Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
A new Energy Vision; Republican Reversal; Illegal Alien Crackdown
Aired April 27, 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, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, President Bush's bold new energy plan. More nuclear power stations and new oil refineries among the proposals. But will his plan do anything to cut soaring gasoline prices?
Exporting America tonight, how new technology is in fact making it even easier to export one of this country's most prized creative industries and sends thousands more or our jobs overseas.
And majority rule, minority rights: the battle over the president's judicial appointments and the fairness of the filibuster. My guest tonight, a leading Democratic senator who says abolishing the filibuster would threaten our system of checks and balances. We'll have a debate.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.
DOBBS: Good evening.
A dramatic security scare at the White House today. Secret Service agents rushed President Bush to an underground shelter after radar appeared to show an unidentified aircraft approaching the White House.
Heavily armed guards turned away tourists and visitors. They took up defensive positions around the perimeter of the White House. Helicopters were ordered to intercept the reported intruder. But it turned out that supposed aircraft was in fact a radar anomaly.
The president quickly returned to the Oval Office. The White House said the president was in the shelter for only a very short amount of time.
The security alert did not delay a major speech on the part of the president on energy. The president declared it is time for America to resume building nuclear power stations. President Bush also announced a plan to encourage the construction of new oil refineries on former military bases.
Andrea Koppel reports from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the second time in a week, President Bush was talking energy. And this is why...
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I fully understand that many folks around this country are concerned about the high price of gasoline.
KOPPEL: Among the president's energy proposals, to expand tax credits to include clean diesel technology in automobiles, to grant the federal government final say over the location of liquefied natural gas import terminals in order to increase the supply of natural gas, to build oil refineries on closed military bases, and to offer risk insurance for nuclear power plants to protect the nuclear industry against regulatory delays.
The president's decision to add new initiatives to his energy plan took Republicans and Democrats by surprise. Coming just days after he failed to reach agreement with the Saudi Crown Prince to lower gas prices, and less than a week after the House passed a Republican-backed energy bill, Democrats said the president looked desperate.
REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The president is not proposing anything today that will deal with gasoline prices in America for years to come.
KOPPEL (on camera): But the White House says the nation's energy woes didn't develop overnight and they won't be fixed overnight, either. Still, in the short term, it is a growing political problem for President Bush, who said a soldier recently asked him why he didn't lower gas prices. The president's response, "If I could, I would."
Andrea Koppel, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: The president's critics say the new energy initiative will do nothing to address the current energy crisis or end our dependence on foreign oil. The same critics say the president's proposals on oil refineries and nuclear power plants are simply unrealistic.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One of the ways to increase domestic oil production is to open more refineries. But the last oil refinery built in the United States began operation in 1976.
President Bush proposed using closed military bases for those sites. But oil industry experts say refineries didn't open for decades because profit margins didn't support new construction. Oil refining margins have improved recently, but there is no guarantee they will continue. JOHN KINGSTON, PLATTS OIL: Ultimately, the profitability is going to be determined by refining margins, which recently have been very good. If they can be sustained, then these things are feasible.
If the refining margins are bad, it doesn't matter, you can give away the land for one dollar. It's not going to make any difference.
PILGRIM: President Bush also says the way of the future is nuclear power. But President Bush proposes a risk insurance to offset delays in building nuclear power plants. Experts are skeptical.
HENRY SOKOLSKI, NONPROLIFERATION POLICY EDUCATION CENTER: Well, I mean, you would have to know exactly what he means by insuring the risks. That's code generally for a guaranteed loan. And that means the taxpayers is held holding the bag if these power plants, if they're built, don't produce profits.
PILGRIM: The president cited the fact that France gets 70 percent of its electricity from "safe, clean nuclear power." But costs to build nuclear power plants are high because of regulatory and safety issues. Also, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste from plants has been a longstanding concern.
