. Chinook helicopter crashed in Afghanistan. At least four of those killed are American.

The Chinook crashed in a dust storm 80 miles southwest of the capital city of Kabul. Military officials say there is no evidence that the helicopter was shot down. The crash is the deadliest aviation accident in Afghanistan since American troops were deployed there.

A major step toward democracy in Iraq today. Iraq's transitional assembly finally elected new president, 10 weeks after the Iraqi general election. Former dictator Saddam Hussein, in fact, watched today's proceedings from his prison cell.

Aneesh Raman reports from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A president elected in a moment of poetic politics, Jalal Talabani, a prominent Kurd who battled Saddam for years, whose people were brutally oppressed by the former regime, now holds the dictator's former title.

It comes after weeks of political wrangling and days after the assembly elected its speaker. Finally, visible signs of real progress towards the formation of a transitional government.

Also elected, Sunni Ghazi al-Yawer and Shia Adel Abdel Mahdi as deputy presidents. The three men, the Presidency Council, will within days name a prime minister and his cabinet.

JALAL TALABANI, IRAQI PRESIDENT (through translator): I will acknowledge your trust and the trust of the Iraqi people, who have freely elected you in the first free elections in our dear Iraq.

RAMAN: Talabani's rise to president is a monumental achievement for Iraq but also for the country's Kurds, who now hold vested influence. And from the man likely to become the prime minister, words of action.

IBRAHIM AL-JAAFARI, PRIME MINISTER CANDIDATE (through translator): We will work to create progress that is actually felt by the citizen so that he can feel with the passage of time both services and prepare this country for the elections in 2006.

RAMAN: There is much to be done. The national assembly has just over four months to draft a constitution, and the executive branch will soon take over those day-to-day affairs, managing huge unemployment, sustained insurgent violence and a need for basic services by many Iraqis.

(on camera) Over two months after millions risked their lives to vote this assembly in, headway is being made. And more importantly, seen by the public. The transitional government knows that there is now no more room for delays, only an urgent need to govern.

Aneesh Raman, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: On Capitol Hill tonight, new questions about the ethical conduct of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Those questions posed in two, two separate newspaper articles, "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times," relating first to payments to the wife and daughter of Congressman DeLay and the funding of a trip to Russia by Congressman DeLay in 1997.

Most of the details of the payments to DeLay's wife and daughter have been public for years and are simply not illegal. We cannot here confirm nor corroborate many details of the Russia allegations. However, that didn't stop two of the country's most liberal newspapers, "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," from giving those stories prominence on their front pages today.

Congressional correspondent Ed Henry has the report from Capitol Hill.

Ed, let's begin with "The New York Times" report.

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in an exclusive interview with CNN today off camera, Lou, Tom DeLay took aim at "The New York Times" report in particular, saying he thinks this is a classic example of the liberal media taking aim at him and his family.

DeLay allies are really shooting this "New York Times" story down. And they do have some facts backing up their account that they believe it is much ado about nothing.

As you mentioned, it is not illegal for his wife and daughter to be on his campaign payroll. Second of all, it was no secret. This has been reported by newspapers like "Roll Call" over the years that this was going on.

Third of all, there are several other members of Congress who also do the exact same thing. They have relatives on their campaign payroll. And it's important to note this is not taxpayer money.

They are not on the House payroll. They are on the outside payroll of a political action committee.

Also want to point out that in "The New York Times" story it noted that Tom DeLay's daughter as his chief fund-raiser makes about $3,800 a month. Obviously, that only adds up to less than $50,000 a year.

That is a lot of money to some people all around the country. But I can tell you, for a political operative in Washington, $50,000 a year is really chump change. So it sounds like a lot of money, but it's really not that much in the context of Washington fund-raising -- Lou.

DOBBS: And within the context of Washington, Ed, as you put it, are there both Republicans and Democrats who employ relatives, close relatives in their campaign organizations or PACs?

HENRY: Absolutely. Democrats like Barbara Boxer, it's been well known, have used relatives, Republicans as well. Not just Tom DeLay, people in both parties.

It's not illegal. Certainly people across the country may think that it's improper in some way, but it is not illegal. It's not against House rules. And the Federal Election Commission has no direct problem with it.

DOBBS: Before we turn to the House rules, Ed, let's turn to "The Washington Post" report. That does raise some questions. Your thoughts?

HENRY: The problem here, I think, is much bigger potentially for Tom DeLay in "The Washington Post" story. This talks about a 1997 trip to Moscow. The bottom line is that Tom DeLay today told CNN that he believes that a conservative think tank paid for this trip.

"The Washington Post" report -- and that would be perfectly within the House rules, I should point out. "The Washington Post" report, though, pointed out that they believe they have sources saying that it was actually Russian business interests, lobbyists with business before the Congress who paid for the trip.

That would be a clear violation of House rules. So that could be a big problem for DeLay, number one.

And number two, it could be seen as a part of pattern. There have been two other trips that have already come to light where allegedly lobbyists paid for -- paid for these overseas trips to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for Tom DeLay and his wife and others, when that is clearly against the House rules -- Lou. DOBBS: Against the House rules and, in point of fact, why is there not a record here? And secondly, turning to those House rules, it would seem that the House Ethics Committee would have primacy in this matter in both cases. And there is, of course, the coincidence that both "The Times" and "The Post" are running this story on the very same day.

HENRY: Bottom line is that the House rules say that lobbyists cannot pay for trips. Tom DeLay filed paperwork with the House of Representatives saying that these various trips were paid for by a conservative think tank. That's the discrepancy.

He says it was paid for a think tank -- paid by a think tank, which would be permissible. These stories are alleging that they were secretly actually funded by lobbyists.

That's the discrepancy. That's why there's no bottom line.

And finally, on the House Ethics Committee, you're right. They should probably be investigating this, but right now, because of a stalemate between the parties, there basically is not a House Ethics Committee to investigate any of this. And that's why Democrats are fired up.

DOBBS: And we appreciate it, Ed Henry, as always, reporting from Capitol Hill.

Our quote of the day tonight originates, of course, with Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who said -- this is all -- "It's just another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me."

Which brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Do you believe House Majority Tom DeLay is a victim of a campaign by the liberal media to embarrass him? Cast your vote at LOUDOBBS.com, yes or no. We'll have the results later here in the broadcast.

Up next, our exploding trade deficit with China. Now leading members of Congress are demanding action.

And the high cost of illegal immigration. Many of our schools are simply swamped by illegal aliens. We'll have that special report.

And an outspoken critic of our coverage of the illegal immigration crisis in this country tonight will be here to debate me about our coverage, whether it's one sided, as he says, or fair and balanced, as some like to put it, or just correct.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Because of the record trade deficit with China, which is expanding daily on Capitol Hill, Senator Chuck Schumer and other lawmakers today introduced legislation to impose an across-the-board tariff against all Chinese imports to this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: If you believe in free trade, you cannot have one of the largest trading countries abjectly violate the rules. It doesn't work.

It doesn't work for China. It doesn't work for America. And it doesn't work for the rest of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: And separately, Congressman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Tim Ryan tomorrow will propose their own legislation to limit China's huge trade surplus with this country.

Europe is also becoming increasingly concerned about the huge increase in Chinese textile exports to Europe. The European Union today established new rules to monitor Chinese imports.

Europe, like the United States, is also facing a massive influx of illegal aliens. And today, the European Union declared it wants to spend 60 percent of its internal security budget now on fighting illegal immigration.

We report here extensively on the high cost of illegal immigration in this country. And no one knows how many children in our schools are there illegally for a simple reason. No one is permitted by law to ask.

Educators have no choice but to teach the children who arrive in their classrooms, because that is the law of this country. But there is no denying that illegal immigration is having a tremendous negative impact on our public schools.

Bill Tucker has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sixteen percent of the kids in Arizona schools speak virtually no English when they enter school. The classes cost the state more than $1,000 per student per year. The federal government pays for only $88 of that cost.

TOM HORNE, ARIZONA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: We would love to see the federal government, because it's a really federal failure at the border that results in the illegal immigration, we would like to see the federal government stand up to the plate and give us more money to deal with the need to teach these students English. As long as they are not doing it, though, we have to do it because you can't neglect the kids.

TUCKER: The problem is not Arizona's alone. More than five million students in public schools nationally are enrolled as English language learners. That's an increase of 84 percent since 1992. Growth has been the strongest in the non-border states, such as in the South, the Midwest and the upper Midwest. GISELLE LUNDY-PONCE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: The numbers are increasing, and teachers are faced with a growing immigrant population in their schools.

TUCKER: The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that schools must educate children regardless of their parents' immigration status. The problem or challenge, as educators like to say, does have a bottom line. It means that money spent by the states on English language learning classes is money that cannot be spent on other priorities, such as teacher salaries.

JACK JENNINGS, CENTER ON EDUCATION POLICY: It's just another challenge on top of all the demands for accountability and raising test scores. And it's just another demand that teachers have to meet. And local taxpayers have to meet it, too, because they have to find the money to pay for the extra classrooms and the extra teachers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: It's very hard to get a handle on the total cost, but use Arizona as a model. There, the Federal Department of Education grants the state $15 million for the English language learner classes. The Arizona taxpayers, Lou, pick up the remaining $85 million tab. So...