As for European nuclear power, a U.N. nuclear energy report last year found in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden they are planning to phase out nuclear power.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, the construction and opening of refineries can take years. The cost of licensing and starting up a nuclear power plant often create a public outcry over safety and the environment. So it's clear that the dependence on foreign oil is a problem. But this strategy in no way is a short-term fix -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, we need short term and we need long term, as well. So at least the discussion, the national discussion on this critical issue has begun.
Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.
On Capitol Hill today, a major reversal from the majority party. House Speaker Dennis Hastert today said Republicans are now willing to step back, as he put it, on new ethics rules. Critics of those rules say they were designed to protect one person, Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reports on this escalating political battle.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is why Republicans retreated. The ethics questions swirling around Tom DeLay were taking their toll on the majority leader and his party.
REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: You guys better get out of my way. Where's our security?
HENRY: Back in January, Republicans changed the ethics rules to make it harder to launch investigations of misconduct. Democrats allege this was an attempt to shield DeLay.
Speaker Dennis Hastert insists the changes were meant to protect all members. But he acknowledges the only way to end the controversy is to restore the old rules and let the ethics panel investigate whether DeLay let lobbyists pay for overseas trips.
REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Right now we can't clear his name. The media wants to talk about ethics as long as we're at a stalemate. That's all that is in the press today, is the ethics stalemate. We need to move forward. We need to get this behind us.
HENRY: In private, other Republicans are even blunter. One lawmaker said he's worried the Democratic line of attack that Republicans were being arrogant may be effective because there's some truth to it. But there could be political fallout for both parties as the scrutiny of DeLay has a ripple effect.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to amend their own travel records. And staffers flocked to a closed-door refresher course on the ethics rules this week.
JASON ROE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN AIDE: You know, I think in a political sense, absolutely, everyone is concerned that this thing is ratcheting up the partisanship in Washington. But I think everyone is a little on edge about what we're going through right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Republicans are the ones who are on edge right now because they are not sure how this Tom DeLay investigation will end up. But Republicans are vowing they are going to retaliate.
They are going to push for all kinds of investigations of top Democrats. This is basically going to become a tit-for-tat, and it's going to get ugly real fast -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ugly real fast, and as we continue to see improved, I think is a fair way to put it, improved reporting on the part of the national media on the amount of money being spent to lobby, to entertain these congressmen, ethics rules not only need to be -- it seems at least to this reporter -- fixed in the short term, but also fixed to stop all of this obviously building power on the part of lobbyists.
Is there that move afoot in the midst of this ugly partisan battle?
HENRY: I think clearly you are going to see a reform movement, because what we're seeing now is that the DeLay case has been really shining a light on the fact that there have been over 5,000 trips for lawmakers in both parties that were funded by private sources over the last five years. And the bottom line is, the financing is so murky that it may not have just been Tom DeLay who possibly had lobbyists paying for his travel.
That's supposed to be against House rules, but it's not really enforced very well. You are going to see a push for that to be fixed. You're going to see possibly a push to improve the way the whole situation with lobbyists in general is dealt with.
The person at the center of this, Jack Abramoff, ended up raking in something like $82 million from some Indian tribes over a few years. He's now facing an investigation as to whether or not he defrauded those tribes.
There are a lot of people now raising questions about why something was not done years ago. So you are certainly going to see a push for reform. And it's a push that a lot of people in both parties will not like -- Lou.
DOBBS: And as you suggest, Ed, it's little wonder that often we say Republicans and Democrats in this country our elected officials in Washington, they represent the best government money can buy.
Ed, thank you very much. Ed Henry from Capitol Hill.
As we've reported, there is another major battle under way in Congress -- this one over filibusters.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said Republicans might change the Senate's rules in order to nullify Democratic filibusters over the president's judicial nominees. Still ahead here tonight, a leading Democratic senator will be with us to tell us why he believes changing those rules would greatly damage the Senate.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you support the use of filibusters in the U.S. Senate, yes or no? Please cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up.
Up next here, illegal alien crackdown, how some local law enforcement agencies are now beginning to face up to the escalating immigration crisis in this country and take responsibility in their communities.
And a court case that we don't normally cover on this broadcast, but the Michael Jackson child molestation trial has taken an even more bizarre turn today. We'll have a live report for you next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Progress to report tonight in the fight against illegal immigration. Local police in states across the country have for years refused to enforce immigration laws or even ask suspects about their immigration status. Southern California police are simply overwhelmed with tens of thousands of illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes in this country.
Now, police in two California counties have decided to reverse a decade's-old policy of ignoring those immigration violations. And Casey Wian has the story from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton plans to modify a longstanding LAPD policy forbidding officers from questioning suspects about their immigration status. Bratton wants L.A. cops to be able to identify and arrest the most dangerous illegal aliens, including many gang members.
CHIEF WILLIAM BRATTON, LAPD: We are attempting to go after the worst of the worst. And individuals who have been arrested, convicted, served time in jail and then been deported, but then come back into the country again, they definitely fit that profile.
WIAN: Bratton is meeting with immigrant rights groups who say they are afraid the new policy will result in racial or ethnic profiling and discourage immigrants from reporting crimes. And it must still be approved by the city's police commission.
(on camera): An estimated 30,000 illegal aliens who've committed other crimes are walking the streets of Los Angeles today. For a quarter century, they've had a free pass from local police who have been prohibited from arresting them for immigration law violations.
(voice-over): But a growing number of local law enforcement agencies are ending so-called sanctuary policies. Los Angeles County, which has about 5,000 illegal aliens in custody every day, is training jail staff to identify and report them to federal immigration authorities.
And this week, Orange County, California, Sheriff Mike Carona announced plans to join a federal program that will train 500 deputies as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. They will gain access to ICE's criminal database and no longer turn a blind eye to criminal illegal aliens.
SHERIFF MIKE CARONA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: They know who those career criminals are, those who are coming through the system over and over again. And rather than throwing their hands in the air and saying, well, there is nothing we can do about it because it's a federal issue, now we're going to be ale to take advantage of federal resources as federal officers. Just a great way of doing business.
WIAN: With nearly half a million fugitive aliens loose in the United States, it's also a good start.
Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: And police in other states are also beginning to abandon those so-called sanctuary laws, laws that have prevented police from enforcing immigration laws. Local police now in Florida and Alabama have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and do so. There are now proposals for similar programs in the states of New York, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Connecticut. Immigration and Customs Enforcement today announced a major bust of illegal aliens in Florida. Sixty-six illegal aliens were arrested after they were found working on a construction project.
The project they were working on? The new federal courthouse in Orlando, Florida.
ICE says the illegal aliens used fake Social Security numbers and other documents to gain employment. The aliens are from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras.
We report here extensively on the many benefits enjoyed by millions of illegal aliens in this country. One of those benefits is in-state tuition in many states. And it's being offered by a rising number of states.
However, the state legislatures approving those bills appear to have overlooked what some might consider to be a rather obvious problem. That is, regardless whether an illegal alien has a college degree or not, it is illegal for anyone to hire them.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If a person enters the United States illegally, they find open arms in education. Primary and secondary schooling is granted free to their children under a 1982 ruling from the United States Supreme Court.
And now several states offer illegals in-state tuition rates to colleges and universities...
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: What's happening is that these states are beginning to offer in-state tuitions. Nine states currently offer in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens. Six more are currently considering it.
Lou, one of the most obvious facts that's been overlooked here, as Representative Steven King from Iowa points out, it doesn't matter whether they have a degree or not. It's still illegal to hire them. Now...
DOBBS: What is the incentive for these colleges and universities to bring in illegal aliens?
TUCKER: The incentive, the educators would say, the motivation, not so much the incentive. They say these kids are...
DOBBS: I don't care what those state educators say.
TUCKER: Well, but their argument is...
DOBBS: Is there a financial incentive for them to do so? TUCKER: No, there's not. There's no financial incentive for them to do it at all.
They're not receiving federal money to educate these kids. In fact, most of these kids do not get financial aid.