DOBBS: So the Arizona taxpayers and the taxpayers of every one of the states in this union are subsidizing the employers of illegal aliens?

TUCKER: Right -- yes.

DOBBS: And inadequately, thereby not providing the educational opportunity we would to any one of those illegal alien students and diminishing the educational opportunity for American students. This crisis is that in every dimension, crisis. Thank you, Bill Tucker.

We report here extensively, of course, about the critical need to secure our borders against illegal aliens and radical Islamist terrorists. But tonight there is a claim that millions of dollars of spending on vital security improvements on our border are nothing less than pork.

That claim is made by the Citizens Against Government Waste in its so-called Pig Book. That spending, according to the group, includes $500,000 for the construction of a border fence in Nogales, Arizona. How is that pork? It's border security.

The book also blasts more than $5 million in spending on training for Customs and Border Protection. Surely the real problem here is that the funding is totally inadequate. But not according to the Pig Book, which does cite some example of government spending that are clearly pork, thank goodness.

$1.7 million for the International Fertilizer Development Association. You knew that corporate America had to get in there somewhere. And $100,000 for the Punxatawney Weather Discovery Center. I won't repeat that one.

And Senator John McCain sits on the board of governors for the Citizens Against Government Waste. He attended the press conference this morning for the Pig Book. Senator McCain, of course, is one of the country's most outspoken critics of government waste. We hope he reviews those lists that include those items on border security.

Coming up next, the Vatican gives new details about the plans to elect a new pope. Father John Paris will be here with me. He'll tell us how the cardinals' conclave will work.

And our "Broken Borders" special report tonight. A former counsel to the 9/11 Commission simply says that Minuteman Project in Arizona along the Mexican border is a wake-up call to our government. Let's hope our elected officials are listening. She is our guest here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: More than a hundred cardinals from all around the world will be gathering at the Vatican on April 18 to select a new pope. Joining me now with more on the cardinals' conclave, the tradition surrounding the process of selecting a new pontiff, Father John Paris, Boston College.

Good to have you back with us, Father.

REV. JOHN PARIS, BOSTON COLLEGE: Good to be back, Lou.

DOBBS: It was a remarkable sight to see President Bush and two previous presidents, President Bush and President Clinton, kneeling, paying their respects to Pope John Paul II. Your thoughts?

PARIS: Well, it was. It's great to see the president of the United States. It's wonderful to see that the respect for the American public being made in a very public way by the president himself. And Mr. Bush is the very first president ever to visit a funeral of a pope.

DOBBS: I think that -- well, certainly, I was surprised when I learned that, because I had assumed that previously presidents had attended the funeral for popes. Do you -- what significance do you attach to that departure from tradition?

PARIS: Well, in great part, most of the previous popes had never traveled widely. And certainly none of them had been to the United States while they were pope.

Pope Pius XII had been here, but not while he was hope. And so they were not very well known personally to the presidents. And there wasn't that personal relationship which would bond them together and bring them not simply as a representative of a country, but as a friend who has been lost.

DOBBS: And as the cardinals are about to begin their conclave on April 18 to select a new pope, what is your sense of the outcome? How long will it take the process to move to that outcome?

PARIS: The process in the last -- certainly since 1939 has been very quick. We've never had more than three days for a conclave. We've never had more than 11 ballots for a conclave. Alternatively, back in the 19th century, we had 54 days for a conclave.

This cannot go that far, because after 12 days they can then agree to have a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote to be selected.

DOBBS: And that change in the process was instituted by Pope John Paul II, was it not?

PARIS: That's correct.

DOBBS: And the reason for that, in your judgment?

PARIS: He simply didn't want -- I suspect that he did not want to have what would appear to be a stalemate which would weaken the power of the new pontiff, whoever would be selected, after a long and prolonged battle. We want to have a sense that in fact there's someone whom the Holy Spirit has selected and there is an agreement upon this individual to be the pope.

DOBBS: And when that white smoke does rise above the Vatican, give us your best assessment as to the qualities and position on issues that that newly-elected pontiff will possess.

PARIS: He's certainly got to be someone who is familiar with international affairs and probably quite well traveled. The church is a very international institution now. Thirty-six percent of the population is in Latin America, for example.

It's no longer a closed western European society. Africa, Asia, and particularly Latin America are where the growing strength in numbers of the church are.

DOBBS: Father John Paris, we thank you very much, as always. Look forward to talking with you tomorrow evening.

PARIS: Good. Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Coming up next, a former CIA director says U.S. dependency on Middle East oil is now a serious threat to our national security. He'll be here.

And a former counsel to the 9/11 Commission who says protecting our borders should be the Department of Homeland Security's top priority. She's our guest.

And in our "Face Off" tonight, the leader of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists says our reporting here on illegal immigration is one-sided. As you might expect, I strongly disagree. He will be here next.

Please stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Turning now to more on the crisis at our nation's borders and well beyond, my next guest tonight says the Minuteman Project in Arizona should serve as a wake-up call to our elected officials. She in fact declares securing the nation's borders must be the top priority for the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress. Janice Kephart knows what she is talking about. The former counsel to the 9/11 Commission, she joins us tonight in Washington, D.C. Good to have you with us.

JANICE KEPHART, FMR COUNSEL, 9/11 COMMISSION: Thank you very much, Lou.

DOBBS: Were you surprised that the president of the United States sided with Vincente Fox, the president of Mexico, in calling what effectively is a large neighborhood watch-group, the Minutemen, "vigilantes"?

KEPHART: Well, I think it's an unfortunate thing to call them vigilantes at this point. Really, what have you here are a large group of people who, at a grass roots level, now recognize that border security is national security and the government isn't doing what they need to do. I think instead of calling them "vigilantes" we need to just simply have our president and administration focus on fixing our border situation.

DOBBS: One of the things we are encountering in our reporting is that talking with those responsible and, of course, the men and women of the Border Patrol who serve and work very hard along our nation's border, the southern as well as northern, they are appreciative of the illustration of the problems that they are dealing with, this invasion, as they would agree for the most part, most Border Patrol agents. But the bureaucracy is rankled by the illumination of this issue. Is this part of the basic problem we're dealing with here, bureaucracy within the Border Patrol? Within the other agencies responsible for border security, indeed Homeland Security itself?

KEPHART: Well, I think what you see here is a culmination of legacy immigration service problems, a lack of vision on policy at the top. Rankled, yes, they are. I do think that it is pushing them forward. We saw a release of a Border Patrol strategy recently. It is much meatier than anything I've ever seen in the past, the Border Patrol has produced.

It does seem that within DHS it's making an impact and things are changing in a more positive direction. However, what you still have is a president saying border security is national security, but not acting that way, in the technological resources that are being provided, or in the human resources that are being provided at the border. So -- and you have bureaucratic issues within the Border Patrol where it makes it very difficult for them to effectively do their jobs.

DOBBS: You have said that you consider the Minuteman Project, which by the way is credited with dropping illegal immigration across the border since they began their patrols on Saturday by half, and that, by the way, is the estimate from the other side of the border, the Mexican side of the border. So, they've already achieved that.

But this wake-up call, do you for a moment believe that the elected officials -- because we talked about the bureaucracy of the White House -- that the U.S. Congress which has been adroit at avoiding responsibility or taking any kind of action to represent the men and women who put them in office -- do you believe they are going to wake up?

KEPHART: Well, you know, Congress is full of a lot of different political agendas and political visions. You have some people who are very much behind the Border Patrol, very much want to help them. You have other folks who want to step back and look at immigration reform more generally, who may take a longer time. You have other folks who simply don't agree at all. So, difficult across the board to get a wake-up call, I think. Some folks, especially the representatives along the border, Dianne Feinstein, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kyle, those types of folks understand the problem and have been working the problem for years. Other places, you are not going to see the interest.

DOBBS: Well, it's a national interest. We're going to be paying, as I know you are, a lot of attention to those who do represent the national interest. Janice Kephart, we thank you for being here; look forward to talking to you soon.

KEPHART: Thank you very much, Lou.

DOBBS: Taking a look now at some of your thoughts.

William Bentinck of Palm Springs, California wrote to say, "When you cite the figures of the cost of illegal immigration, I have not heard you mention that the illegals send 12 or 13 billion dollars back to Mexico, which is a source of revenue for Mexico second only to oil."

Well, Mr. Bentinck, actually, so-called remittances from the United States back to Mexico have reached $17 billion, and those remittances are now the number one source of revenue for Mexico; oil is now second.

Referring to our story last night about illegal aliens who pleaded guilty to running a sex slave ring in New York, David Whitmire of Cookeville, Tennessee wrote in to say, "So illegal aliens are guilty of sexual slavery of women and children. I guess they were just doing jobs American's don't want to do."

Ian Brockman from Greenville, South Carolina: "If the Minutemen are a vigilante group, does that also make an organized neighborhood watch a vigilante group as well?"

And Mauricio Sanchez from Fort Myers, Florida: "You like to talk a lot about how 'illegal' immigration is bad for the United States, but I've never seen on your show positive things about the issue. Let's suppose the people crossing the border are white with blue eyes, would you be against illegal immigration?"

Mauricio, take a look, if you will, at my brown eyes. The answer is, absolutely. And now, Mauricio, I think it's only fair to ask you a question: if they were not predominantly Hispanic, what would be your position?

And Denise in Portland, Oregon wrote to say, "Your reference to human beings as 'illegal aliens' shows extremely racist opinions you portray on your show." Denise, if all you and others -- a few others, thank goodness -- can do is look at the crisis of illegal immigration in this country in racial terms you are missing the point by a wide, wide margin. Try taking a look at this issue in terms of our national interests and rationally.

George McGrath of Las Vegas, Nevada, wrote to say, "The invasion of illegal aliens in our country is factually anti-immigration. It disallows equal opportunity to all those who wish to enter America by legal process, leaving them in the cold and darkness of disbelief."

We love hearing your thoughts. Send us your e-mails at LouDobbs.com. Each of you whose e-mail is read here receive as copy of my book "Exporting America," and you can sign up for my email newsletter on the web site, LouDobbs.com.

Well, my next guest says this program's reporting on the illegal alien crisis in this country is incomplete and in fact one-sided. Joining me now from Washington to debate this topic is Ivan Roman. Hi is the executive director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and it is good to have you with us, Ivan.

IVAN ROMAN, NAT'L ASSOC. OF HISPANIC JOURNALISTS: Hi, Lou. How you doing?

DOBBS: Well, I'm doing pretty good, and I hope you are as well as we begin to tackle this issue. The idea that this broadcast is one-sided, tell us what your organization and you mean.

ROMAN: Well, Lou, first of all, let me thank you for having me on the program.

DOBBS: Sure.

ROMAN: I do want to mention that we respect you as a journalist and as a colleague. Of course, we respect your First Amendment rights to do the news as you see fit, and that we respect. We'd love to have a chance to talk to you more about this after the show.

What the problem is, is that this is a symptom of a larger problem. You know, the -- our studies show that Latinos on network news have basically been invisible. We're only shown running across the border or basically as criminals in handcuffs. What happens is we're shown and framed as a threat to our well-being, to the country's well-being, whether it is physical, national, social, and frankly, what I have to tell you this has great consequences for our people and for our country. And your coverage I have to say, the drum beat, the daily drum beat of your coverage, magnifies that problem. DOBBS: Let me if I may, Ivan, put up the quote from Joseph Torres, who is the deputy director of your organization, calling this broadcast reporting on illegal aliens a "daily drumbeat portraying Hispanics as criminals whose illegal presence threatens the security, livelihood, and well-being of this country."

Now, you and I, as journalists, have a responsibility for the language we use, right?

ROMAN: Yes, definitely.

DOBBS: The, you know, the drumbeat portraying Hispanics, I don't believe we have ever portrayed Hispanics as criminals or illegals. We have portrayed illegal aliens on this broadcast to be criminals, who have crossed the border illegally and thereby are criminals. We have portrayed anti- -- the anti-immigration forces at work in this country, in some cases, as, well, frankly, not exactly the correct view to take either.

But we did a little research. And I know you must have, too, to make these kinds of charges. Where have you seen, at any time, me or anyone on this broadcast portray Hispanics unfairly?

ROMAN: Lou, have you to take into account that this coverage doesn't happen in a vacuum.

DOBBS: No.

ROMAN: This is a traditional -- this is a historical problem. And what happens is, when you basically have -- when you basically do stories that talk about only immigration -- for example, let's say right now, we had, our studies show that only most of the time we're talked about in terms of illegal immigration and criminality. If you look at the stories, by extension, people will lump us together.

So, for example, just the other day did you a story about urban sprawl and the effect of illegal immigration on the environment. Basically, you said not just legal immigration, it was legal and illegal immigration. And basically it blamed the growth of population in this country, and therefore the economic -- the environmental problems, on us.

People then by extension -- and the only time they see us, frankly, is on your show itself. The only time they see us is when we're working in factories in Guatemala or when we're crossing the border.

So by extension -- and but we don't see -- what we don't see is positive -- stories about the contributions we make as Latinos in this country.

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: And with the lack of context, that's the image that people are going to take. DOBBS: OK, one thing, and I, Ivan, I would like you to consider this. One is, I believe the audience of this broadcast is a very smart group of folks. And I've heard others suggest that people are not wise enough in this country to understand the distinction between being anti-illegal immigration and being anti-immigration.

I think they are wrong. I think they are utterly wrong. I think the fact that the predominant number of illegal aliens who cross our borders, the fact they are Mexican, the fact that they are, then, in a larger sense Hispanic and Latino, I think those are all distinctions that -- and discrete judgments that can be made by nearly every American, and certainly by this audience.

So I disagree with you there.

But I would like to point out something to you, because, thanks to Debra Davis (ph), one of our segment producers here, I wouldn't have thought to do this, frankly, she took a look at what we had done since, I believe, September 3 on this issue of 2003. And what she found, and this may surprise you, I don't know, frankly, it delighted me. I will tell you too, it surprised me.

We had 46 guests during that period of time who were pro open borders, pro illegal immigration. We had, at the same time, 45 who were anti-. So that's pretty good balance. And, I mean, I have to tell you, that is not something that we consciously do here. The fair-and-balanced people are on another network. We are trying to get it right. And I mean that sincerely.

Of the guest segments...

ROMAN: (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... 73 were anti-illegal immigration, 65 were pro, you know, illegal immigration. I think you've got to be surprised by that balance, at least.

ROMAN: Well, I am, but I'm not, because we're not talking about here about the talking heads you have on the show.

DOBBS: OK.

ROMAN: I mean, I'm, I mean, I'm here to talk about this, but what's important is what's -- it's the tone of the coverage. What's important is what is in those stories that you use to talk about it, to illustrate the issue.

So if you -- it's -- it may be very possible, and I -- most likely, I'm -- I have to go out on a limb here, but say, most likely, just from what I've seen in the last few days, is that when you look at the content of the stories, there isn't a balance. You basically used people who are pro in the Minuteman coverage. You basically used the story of, you used a quote by a professor in Los Angeles, I believe it was, to basically say a throwaway quote, and this is what we call in journalism, as domestic terrorists and used that as a way -- as a bounce springboard for other comments. You did bring people to come in and talk about that. But that is not -- but what people see...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... people, people interpret talking heads a different way than they interpret stories. New stories...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I hear you, Ivan, but let me ask you...

ROMAN: ... and that's not what's happening in the coverage that I've seen, that's not what's happening.

DOBBS: All right. Let me ask you this. Maybe you would just...

ROMAN: Hey, that's (INAUDIBLE) I can tell you. I'm sorry, let me interrupt you one minute. What I see and what a lot of people see, because we do get calls from many people about this, what I see is that it seems like the stories are done to fit a particular point of view. In that sense, it's done -- the stories are not -- are -- it's what we call in journalism -- it's not cookie-cutter journalism, it's more like journalism...

DOBBS: No, it's sure not cookie-cutter journalism.

ROMAN: ... to -- no, it's not (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: We're real proud of that fact.

ROMAN: I know. But it's more like taking a premise and doing a story to fit that premise.

DOBBS: OK.

ROMAN: That's what we see a lot of the coverage itself. I'm not talking about the guests you have.

DOBBS: OK. And now that's interesting. But let me ask you this. Does it surprise you, when you talk about us being particularly one-sided in this issue, and I will tell you definitively, absolutely unequivocally. I am anti-illegal immigration. I make no pretense of being neutral on that issue. I make no pretense of being neutral about the national security interests of this country, no pretense of neutrality or objectivity when it comes to border security or national security.

And I make no apologies whatsoever for being interested in the quality of life for working men and women in this country, middle class, and all of the values that made the country work.

Now, what does bring me up a bit -- Let me ask you this. When we talk about objectivity, as I'm sure you would want to style it, again, I make no pretense of objectivity, just accuracy and truthfulness. Can you think of a single major, major, activist organization that is tied to the Hispanic community that is anti- illegal immigration? Can you think of one?

ROMAN: I wouldn't know, but, see, I'm not -- I'm not (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Well, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, wait...

ROMAN: ... but I'm not, but I...

DOBBS: ... that's very, very, very important.

ROMAN: No, but I'm not an expert...

DOBBS: That's very important.

ROMAN: But I'm not an expert.

DOBBS: Because what's happening in this country, Ivan, is, people are trying to use race to cloud a discussion of rationality. They're trying...

ROMAN: Don't...

DOBBS: Let me finish...

ROMAN: OK, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

DOBBS: OK. When we focus on the costs of illegal immigration, the fact that half of the Hispanic students in California, as the Harvard study two weeks ago pointed out, the black students in that community, in those -- that school district, are dropping out of school because they are simply swamped with students, primarily because of illegal immigration and the federal government's refusal to deal with the issue.

The reality is, we're helping no one. You referred to your people. The fact is, our people are American people. And Hispanics have no diminished interest whatsoever in protecting the national security.

ROMAN: Lou, that's not what -- Lou, that -- Lou, that is not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a balance of coverage. I commend you for wanting to deal with the issue of immigration. I mean, for a long time, we know that immigration is an issue that is undercovered, misunderstood by everybody, by people in the Beltway, by the media, by everyone.

We're not -- that's not the point we're arguing here. What we're talking about is the quality of the balance of the coverage and fairness.

DOBBS: OK...

ROMAN: And frankly, your stories don't have that...