What the educators are saying is these kids were brought here by their parents, they're not responsible for the actions of their parents. So they shouldn't be held accountable, as it were, for the sins of the parents.
DOBBS: OK. Bill Tucker, thank you very much.
TUCKER: But...
DOBBS: And we want to apologize -- I'm sorry.
TUCKER: And Lou, there's really one important thing here I wanted to bring up. In the process of reporting this story, Lou, the most interesting thing that I learned today is that the immigration code, the Reform Act of 1996, there's a section which prohibits states -- not prohibits states from offering in-state tuition discounts, it says to states, if you offer an in-state tuition discount to illegal aliens, you must offer that discount to any citizen of any other state. Meaning, if you are in Nebraska, and you want to go to a school in another state where they offer in-state tuition to illegals, you are entitled to it.
DOBBS: So, is this being enforced?
TUCKER: No, it's not.
DOBBS: I bet they are just delighted to hear that you have put that forward for the public to take advantage of.
TUCKER: Well, I certainly hope they do.
DOBBS: But it's a wonderful thing. It's not often we see U.S. citizens obtaining the same rights as illegal aliens. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.
The State Department has just renewed its travel alert for northern Mexico. The department is now warning Americans again about what it calls a wave of violence on the Mexican side of the border.
That alert says the violent drug wars have resulted in the kidnappings and murders of foreigners, especially Americans. The State Department first warned about violence in Mexico in January. Then our embassy in Mexico City tried to back away from it.
President Vicente Fox was kind of upset about it. But the State Department, showing courage, has taken, in fact, notice of that wave of violence and has issued the warning.
Coming up next here, a key witness testifying in the Michael Jackson case, a case that is seemingly daily becoming increasingly bizarre. We'll have the latest for you on that.
And then, how to stop the invasion of illegal aliens into this country. I'll be talking with a national columnist who says closing our border is not the answer.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Michael Jackson's ex-wife today took the stand as a witness for the prosecution. Debbie Rowe, who divorced Jackson six years ago, was called to testify about an interview she gave back in 2003. In that interview, Rowe defended Jackson against molestation charges.
Ted Rowlands is now outside the courthouse in Santa Maria, California, with the report for us -- Ted.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Debbie Rowe was on the stand for approximately 40 minutes today. As prosecutors promised, she tied Michael Jackson into the conspiracy, if you will, that prosecutors say took place when they were developing this video, this rebuttal video.
Jackson himself called Debbie Rowe and asked for her participation. She asked if she could then see Michael again and the kids after things settled down. Jackson says, "Yes, you could."
What didn't happen for prosecutors which was promised in front of this jury is that Debbie Rowe says nothing in her answers were scripted. They had hoped that Debbie Rowe would give some credence to the accuser's mother in this case who claims that basically a gun was held to her head to say exactly what the Jackson folks wanted her to say in a similar interview.
Debbie Rowe said emphatically that wasn't the case. In fact, she came across as a woman that wanted to be reacquainted with Jackson.
At one point, prosecutors said, "You want to be reacquainted with Michael Jackson and reintroduced to the children?" And she said, "Yes." And they said, "Why do you want to be reacquainted with Jackson?" And she said "He is my friend."
And she started to break down on the stand. Whether or not prosecutors were caught off guard by this or if they expected it is hard to say at this point. Obviously, she will be on the stand for a considerable amount of time for tomorrow. But to say that she is a clear, strong prosecution witness at this point I think would be inaccurate.
She seems to be helping both sides a bit with her testimony thus far -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ted, just a couple of quick questions. Give us a better sense of who Debbie Rowe is, how she and Jackson parted, and the arrangements thereto. ROWLANDS: Well, this is a woman who was married to Michael Jackson for a two-year period. She had known him for 20 years. She worked at a doctor's office that Jackson frequented. And she's the mother of two of his three children.
She detailed the arrangement that she had with Jackson for visitation early on after the children were born, said that every 45 days she had eight hours with the kids and that was all. At some point she said the relationship was so sterile that she just gave it up and gave Jackson full custody.