DOBBS: OK, let, let, let me (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... (INAUDIBLE). Because we don't, we don't get, we don't get an equal airing of people who would take the other side...

DOBBS: OK, here's (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... who would point...

DOBBS: ... the other side.

ROMAN: ... who would point to the (INAUDIBLE), who would point to the positive points of immigration. Just the other day, the story about Social Security and the taxes, the payroll taxes (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Seven billion dollars per year...

ROMAN: ... (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... Social Security, New York Times.

ROMAN: Whatever. The only time it was mentioned on your show was, you know, to talk about, basically to criticize it, which is fine, but the thing is, we -- if we had a more comprehensive view of some of those positive contributions...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) -- you know...

ROMAN: ... we -- I'm sure people wouldn't be calling -- wouldn't be complaining about the show.

DOBBS: Well...

ROMAN: Because you're (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... it's interesting about the number of people who...

ROMAN: ... (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... complain, then, because we don't get those complaints. We get a modest amount of complaints. It's America. People are going to have different points of view. But the fact is...

ROMAN: Well, unfortunately, I have...

DOBBS: OK, I'm sorry, go ahead.

DOBBS: No, well, no, go ahead. I was going to say something, but go ahead.

DOBBS: Well, please.

ROMAN: Well, I mean, it could be that you don't get the complaints because people don't watch the show. You know, that's the -- that's part of the problem.

DOBBS: Well, that may be.

ROMAN: We get some calls from people who say, I'm tired, I'm turned, I don't watch Lou Dobbs anymore, I'm just so turned off by the show because we don't get -- our voice isn't heard there.

DOBBS: Right.

ROMAN: And, you know, and the same happens...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... with media in general.

DOBBS: All right. Well, let me ask you to come back, and we can have some more discussion about this. We're used up our time. But let me say that when we talk about the positives of illegal immigration in this country, primarily, and by the way, that "New York Times" report mentioned nothing about totalization, the payments of Social Security to (INAUDIBLE) nationals...

ROMAN: I agree, I agree, there's a lot that more that...

DOBBS: ... there was not a single reference...

ROMAN: ... needed to be in there.

DOBBS: ... to the cost. So the fact is, the principal benefits of illegal immigration descend upon corporate America and the employers who are exploiting those illegal immigrants, and I think you and I would even agree about that.

ROMAN: Yes, that's, that's...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE), that's a tough one for us to get behind, because, frankly, I am annoyed as the dickens with the people who are driving illegal immigration and making taxpayers and citizens pay the price for them to -- subsidize them while they exploit illegal immigrants. We are out of time. You get the last word. Quickly, please.

ROMAN: Keep in mind you have to be more careful about making the distinction between illegal immigration and immigration. And be more aware the effect this coverage has on media in general -- media coverage in general of Latinos. And I would just like to invite you, basically, to talk to us more, we would definitely love to talk to you more about this issue. I think it's very important.

DOBBS: You are welcome here. I'd be delighted to talk to you, as you know, I think any time, anywhere.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: And we would love to have you back on to talk about this, because these are critical issues, as you well know. We thank you.

ROMAN: Thank you, Lou. And thanks to your viewers.

DOBBS: Ivan Roman, we thank you.

Up next, our rising dependency on foreign oil. I will be talking to a former CIA director who says that this is a tremendous threat, that dependency, on our national security. Please stay with us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Former CIA Director James Woolsey told Congress today that this country's dependency on Middle East oil is an urgent and security threat to our national security. James Woolsey, joins tonight from Washington D.C.

The reason you think it is now an urgent threat, Jim?

JAMES WOOLSEY, FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: Well, it's because our infrastructure for transportation is so tied to oil, you can't substitute other fuels, at least, not yet, readily. And the Middle East is the low cost and dominant producer, two thirds of the world's oil reserves there. We have the possibility of terrorist attacks on the infrastructure in the Middle East. Bin Laden has called for them. He tried to carry several out. Some have been carried out in Iraq. You have a possibility of a coup. There was almost coup in Saudi Arabia in 1979. You have our trade deficit, all the two to $3 billion a week that we borrow just to finance oil imports.

DOBBS: Jim, we are so short on time here tonight. Let me ask you for the solutions in your judgment?

WOOSLEY: Three quick things that our National Energy Policy Commission has emphasized. First of all, high-grade new diesel cars, but especially hybrid, hybrid/gasoline/electric. And focusing now on plug-in hybrids which let you plug in the vehicles' batteries, top them up and run the first several miles entirely on electricity without the hybrid feature of going back and forth from gasoline to electricity. Plug-in power that you can get overnight in many parts of the country, Lou, is 2 to 4 cents a kilowatt hour. That's 12 to 25 cent per gallon gasoline. By not having plug-in hybrid, we are depriving consumers of being able to drive around on 12 to 25 cent per gallon gasoline. You also, want to move, I think, towards cellulose ethanol, that's ethanol that's produced from waste and agriculture residue, not from grains like corn. Much cheaper if you do it from waste like rice straw. And biodiesel also from waste. You've had several programs on your show here about biodiesel from turkey parts out in Missouri.

DOBBS: Jim Woolsey, as always, you make great sense. And here on this broadcast we're going to call it the Woolsey energy package. We like it. Thank you very much, Jim.

WOOLSEY: Great to be with you.

DOBBS: Good to have you here.

Still ahead here, we'll have the results of "Tonight's Poll." Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results now of "Tonight's Poll": 93 percent of you, say you do not believe House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the victim of a campaign by the liberal media to embarrass him, 7 percent of you do.

Thanks for being with us here tonight. Please join us tomorrow, Senator John Kyl of Arizona will be here to talk about the illegal alien crisis and the success of the Minuteman Project, and his proposed legislation.

Jack Welch, former G.E. chairman, author of the new book, "Winning," will be here. We'll be talking about globalization and other issues.

And we continue, of course, our nightly reporting on the high cost of illegal immigration and what must be done to secure our borders.

Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.

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


Aired April 6, 2005 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Tonight, a remarkable scene at the Vatican. President Bush, two former presidents with him, kneeling before the body of Pope John Paul II. We'll have that story and the latest on the plans to elect a new pontiff.
In "Broken Borders," our special report tonight, many of our schools in this country are swamped by illegal aliens, hurting educational opportunities for millions of American children and offering only a limited education for those illegal alien students.

And my guest tonight is a former counsel to the 9/11 Commission who says the Minuteman Project is nothing less than a wake-up call for our national government, a government that refuses to enforce border security.

And in our "Face Off" tonight, the executive director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He joins us to debate me on our coverage here of the illegal alien crisis in this country, whether, as he claims, it's one sided or fair and balanced, as some would have it. It promises to be an interesting discussion.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.

DOBBS: Good evening.

The Vatican today announced that the College of Cardinals will begin their deliberations to choose a new pope on April 18. The announcement came as hundreds of thousands of people continue to file past the body of Pope John Paul II.

Tonight, authorities appeal to mourners to stay away from the center of Rome, because that city simply cannot cope with any more pilgrims.

Alessio Vinci has our report from St. Peter's Square in Vatican City -- Alessio.

ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Lou.

Yes, by the thousands, however, they continue to arrive here in Rome, regardless of the fact that they can no longer be or put themselves in line. Waiting time now estimated between 12 and 15 hours, and so Vatican officials as well as the Italian officials have asked that police not to allow anybody to get himself in line, because by the time they get here they will not be able to get into the basilica here behind me, simply because it closes tomorrow because they have to prepare, of course, the area as well as the body of Pope John Paul II for the funeral.

What is incredible, however, Lou, about this line is that while they've been waiting here, day and night, for hours and hours and hours, once they get inside the basilica, pilgrims and faithful and tourists are only able to spend just a few seconds inside that basilica, looking at the pope for just 20 seconds perhaps. Perhaps time for a short prayer or a thought.

And then they are moved away, because of course, there's another throng of people coming behind them.

The atmosphere in there is beautiful. It's calm. There is prayer. There is music. There is a lot of calmness, if you want. A lot of people there, obviously sad that John Paul II has died.

Lou, back to you.

DOBBS: Alessio, thank you. Alessio Vinci from Vatican City.

President Bush tonight arrived in Rome. He went straight to the Vatican to pay his last respects to Pope John Paul II. During his stay in Rome President Bush will hold meetings, as well, with other world leaders, including the Italian president and the Italian prime minister.

Our senior White House correspondent, John King, now reports from Vatican City -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the president came directly, upon landing at the airport here in Rome, leading the U.S. delegation, the five-member delegation that includes two former presidents, as well as his wife, First Lady Laura Bush, and the secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Several of the president's top staffers also on hand.

A quick 30-minute drive from the airport to St. Peter's. The president, we're told by aides, wanting, along with other members of the delegation, to take a few minutes to offer their personal reflections and personal mourning, personal prayers for Pope John Paul II.

Mr. Bush will lead that delegation, of course, at the funeral on Friday. That a more official event, if you will. The president and the delegation taking time, kneeling down, the 41st, the 42nd, and the 43rd president of the United States, again, along with Mrs. Bush and Secretary Rice.

A few moments of prayers in St. Peter's. Aides say Mr. Bush wanted to do that and his father, the former president, and Bill Clinton, the former president, quickly agreed so that they would have a chance to convey their personal thoughts, their personal gratitude, if you will, to the late pontiff.

All three of these presidents, they are three of the five U.S. presidents who served during the 26 years Pope John Paul II ruled the Vatican. All three of them, of course, at one time or another on the receiving end of lectures from this pope. But on this day they are paying tribute, leading and representing their nation, if you will.

As you noted, Lou, tomorrow the president does have official meetings: a courtesy call on the Italian president, a dinner with the Italian prime minister. Iraq will come up in those discussions. So not all of this trip dedicated to paying homage to the pope.

But for the most part, that will be the president's overwhelming focus. Out of deference to the pope, those meetings with Prime Minister Berlusconi and President Ciampi will be closed, no press coverage at all. Mr. Bush, the White House says, is here to pay his personal tributes and the tributes of his nation to Pope John Paul II -- Lou.

DOBBS: And not all of this trip focused on the responsibilities of Mr. Bush as head of state. Politics continues, John, to surround even this trip. There are conflicting reports, as you know, tonight about why former President Jimmy Carter was not in the U.S. delegation to attend the pope's funeral. Can you give us any insight into that controversy?

KING: At a minimum, Lou, miscommunication between the White House and former President Carter's staff. Mr. Carter going out of his way tonight to try to damp down any political controversy that might take away from the tribute to John Paul II. President Carter issuing a statement tonight saying there is no dissension at all between him or his office and the White House over the arrangements for this funeral.

But we do hear from Carter aides that they believe they did not get the direct message from the White House, the urgency, if you will, that Mr. Bush very much wanted the living former presidents, with the exception of Gerald Ford, who is not healthy enough to travel. But that he very much wanted Mr. Carter, and the Carter side said they did not get the word that President Clinton and the former President Bush would be coming, as well.

At the White House, they say as soon as they had word, the commitments from the 41st and 42nd president, they relayed that to Mr. Carter's staff. So certainly, a communications breakdown. The White House says it tried to keep in touch with Mr. Carter as best it could. Mr. Carter tonight, Lou, issuing that statement, trying to end any political debate, if you will, as the former presidents of the United States and, indeed, the whole word pays tribute to this pope.

DOBBS: Perhaps an act of political graciousness, John, on the part of the former president, President Carter. But at the same time one would have thought, irrespective of all the considerations that you've just iterated, that he would have wanted to be at the Vatican.

Some surprised to see the White House chief of staff in that front row with three -- three presidents. An explanation?

KING: It is a tough one to explain, Lou, because you do get the conflicting accounts.

Our Dana Bash back in Washington spent much of her day trying to report this story, and she was told by senior officials that it was, indeed, Andy Card -- you mentioned the president's chief of staff -- who called not once but at least twice down to President Carter's office and said that Mr. Bush very much wanted him to be part of the delegation.

In the first call, we are told, he said it was unclear whether Mr. Clinton and the former President Bush would be part of the delegation. And the White House says Andy Card called back again and told Mr. Carter that the former presidents had agreed to come, Mr. Carter -- Mr. Clinton, excuse me, and Mr. Bush, and that he wanted Mr. Carter to come. And at that point Mr. Carter said no.

So certainly some miscommunication. We will continue to try to resolve the conflicting accounts.

DOBBS: John King, and you have a very good track record in doing so, sir. John King, our senior White House correspondent, tonight reporting from Vatican City.

Turning now to the global war against radical Islamist terrorists. Eighteen people were killed today when a U.S. Chinook helicopter crashed in Afghanistan. At least four of those killed are American.

The Chinook crashed in a dust storm 80 miles southwest of the capital city of Kabul. Military officials say there is no evidence that the helicopter was shot down. The crash is the deadliest aviation accident in Afghanistan since American troops were deployed there.

A major step toward democracy in Iraq today. Iraq's transitional assembly finally elected new president, 10 weeks after the Iraqi general election. Former dictator Saddam Hussein, in fact, watched today's proceedings from his prison cell.

Aneesh Raman reports from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A president elected in a moment of poetic politics, Jalal Talabani, a prominent Kurd who battled Saddam for years, whose people were brutally oppressed by the former regime, now holds the dictator's former title.

It comes after weeks of political wrangling and days after the assembly elected its speaker. Finally, visible signs of real progress towards the formation of a transitional government.

Also elected, Sunni Ghazi al-Yawer and Shia Adel Abdel Mahdi as deputy presidents. The three men, the Presidency Council, will within days name a prime minister and his cabinet.

JALAL TALABANI, IRAQI PRESIDENT (through translator): I will acknowledge your trust and the trust of the Iraqi people, who have freely elected you in the first free elections in our dear Iraq.

RAMAN: Talabani's rise to president is a monumental achievement for Iraq but also for the country's Kurds, who now hold vested influence. And from the man likely to become the prime minister, words of action.

IBRAHIM AL-JAAFARI, PRIME MINISTER CANDIDATE (through translator): We will work to create progress that is actually felt by the citizen so that he can feel with the passage of time both services and prepare this country for the elections in 2006.

RAMAN: There is much to be done. The national assembly has just over four months to draft a constitution, and the executive branch will soon take over those day-to-day affairs, managing huge unemployment, sustained insurgent violence and a need for basic services by many Iraqis.

(on camera) Over two months after millions risked their lives to vote this assembly in, headway is being made. And more importantly, seen by the public. The transitional government knows that there is now no more room for delays, only an urgent need to govern.

Aneesh Raman, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: On Capitol Hill tonight, new questions about the ethical conduct of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Those questions posed in two, two separate newspaper articles, "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times," relating first to payments to the wife and daughter of Congressman DeLay and the funding of a trip to Russia by Congressman DeLay in 1997.

Most of the details of the payments to DeLay's wife and daughter have been public for years and are simply not illegal. We cannot here confirm nor corroborate many details of the Russia allegations. However, that didn't stop two of the country's most liberal newspapers, "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," from giving those stories prominence on their front pages today.

Congressional correspondent Ed Henry has the report from Capitol Hill.

Ed, let's begin with "The New York Times" report.

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in an exclusive interview with CNN today off camera, Lou, Tom DeLay took aim at "The New York Times" report in particular, saying he thinks this is a classic example of the liberal media taking aim at him and his family.

DeLay allies are really shooting this "New York Times" story down. And they do have some facts backing up their account that they believe it is much ado about nothing.

As you mentioned, it is not illegal for his wife and daughter to be on his campaign payroll. Second of all, it was no secret. This has been reported by newspapers like "Roll Call" over the years that this was going on.

Third of all, there are several other members of Congress who also do the exact same thing. They have relatives on their campaign payroll. And it's important to note this is not taxpayer money.

They are not on the House payroll. They are on the outside payroll of a political action committee.

Also want to point out that in "The New York Times" story it noted that Tom DeLay's daughter as his chief fund-raiser makes about $3,800 a month. Obviously, that only adds up to less than $50,000 a year.

That is a lot of money to some people all around the country. But I can tell you, for a political operative in Washington, $50,000 a year is really chump change. So it sounds like a lot of money, but it's really not that much in the context of Washington fund-raising -- Lou.

DOBBS: And within the context of Washington, Ed, as you put it, are there both Republicans and Democrats who employ relatives, close relatives in their campaign organizations or PACs?

HENRY: Absolutely. Democrats like Barbara Boxer, it's been well known, have used relatives, Republicans as well. Not just Tom DeLay, people in both parties.

It's not illegal. Certainly people across the country may think that it's improper in some way, but it is not illegal. It's not against House rules. And the Federal Election Commission has no direct problem with it.

DOBBS: Before we turn to the House rules, Ed, let's turn to "The Washington Post" report. That does raise some questions. Your thoughts?

HENRY: The problem here, I think, is much bigger potentially for Tom DeLay in "The Washington Post" story. This talks about a 1997 trip to Moscow. The bottom line is that Tom DeLay today told CNN that he believes that a conservative think tank paid for this trip.

"The Washington Post" report -- and that would be perfectly within the House rules, I should point out. "The Washington Post" report, though, pointed out that they believe they have sources saying that it was actually Russian business interests, lobbyists with business before the Congress who paid for the trip.

That would be a clear violation of House rules. So that could be a big problem for DeLay, number one.

And number two, it could be seen as a part of pattern. There have been two other trips that have already come to light where allegedly lobbyists paid for -- paid for these overseas trips to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for Tom DeLay and his wife and others, when that is clearly against the House rules -- Lou. DOBBS: Against the House rules and, in point of fact, why is there not a record here? And secondly, turning to those House rules, it would seem that the House Ethics Committee would have primacy in this matter in both cases. And there is, of course, the coincidence that both "The Times" and "The Post" are running this story on the very same day.

HENRY: Bottom line is that the House rules say that lobbyists cannot pay for trips. Tom DeLay filed paperwork with the House of Representatives saying that these various trips were paid for by a conservative think tank. That's the discrepancy.

He says it was paid for a think tank -- paid by a think tank, which would be permissible. These stories are alleging that they were secretly actually funded by lobbyists.

That's the discrepancy. That's why there's no bottom line.

And finally, on the House Ethics Committee, you're right. They should probably be investigating this, but right now, because of a stalemate between the parties, there basically is not a House Ethics Committee to investigate any of this. And that's why Democrats are fired up.