She now wants partial custody of these children. And that is pending down in Los Angeles. So it's a key component here where she is coming from.
Is she trying to please Michael Jackson to get custody and end this fight, or could she be a strong prosecution witness and really fight him to the end? Because, of course, if he goes to jail, she'll probably get the kids.
Very interesting. And we'll, I'm sure, find out more tomorrow as she continues to testify.
DOBBS: And just a question that at least confounds me. Michael Jackson, not for the first time, accused of being a child molester, a sex offender, yet he has custody of these children. There's been no state inquiry into his -- his status as a parent and whether or not those -- whether a state agency should be examining the situation independently of these trials?
ROWLANDS: Well, yes, there is and there was. The Child Protective Services in Los Angeles were called immediately after the Martin Bashir video aired because of some concerns. And they dropped that case, apparently -- of course, this is all information that has not -- is not public information, but there was an investigation.
Whether there still is, is not known. And whether it will come into this custody battle between Rowe and Jackson is also something to think about.
But the bottom line is this woman did not seem to be a woman who was battling Michael Jackson for custody. She seemed like a woman that wanted back into his life and the children's life. When she broke down at the time she was emotional, it was when she was talking about being his close friend and saying she wanted back into his life.
DOBBS: Ted Rowlands, we thank you. We look forward to your report tomorrow evening.
Coming up next, I'll be talking with a national columnist who says closing our nation's borders won't do any good in the battle against illegal immigration and the efforts to secure our borders.
Also ahead, exporting one of our most creative industries to cheap foreign labor markets.
And two leading congressmen who strongly support the Minuteman Project and their plans to expand that project across the nation.
All of that, plus your thoughts and a great deal more still ahead here tonight.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Turning now to the escalating immigration crisis in this country, Ruben Navarrette is a columnist for the "San Diego Union- Tribune." And in a column this weekend he wrote about the illegal immigration crisis saying, "Just for fun, let's say we could close the border. It still won't do any good. The United States can deploy an army, build a wall. It wouldn't do any good as long as U.S. employers continue to hire illegal immigrants."
Ruben Navarrette joins us now from San Diego.
Ruben, good to have you here.
RUBEN NAVARRETTE, "SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE": Thanks, Lou. Good to be here.
DOBBS: Let's start -- I happen to agree with you 100 percent that employers of illegal aliens -- and I don't care whether they are individuals or small business or large business -- should be fined and fined heavily because they are bottom line at the foundation of the problem. But when you say you can't close the border, can't build a wall, are you really saying we cannot have border security in this country?
NAVARRETTE: Well, there are two different questions there, Lou. This has been discussed because one of the things that inspired my column was Arnold Schwarzenegger our governor was asked recently at a gathering of news executives well what would you do about the illegal immigration problem. And he said, well, close the border. Those three words.
Now, I watch your show, and I know you talk about this topic a lot. I know Congress is debating this topic a loot. It's a complicated issue. And it probably is going to have a complicated solution. Arnold just cut to the chase and said it's simple, close the border. Well, you don't simply close the border. That's 2,000 miles of terrain.
DOBBS: Now you're talking to Governor Schwarzenegger. You are talking to me, partner. What I asked you is -- why can you not control the border? I mean that's what Governor Schwarzenegger said. What I'm saying is control the border. Why can't you?
NAVARRETTE: Right. There's a difference. I'm all for controlling the border. I just don't think you can close the border, seal the border. And I think that sometimes people get caught up in the rhetoric. They talk about deporting 10 million people. John McCain and others say that's not going to happen. You simply just can't close a 2,000 mile stretch of border. You should have more Border Patrol agents. Congress says...
DOBBS: Can I give you a suggestion, Ruben? Can I just throw something at you?
NAVARRETTE: Sure.
DOBBS: Since we're talking about this. And you think this is a highly complex issue.
NAVARRETTE: It really is.
DOBBS: The complexity seems to be something that a lot of people hide behind. I know you don't hide behind anything. So, you and I can have a straightforward discussion here. But the fact is you can control our border and put -- create border security that is real and effective so long as you have a commitment and the political will to do so. The country does not right now -- at least the country does, but this Congress and this administration do not.
And with the cooperation of the Mexican government, that border could be controlled in a matter of weeks. Would you or would you not agree?
NAVARRETTE: I disagree.
Let me agree with part of what you said, which is that there is not a commitment -- you are quite right -- either in Congress or with Americans as a whole, a commitment to controlling illegal immigration.
Now the reason is we worship nothing in this country as much as the almighty dollar. And it's economic forces that keep people hiring these illegal immigrants to afford a cost of living, a kind of living that we wouldn't have otherwise.
But back to your original point, I think you cannot simply secure the border to the degree you would like to see it secured or I would like to see it secured. The Minutemen for all that's been talked about, that's a 40-mile stretch of border they were concentrating on. I'm talking about 2,000 miles of border. And even if you put an army on that border, even if you put a wall on that border, I've got news for you, the immigrants will dig a tunnel, go underneath the wall and come out the other end.
DOBBS: When you say something like that -- and I understand you are trying to look at the complexity as you put it. But let's -- what I find disconcerting in this discussion -- one is the efforts by some when one's talking about reforming our immigration laws or securing the border, the only response they have is you've got to be a racist if you are concerned about it because many of the Hispanic activist groups, as you know, they are playing the race card day in and day out because they have got nothing else to say. In my view, they are the ones who are racists on this issue trying to convert an immigration problem into a racial problem. It is not that. You and I both know it. But the idea that Americans suddenly haven't got the ability to do what we need to do in this case, secure our borders for our national security, to do so in part to stop illegal immigration suggests that we're impotent, as well as lacking will. This country has been built on a tradition of getting done what others say is impossible. I assure you, I don't -- I can't imagine anyone saying this is impossible. It seems relatively, forgive me, straightforward and simple.
NAVARRETTE: Again, I have to disagree. The reason it hasn't been done up to now, Lou, and it isn't so straightforward is because -- you are right, this is a great country. This is a country that can put a man on the moon. But in this regard, we can't seal that border to seal the border would mean San Diegans and people who live in Phoenix, and Dallas, and Boston would have to do without certain things like nannies and gardeners. And they are not willing to do it.
DOBBS: Well, you know, I'm not sure that's true. Because one of the things you suggest is they provide a quality of life in this country. I don't think that holds up to economic examination. That's too simple.
And number two, if people were paying fair wages to Americans, American citizens, they wouldn't be able to exploit illegal aliens.
NAVARRETTE: That's -- yes.
DOBBS: That's a fact.
NAVARRETTE: Lou, I have to disagree again. I think there's a whole host of jobs out there that Americans won't do.
DOBBS: Come on. Americans, real Americans respect all kinds of work.
NAVARRETTE: I was thinking about the 18-year-old kid at Starbucks, he won't pick peaches.
DOBBS: Depends what you pay him.
NAVARRETTE: No, not at any price.
DOBBS: Mr. Ruben, I've got to -- we've got to break up. I hope you come back and join us in the next week or two.
NAVARRETTE: Thank you, sir.
DOBBS: All right?
NAVARRETTE: You bet. Thank you, sir.
DOBBS: Now our special report on the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, "Exporting America." Tonight, American architects are increasingly sending their work overseas to be completed by low cost firms denying young architects valuable experience and work. Christine Romans has the story. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEPHEN FISKUM, COO, HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON: This rendering was produced for about $800 by our counterparts in China.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Architect Steve Fiskum says this rendering of an Illinois hospital would have cost $4,000 to produce here in Minneapolis.
FISKUM: We do have those resources internally in our company. However sometimes the work load backs up, can't get to it right away and there's relatively fast turnaround in China. Plus, we have the opportunity to work 24 hours with a firm that's on the other side of the world.
ROMANS: A survey from the American Institute of Architects shows 11 percent of firms are outsourcing some architecture work. Another 14 percent are considering it. The high-value creative designs so far have stayed in the United States, but the more technical drawings and models are increasingly being made in China and India. It's the very work architecture students and interns here have long cut their teeth on.