DOBBS: And we appreciate it, Ed Henry, as always, reporting from Capitol Hill.

Our quote of the day tonight originates, of course, with Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who said -- this is all -- "It's just another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me."

Which brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Do you believe House Majority Tom DeLay is a victim of a campaign by the liberal media to embarrass him? Cast your vote at LOUDOBBS.com, yes or no. We'll have the results later here in the broadcast.

Up next, our exploding trade deficit with China. Now leading members of Congress are demanding action.

And the high cost of illegal immigration. Many of our schools are simply swamped by illegal aliens. We'll have that special report.

And an outspoken critic of our coverage of the illegal immigration crisis in this country tonight will be here to debate me about our coverage, whether it's one sided, as he says, or fair and balanced, as some like to put it, or just correct.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Because of the record trade deficit with China, which is expanding daily on Capitol Hill, Senator Chuck Schumer and other lawmakers today introduced legislation to impose an across-the-board tariff against all Chinese imports to this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: If you believe in free trade, you cannot have one of the largest trading countries abjectly violate the rules. It doesn't work.

It doesn't work for China. It doesn't work for America. And it doesn't work for the rest of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: And separately, Congressman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Tim Ryan tomorrow will propose their own legislation to limit China's huge trade surplus with this country.

Europe is also becoming increasingly concerned about the huge increase in Chinese textile exports to Europe. The European Union today established new rules to monitor Chinese imports.

Europe, like the United States, is also facing a massive influx of illegal aliens. And today, the European Union declared it wants to spend 60 percent of its internal security budget now on fighting illegal immigration.

We report here extensively on the high cost of illegal immigration in this country. And no one knows how many children in our schools are there illegally for a simple reason. No one is permitted by law to ask.

Educators have no choice but to teach the children who arrive in their classrooms, because that is the law of this country. But there is no denying that illegal immigration is having a tremendous negative impact on our public schools.

Bill Tucker has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sixteen percent of the kids in Arizona schools speak virtually no English when they enter school. The classes cost the state more than $1,000 per student per year. The federal government pays for only $88 of that cost.

TOM HORNE, ARIZONA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: We would love to see the federal government, because it's a really federal failure at the border that results in the illegal immigration, we would like to see the federal government stand up to the plate and give us more money to deal with the need to teach these students English. As long as they are not doing it, though, we have to do it because you can't neglect the kids.

TUCKER: The problem is not Arizona's alone. More than five million students in public schools nationally are enrolled as English language learners. That's an increase of 84 percent since 1992. Growth has been the strongest in the non-border states, such as in the South, the Midwest and the upper Midwest. GISELLE LUNDY-PONCE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: The numbers are increasing, and teachers are faced with a growing immigrant population in their schools.

TUCKER: The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that schools must educate children regardless of their parents' immigration status. The problem or challenge, as educators like to say, does have a bottom line. It means that money spent by the states on English language learning classes is money that cannot be spent on other priorities, such as teacher salaries.

JACK JENNINGS, CENTER ON EDUCATION POLICY: It's just another challenge on top of all the demands for accountability and raising test scores. And it's just another demand that teachers have to meet. And local taxpayers have to meet it, too, because they have to find the money to pay for the extra classrooms and the extra teachers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: It's very hard to get a handle on the total cost, but use Arizona as a model. There, the Federal Department of Education grants the state $15 million for the English language learner classes. The Arizona taxpayers, Lou, pick up the remaining $85 million tab. So...

DOBBS: So the Arizona taxpayers and the taxpayers of every one of the states in this union are subsidizing the employers of illegal aliens?

TUCKER: Right -- yes.

DOBBS: And inadequately, thereby not providing the educational opportunity we would to any one of those illegal alien students and diminishing the educational opportunity for American students. This crisis is that in every dimension, crisis. Thank you, Bill Tucker.

We report here extensively, of course, about the critical need to secure our borders against illegal aliens and radical Islamist terrorists. But tonight there is a claim that millions of dollars of spending on vital security improvements on our border are nothing less than pork.

That claim is made by the Citizens Against Government Waste in its so-called Pig Book. That spending, according to the group, includes $500,000 for the construction of a border fence in Nogales, Arizona. How is that pork? It's border security.

The book also blasts more than $5 million in spending on training for Customs and Border Protection. Surely the real problem here is that the funding is totally inadequate. But not according to the Pig Book, which does cite some example of government spending that are clearly pork, thank goodness.

$1.7 million for the International Fertilizer Development Association. You knew that corporate America had to get in there somewhere. And $100,000 for the Punxatawney Weather Discovery Center. I won't repeat that one.

And Senator John McCain sits on the board of governors for the Citizens Against Government Waste. He attended the press conference this morning for the Pig Book. Senator McCain, of course, is one of the country's most outspoken critics of government waste. We hope he reviews those lists that include those items on border security.

Coming up next, the Vatican gives new details about the plans to elect a new pope. Father John Paris will be here with me. He'll tell us how the cardinals' conclave will work.

And our "Broken Borders" special report tonight. A former counsel to the 9/11 Commission simply says that Minuteman Project in Arizona along the Mexican border is a wake-up call to our government. Let's hope our elected officials are listening. She is our guest here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: More than a hundred cardinals from all around the world will be gathering at the Vatican on April 18 to select a new pope. Joining me now with more on the cardinals' conclave, the tradition surrounding the process of selecting a new pontiff, Father John Paris, Boston College.

Good to have you back with us, Father.

REV. JOHN PARIS, BOSTON COLLEGE: Good to be back, Lou.

DOBBS: It was a remarkable sight to see President Bush and two previous presidents, President Bush and President Clinton, kneeling, paying their respects to Pope John Paul II. Your thoughts?

PARIS: Well, it was. It's great to see the president of the United States. It's wonderful to see that the respect for the American public being made in a very public way by the president himself. And Mr. Bush is the very first president ever to visit a funeral of a pope.

DOBBS: I think that -- well, certainly, I was surprised when I learned that, because I had assumed that previously presidents had attended the funeral for popes. Do you -- what significance do you attach to that departure from tradition?

PARIS: Well, in great part, most of the previous popes had never traveled widely. And certainly none of them had been to the United States while they were pope.

Pope Pius XII had been here, but not while he was hope. And so they were not very well known personally to the presidents. And there wasn't that personal relationship which would bond them together and bring them not simply as a representative of a country, but as a friend who has been lost.

DOBBS: And as the cardinals are about to begin their conclave on April 18 to select a new pope, what is your sense of the outcome? How long will it take the process to move to that outcome?

PARIS: The process in the last -- certainly since 1939 has been very quick. We've never had more than three days for a conclave. We've never had more than 11 ballots for a conclave. Alternatively, back in the 19th century, we had 54 days for a conclave.

This cannot go that far, because after 12 days they can then agree to have a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote to be selected.

DOBBS: And that change in the process was instituted by Pope John Paul II, was it not?

PARIS: That's correct.

DOBBS: And the reason for that, in your judgment?

PARIS: He simply didn't want -- I suspect that he did not want to have what would appear to be a stalemate which would weaken the power of the new pontiff, whoever would be selected, after a long and prolonged battle. We want to have a sense that in fact there's someone whom the Holy Spirit has selected and there is an agreement upon this individual to be the pope.

DOBBS: And when that white smoke does rise above the Vatican, give us your best assessment as to the qualities and position on issues that that newly-elected pontiff will possess.

PARIS: He's certainly got to be someone who is familiar with international affairs and probably quite well traveled. The church is a very international institution now. Thirty-six percent of the population is in Latin America, for example.

It's no longer a closed western European society. Africa, Asia, and particularly Latin America are where the growing strength in numbers of the church are.

DOBBS: Father John Paris, we thank you very much, as always. Look forward to talking with you tomorrow evening.

PARIS: Good. Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Coming up next, a former CIA director says U.S. dependency on Middle East oil is now a serious threat to our national security. He'll be here.

And a former counsel to the 9/11 Commission who says protecting our borders should be the Department of Homeland Security's top priority. She's our guest.

And in our "Face Off" tonight, the leader of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists says our reporting here on illegal immigration is one-sided. As you might expect, I strongly disagree. He will be here next.

Please stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Turning now to more on the crisis at our nation's borders and well beyond, my next guest tonight says the Minuteman Project in Arizona should serve as a wake-up call to our elected officials. She in fact declares securing the nation's borders must be the top priority for the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress. Janice Kephart knows what she is talking about. The former counsel to the 9/11 Commission, she joins us tonight in Washington, D.C. Good to have you with us.

JANICE KEPHART, FMR COUNSEL, 9/11 COMMISSION: Thank you very much, Lou.

DOBBS: Were you surprised that the president of the United States sided with Vincente Fox, the president of Mexico, in calling what effectively is a large neighborhood watch-group, the Minutemen, "vigilantes"?

KEPHART: Well, I think it's an unfortunate thing to call them vigilantes at this point. Really, what have you here are a large group of people who, at a grass roots level, now recognize that border security is national security and the government isn't doing what they need to do. I think instead of calling them "vigilantes" we need to just simply have our president and administration focus on fixing our border situation.