FISKUM: Well yes, there is a dilemma presented because some of the traditional ways that we've trained architects may no longer be available. We'll have to search for new ways to accomplish that.
ROMANS: And there is a problem of liability. Even if the drawing is made 10,000 miles away, the architect of record is still responsible.
KERMIT BAKER, CHIEF ECON. AMERICAN INST. OF ARCHITECTS: Liability is a very big concern for architects. Architects stamp the drawings to ensure that that project is safe and meets all the specific indications it was designed to do.
ROMANS: Architect Bill Helmet is wary of this architectural outsourcing.
BILL HELLMUTH, PRES, HELLMUTH, OBATA + KASSABAUM: People talk about better, faster, cheaper. Usually only two of those words can end up in the same sentence and have any meaning. But the -- if it is just cheaper, you do become a commodity.
ROMANS: Becoming a commodity is a big fear in the architecture world where good design and reputation are still valued.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: So, Lou, if architects start sending bits and pieces of this whole process to cheap labor markets, is there any reason why entire projects can't ultimately be designed and executed there too, cutting American architecture firms out of the picture entirely It's a risk these firms run if they are going to start sending parts of the pieces over there. DOBBS: It's extraordinary. These jobs in these engineering firms, architectural firms moving this work to cheap foreign labor markets. The madness just continues despite mounting evidence that it doesn't pay and it certainly costs Americans jobs. You wonder when they are going to wake up.
ROMANS: For some of the architects the concern is letting the whole process out of their control. Even some of the folks who admit to doing this say they are a little concerned about not having the creative process in house all the time. But the speed and the cost are seductive for some of these guys.
DOBBS: Seductive -- and to the point they are going to eliminate jobs for working men and women in this country, I'd just as soon see the architects themselves come out. Let's get to some real productivity and efficiency.
Christine, thank you. Christine Romans.
The Supreme Court today heard arguments about whether the Arthur Andersen accounting firm received a fair trial in the Enron case.
The firm was convicted three years ago of obstruction of justice for destroying some documents related to its work for Enron. The documents, although they were destroyed, all of the records of those documents were intact.
Arthur Andersen's attorneys say the jury instructions in the case were confusing, and unfair and incorrect. At today's appearance before the Supreme Court, the justices gave every appearance of agreeing that the Arthur Andersen case should be overturned.
Coming up next here, the Senate debate over whether the filibuster is effective. Or is it an obstacle for Congress and freedom. One senator will join me next. We'll have a debate in our "Face Off" tonight over the filibuster, cloture and majority rule, minority right.
Leaders of the Minuteman Project share their expansion plans with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Two members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus join us here next. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In our "Face Off" tonight, the intense Senate battle over President Bush's judicial nominees and the filibuster. Should we keep the filibuster or should we not? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said Republicans are considering changing Senate rules to nullify the filibuster. My guest tonight says the so-called nuclear option, as it is put, would do great damage to the Senate. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is the minority whip, and joins us from Capitol Hill.
Senator, it is great to have you here.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Good to be with you, Lou. DOBBS: Let's start first with the idea of tying up a nomination, whether it be for the district, appellate, or Supreme, court. Is it really appropriate to filibuster a nomination and deny a vote, an up and down vote, to the entire Senate?
DURBIN: From the beginning of time in the United States Senate, we have had a filibuster, and the idea is, that any senator, any member of the minority, can stand up and speak, and to make that senator sit down and go to a vote, you need an extraordinary majority. So, if I object to a bill or nomination to a cabinet position or to a judgeship, I can filibuster that. And if 60 members of the Senate say it's time for debate to end, sit down, Senator Durbin, they have the power to do it.
Senator Frist wants to change that rule for the first time in 214 years,and I think it's a mistake. It really is changing the rules in the middle of the game. It's violating a basic tradition and principle in the Senate that we've honored since the Founding Fathers created it.