DOBBS: One of the things we are encountering in our reporting is that talking with those responsible and, of course, the men and women of the Border Patrol who serve and work very hard along our nation's border, the southern as well as northern, they are appreciative of the illustration of the problems that they are dealing with, this invasion, as they would agree for the most part, most Border Patrol agents. But the bureaucracy is rankled by the illumination of this issue. Is this part of the basic problem we're dealing with here, bureaucracy within the Border Patrol? Within the other agencies responsible for border security, indeed Homeland Security itself?

KEPHART: Well, I think what you see here is a culmination of legacy immigration service problems, a lack of vision on policy at the top. Rankled, yes, they are. I do think that it is pushing them forward. We saw a release of a Border Patrol strategy recently. It is much meatier than anything I've ever seen in the past, the Border Patrol has produced.

It does seem that within DHS it's making an impact and things are changing in a more positive direction. However, what you still have is a president saying border security is national security, but not acting that way, in the technological resources that are being provided, or in the human resources that are being provided at the border. So -- and you have bureaucratic issues within the Border Patrol where it makes it very difficult for them to effectively do their jobs.

DOBBS: You have said that you consider the Minuteman Project, which by the way is credited with dropping illegal immigration across the border since they began their patrols on Saturday by half, and that, by the way, is the estimate from the other side of the border, the Mexican side of the border. So, they've already achieved that.

But this wake-up call, do you for a moment believe that the elected officials -- because we talked about the bureaucracy of the White House -- that the U.S. Congress which has been adroit at avoiding responsibility or taking any kind of action to represent the men and women who put them in office -- do you believe they are going to wake up?

KEPHART: Well, you know, Congress is full of a lot of different political agendas and political visions. You have some people who are very much behind the Border Patrol, very much want to help them. You have other folks who want to step back and look at immigration reform more generally, who may take a longer time. You have other folks who simply don't agree at all. So, difficult across the board to get a wake-up call, I think. Some folks, especially the representatives along the border, Dianne Feinstein, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kyle, those types of folks understand the problem and have been working the problem for years. Other places, you are not going to see the interest.

DOBBS: Well, it's a national interest. We're going to be paying, as I know you are, a lot of attention to those who do represent the national interest. Janice Kephart, we thank you for being here; look forward to talking to you soon.

KEPHART: Thank you very much, Lou.

DOBBS: Taking a look now at some of your thoughts.

William Bentinck of Palm Springs, California wrote to say, "When you cite the figures of the cost of illegal immigration, I have not heard you mention that the illegals send 12 or 13 billion dollars back to Mexico, which is a source of revenue for Mexico second only to oil."

Well, Mr. Bentinck, actually, so-called remittances from the United States back to Mexico have reached $17 billion, and those remittances are now the number one source of revenue for Mexico; oil is now second.

Referring to our story last night about illegal aliens who pleaded guilty to running a sex slave ring in New York, David Whitmire of Cookeville, Tennessee wrote in to say, "So illegal aliens are guilty of sexual slavery of women and children. I guess they were just doing jobs American's don't want to do."

Ian Brockman from Greenville, South Carolina: "If the Minutemen are a vigilante group, does that also make an organized neighborhood watch a vigilante group as well?"

And Mauricio Sanchez from Fort Myers, Florida: "You like to talk a lot about how 'illegal' immigration is bad for the United States, but I've never seen on your show positive things about the issue. Let's suppose the people crossing the border are white with blue eyes, would you be against illegal immigration?"

Mauricio, take a look, if you will, at my brown eyes. The answer is, absolutely. And now, Mauricio, I think it's only fair to ask you a question: if they were not predominantly Hispanic, what would be your position?

And Denise in Portland, Oregon wrote to say, "Your reference to human beings as 'illegal aliens' shows extremely racist opinions you portray on your show." Denise, if all you and others -- a few others, thank goodness -- can do is look at the crisis of illegal immigration in this country in racial terms you are missing the point by a wide, wide margin. Try taking a look at this issue in terms of our national interests and rationally.

George McGrath of Las Vegas, Nevada, wrote to say, "The invasion of illegal aliens in our country is factually anti-immigration. It disallows equal opportunity to all those who wish to enter America by legal process, leaving them in the cold and darkness of disbelief."

We love hearing your thoughts. Send us your e-mails at LouDobbs.com. Each of you whose e-mail is read here receive as copy of my book "Exporting America," and you can sign up for my email newsletter on the web site, LouDobbs.com.

Well, my next guest says this program's reporting on the illegal alien crisis in this country is incomplete and in fact one-sided. Joining me now from Washington to debate this topic is Ivan Roman. Hi is the executive director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and it is good to have you with us, Ivan.

IVAN ROMAN, NAT'L ASSOC. OF HISPANIC JOURNALISTS: Hi, Lou. How you doing?

DOBBS: Well, I'm doing pretty good, and I hope you are as well as we begin to tackle this issue. The idea that this broadcast is one-sided, tell us what your organization and you mean.

ROMAN: Well, Lou, first of all, let me thank you for having me on the program.

DOBBS: Sure.

ROMAN: I do want to mention that we respect you as a journalist and as a colleague. Of course, we respect your First Amendment rights to do the news as you see fit, and that we respect. We'd love to have a chance to talk to you more about this after the show.

What the problem is, is that this is a symptom of a larger problem. You know, the -- our studies show that Latinos on network news have basically been invisible. We're only shown running across the border or basically as criminals in handcuffs. What happens is we're shown and framed as a threat to our well-being, to the country's well-being, whether it is physical, national, social, and frankly, what I have to tell you this has great consequences for our people and for our country. And your coverage I have to say, the drum beat, the daily drum beat of your coverage, magnifies that problem. DOBBS: Let me if I may, Ivan, put up the quote from Joseph Torres, who is the deputy director of your organization, calling this broadcast reporting on illegal aliens a "daily drumbeat portraying Hispanics as criminals whose illegal presence threatens the security, livelihood, and well-being of this country."

Now, you and I, as journalists, have a responsibility for the language we use, right?

ROMAN: Yes, definitely.

DOBBS: The, you know, the drumbeat portraying Hispanics, I don't believe we have ever portrayed Hispanics as criminals or illegals. We have portrayed illegal aliens on this broadcast to be criminals, who have crossed the border illegally and thereby are criminals. We have portrayed anti- -- the anti-immigration forces at work in this country, in some cases, as, well, frankly, not exactly the correct view to take either.

But we did a little research. And I know you must have, too, to make these kinds of charges. Where have you seen, at any time, me or anyone on this broadcast portray Hispanics unfairly?

ROMAN: Lou, have you to take into account that this coverage doesn't happen in a vacuum.

DOBBS: No.

ROMAN: This is a traditional -- this is a historical problem. And what happens is, when you basically have -- when you basically do stories that talk about only immigration -- for example, let's say right now, we had, our studies show that only most of the time we're talked about in terms of illegal immigration and criminality. If you look at the stories, by extension, people will lump us together.

So, for example, just the other day did you a story about urban sprawl and the effect of illegal immigration on the environment. Basically, you said not just legal immigration, it was legal and illegal immigration. And basically it blamed the growth of population in this country, and therefore the economic -- the environmental problems, on us.

People then by extension -- and the only time they see us, frankly, is on your show itself. The only time they see us is when we're working in factories in Guatemala or when we're crossing the border.

So by extension -- and but we don't see -- what we don't see is positive -- stories about the contributions we make as Latinos in this country.

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: And with the lack of context, that's the image that people are going to take. DOBBS: OK, one thing, and I, Ivan, I would like you to consider this. One is, I believe the audience of this broadcast is a very smart group of folks. And I've heard others suggest that people are not wise enough in this country to understand the distinction between being anti-illegal immigration and being anti-immigration.

I think they are wrong. I think they are utterly wrong. I think the fact that the predominant number of illegal aliens who cross our borders, the fact they are Mexican, the fact that they are, then, in a larger sense Hispanic and Latino, I think those are all distinctions that -- and discrete judgments that can be made by nearly every American, and certainly by this audience.

So I disagree with you there.

But I would like to point out something to you, because, thanks to Debra Davis (ph), one of our segment producers here, I wouldn't have thought to do this, frankly, she took a look at what we had done since, I believe, September 3 on this issue of 2003. And what she found, and this may surprise you, I don't know, frankly, it delighted me. I will tell you too, it surprised me.

We had 46 guests during that period of time who were pro open borders, pro illegal immigration. We had, at the same time, 45 who were anti-. So that's pretty good balance. And, I mean, I have to tell you, that is not something that we consciously do here. The fair-and-balanced people are on another network. We are trying to get it right. And I mean that sincerely.

Of the guest segments...

ROMAN: (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... 73 were anti-illegal immigration, 65 were pro, you know, illegal immigration. I think you've got to be surprised by that balance, at least.

ROMAN: Well, I am, but I'm not, because we're not talking about here about the talking heads you have on the show.

DOBBS: OK.

ROMAN: I mean, I'm, I mean, I'm here to talk about this, but what's important is what's -- it's the tone of the coverage. What's important is what is in those stories that you use to talk about it, to illustrate the issue.

So if you -- it's -- it may be very possible, and I -- most likely, I'm -- I have to go out on a limb here, but say, most likely, just from what I've seen in the last few days, is that when you look at the content of the stories, there isn't a balance. You basically used people who are pro in the Minuteman coverage. You basically used the story of, you used a quote by a professor in Los Angeles, I believe it was, to basically say a throwaway quote, and this is what we call in journalism, as domestic terrorists and used that as a way -- as a bounce springboard for other comments. You did bring people to come in and talk about that. But that is not -- but what people see...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... people, people interpret talking heads a different way than they interpret stories. New stories...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I hear you, Ivan, but let me ask you...

ROMAN: ... and that's not what's happening in the coverage that I've seen, that's not what's happening.

DOBBS: All right. Let me ask you this. Maybe you would just...

ROMAN: Hey, that's (INAUDIBLE) I can tell you. I'm sorry, let me interrupt you one minute. What I see and what a lot of people see, because we do get calls from many people about this, what I see is that it seems like the stories are done to fit a particular point of view. In that sense, it's done -- the stories are not -- are -- it's what we call in journalism -- it's not cookie-cutter journalism, it's more like journalism...

DOBBS: No, it's sure not cookie-cutter journalism.

ROMAN: ... to -- no, it's not (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: We're real proud of that fact.

ROMAN: I know. But it's more like taking a premise and doing a story to fit that premise.

DOBBS: OK.

ROMAN: That's what we see a lot of the coverage itself. I'm not talking about the guests you have.

DOBBS: OK. And now that's interesting. But let me ask you this. Does it surprise you, when you talk about us being particularly one-sided in this issue, and I will tell you definitively, absolutely unequivocally. I am anti-illegal immigration. I make no pretense of being neutral on that issue. I make no pretense of being neutral about the national security interests of this country, no pretense of neutrality or objectivity when it comes to border security or national security.

And I make no apologies whatsoever for being interested in the quality of life for working men and women in this country, middle class, and all of the values that made the country work.

Now, what does bring me up a bit -- Let me ask you this. When we talk about objectivity, as I'm sure you would want to style it, again, I make no pretense of objectivity, just accuracy and truthfulness. Can you think of a single major, major, activist organization that is tied to the Hispanic community that is anti- illegal immigration? Can you think of one?

ROMAN: I wouldn't know, but, see, I'm not -- I'm not (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Well, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, wait...

ROMAN: ... but I'm not, but I...

DOBBS: ... that's very, very, very important.

ROMAN: No, but I'm not an expert...

DOBBS: That's very important.

ROMAN: But I'm not an expert.

DOBBS: Because what's happening in this country, Ivan, is, people are trying to use race to cloud a discussion of rationality. They're trying...

ROMAN: Don't...

DOBBS: Let me finish...

ROMAN: OK, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

DOBBS: OK. When we focus on the costs of illegal immigration, the fact that half of the Hispanic students in California, as the Harvard study two weeks ago pointed out, the black students in that community, in those -- that school district, are dropping out of school because they are simply swamped with students, primarily because of illegal immigration and the federal government's refusal to deal with the issue.

The reality is, we're helping no one. You referred to your people. The fact is, our people are American people. And Hispanics have no diminished interest whatsoever in protecting the national security.

ROMAN: Lou, that's not what -- Lou, that -- Lou, that is not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a balance of coverage. I commend you for wanting to deal with the issue of immigration. I mean, for a long time, we know that immigration is an issue that is undercovered, misunderstood by everybody, by people in the Beltway, by the media, by everyone.

We're not -- that's not the point we're arguing here. What we're talking about is the quality of the balance of the coverage and fairness.

DOBBS: OK...

ROMAN: And frankly, your stories don't have that...

DOBBS: OK, let, let, let me (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... (INAUDIBLE). Because we don't, we don't get, we don't get an equal airing of people who would take the other side...

DOBBS: OK, here's (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... who would point...

DOBBS: ... the other side.

ROMAN: ... who would point to the (INAUDIBLE), who would point to the positive points of immigration. Just the other day, the story about Social Security and the taxes, the payroll taxes (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Seven billion dollars per year...

ROMAN: ... (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... Social Security, New York Times.

ROMAN: Whatever. The only time it was mentioned on your show was, you know, to talk about, basically to criticize it, which is fine, but the thing is, we -- if we had a more comprehensive view of some of those positive contributions...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) -- you know...

ROMAN: ... we -- I'm sure people wouldn't be calling -- wouldn't be complaining about the show.

DOBBS: Well...

ROMAN: Because you're (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... it's interesting about the number of people who...

ROMAN: ... (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ... complain, then, because we don't get those complaints. We get a modest amount of complaints. It's America. People are going to have different points of view. But the fact is...

ROMAN: Well, unfortunately, I have...

DOBBS: OK, I'm sorry, go ahead.

DOBBS: No, well, no, go ahead. I was going to say something, but go ahead.

DOBBS: Well, please.

ROMAN: Well, I mean, it could be that you don't get the complaints because people don't watch the show. You know, that's the -- that's part of the problem.

DOBBS: Well, that may be.

ROMAN: We get some calls from people who say, I'm tired, I'm turned, I don't watch Lou Dobbs anymore, I'm just so turned off by the show because we don't get -- our voice isn't heard there.

DOBBS: Right.

ROMAN: And, you know, and the same happens...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE)...

ROMAN: ... with media in general.

DOBBS: All right. Well, let me ask you to come back, and we can have some more discussion about this. We're used up our time. But let me say that when we talk about the positives of illegal immigration in this country, primarily, and by the way, that "New York Times" report mentioned nothing about totalization, the payments of Social Security to (INAUDIBLE) nationals...

ROMAN: I agree, I agree, there's a lot that more that...

DOBBS: ... there was not a single reference...

ROMAN: ... needed to be in there.

DOBBS: ... to the cost. So the fact is, the principal benefits of illegal immigration descend upon corporate America and the employers who are exploiting those illegal immigrants, and I think you and I would even agree about that.

ROMAN: Yes, that's, that's...

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE), that's a tough one for us to get behind, because, frankly, I am annoyed as the dickens with the people who are driving illegal immigration and making taxpayers and citizens pay the price for them to -- subsidize them while they exploit illegal immigrants. We are out of time. You get the last word. Quickly, please.

ROMAN: Keep in mind you have to be more careful about making the distinction between illegal immigration and immigration. And be more aware the effect this coverage has on media in general -- media coverage in general of Latinos. And I would just like to invite you, basically, to talk to us more, we would definitely love to talk to you more about this issue. I think it's very important.

DOBBS: You are welcome here. I'd be delighted to talk to you, as you know, I think any time, anywhere.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: And we would love to have you back on to talk about this, because these are critical issues, as you well know. We thank you.

ROMAN: Thank you, Lou. And thanks to your viewers.

DOBBS: Ivan Roman, we thank you.

Up next, our rising dependency on foreign oil. I will be talking to a former CIA director who says that this is a tremendous threat, that dependency, on our national security. Please stay with us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Former CIA Director James Woolsey told Congress today that this country's dependency on Middle East oil is an urgent and security threat to our national security. James Woolsey, joins tonight from Washington D.C.

The reason you think it is now an urgent threat, Jim?

JAMES WOOLSEY, FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: Well, it's because our infrastructure for transportation is so tied to oil, you can't substitute other fuels, at least, not yet, readily. And the Middle East is the low cost and dominant producer, two thirds of the world's oil reserves there. We have the possibility of terrorist attacks on the infrastructure in the Middle East. Bin Laden has called for them. He tried to carry several out. Some have been carried out in Iraq. You have a possibility of a coup. There was almost coup in Saudi Arabia in 1979. You have our trade deficit, all the two to $3 billion a week that we borrow just to finance oil imports.

DOBBS: Jim, we are so short on time here tonight. Let me ask you for the solutions in your judgment?

WOOSLEY: Three quick things that our National Energy Policy Commission has emphasized. First of all, high-grade new diesel cars, but especially hybrid, hybrid/gasoline/electric. And focusing now on plug-in hybrids which let you plug in the vehicles' batteries, top them up and run the first several miles entirely on electricity without the hybrid feature of going back and forth from gasoline to electricity. Plug-in power that you can get overnight in many parts of the country, Lou, is 2 to 4 cents a kilowatt hour. That's 12 to 25 cent per gallon gasoline. By not having plug-in hybrid, we are depriving consumers of being able to drive around on 12 to 25 cent per gallon gasoline. You also, want to move, I think, towards cellulose ethanol, that's ethanol that's produced from waste and agriculture residue, not from grains like corn. Much cheaper if you do it from waste like rice straw. And biodiesel also from waste. You've had several programs on your show here about biodiesel from turkey parts out in Missouri.

DOBBS: Jim Woolsey, as always, you make great sense. And here on this broadcast we're going to call it the Woolsey energy package. We like it. Thank you very much, Jim.

WOOLSEY: Great to be with you.

DOBBS: Good to have you here.

Still ahead here, we'll have the results of "Tonight's Poll." Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results now of "Tonight's Poll": 93 percent of you, say you do not believe House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the victim of a campaign by the liberal media to embarrass him, 7 percent of you do.

Thanks for being with us here tonight. Please join us tomorrow, Senator John Kyl of Arizona will be here to talk about the illegal alien crisis and the success of the Minuteman Project, and his proposed legislation.

Jack Welch, former G.E. chairman, author of the new book, "Winning," will be here. We'll be talking about globalization and other issues.

And we continue, of course, our nightly reporting on the high cost of illegal immigration and what must be done to secure our borders.

Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.

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