DOBBS: Or, at least since 1806. In point of fact, the number of votes were changed in 1919, and the -- with cloture, giving the opportunity to end filibuster. Again, with the Byrd Amendment, reducing it from 67 to 60 votes.
DURBIN: That's right.
DOBBS: At what point do you and the Senate just say, the majority does rule and, historically, if you are a fan of history, as you suggest, Senator, the fact is that so many important initiatives within the U.S. Senate, including civil rights, have been forestalled by filibuster.
DURBIN: But, Lou, see, that's why the Senate is so unique. Two senators from every state. Two senators from New York. Two senators from Rhode Island, two from Delaware, two from California -- it's because it was designed to protect the minority, and the rules have created the filibuster because it forces compromise and it forces bipartisanship. You have to reach across the aisle for controversial nominees and controversial bills to build a bipartisan coalition. That's why the Senate is so unique, and to change that, to throw that away because President Bush has had only 95 percent of his nominees approved by the Senate, I think is a serious mistake.
DOBBS: Yes, and let me be clear, Senator, I'm not suggesting this because I think that every one of the nominees of President Bush is appropriate or inappropriate for that matter, whether Democrat or Republican. It just seems to me that, under the Constitution, which is a fairly unique document in its own way, calling upon the Senate for advise-and-consent, not filibuster, it seems to me that the majority rule in the Senate would be an appropriate pathway to follow, for both Democrats and Republicans, the minority party and the majority party over time. Why not?
DURBIN: Well, because, for two centuries, the Senate has had this tradition. It basically says that the checks and balances of the Senate mean something, and the Senate, as an institution, will give each senator the power to stand up, as Mr. Smith went to Washington in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, to fight for something they believe in. And, over time, as you mentioned, we've said, well, 60 senators ought to be able to shut down a filibuster. I think that's reasonable. It requires bipartisanship. And when it comes to a nominee looking for a lifetime position on the court, we want to make sure those men and women are moderate, that they are responsive to the values and the needs of America.
DOBBS: So moderate becomes the litmus test?
DURBIN: I think it's an important test.
DOBBS: You don't want a full commitment to your ideology or the opposing party?
DURBIN: Well, I don't think it's healthy. When it comes to a judge, you've got to find someone who's going to interpret the law as close as they can to the accuracy of the law, rather than push a political agenda from the left or from the right.
DOBBS: Senator Dick Durbin, we thank you for being here tonight. Appreciate it.
DURBIN: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Our "Quote of the Day" tonight comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld testified today before the Senate Appropriations Committee about the Defense budget for 2006 and in response to a question about whether U.S. troop levels in Iraq were appropriate, and about the General Shinseki's famous prediction that several hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed for effective administration of Iraq following the war, Secretary Rumsfeld said, and we quote, "The more troops you have, the more targets you have and the more people you might get killed."
At the top of the hour here on CNN, "ANDERSON COOPER 360," a white supremacist attack caught on tape. Anderson joins us now to tell us about that and give us a preview. Anderson?
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Lou, thanks very much.
Yeah, we got a story you kind of got to see to believe. A white supremacist decides to fire bomb an Oklahoma synagogue, but before he does, he turns on his videocamera and hits the record button. We have the tape, the cops got the guy, and the courts just ruled, he's going to jail.
Also tonight, the desperate search for a child used in pornography. Police are asking for your help tonight. The question is, can you piece together the clues to try to help rescue a girl who is in serious danger? We have that and more at the top of the hour. Lou?
DOBBS: Looking forward to it, Anderson. Thank you. Tonight, a radio host on the liberal Air America Network is apologizing for a skit that included an apparent gunshot warning to President Bush. Randi Rhodes said she's sorry if she offended anyone by the bit, as she calls it, which she called poorly written. The skit featured an audio clip of four gunshots and a shotgun being cocked in response to President's Bush's plan to reform Social Security.
And, next, new praise for the Minuteman Project from Capitol Hill. Two members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus tell us how they are helping to support the volunteer project along our border.
And, tough justice for one Green Bay Packers fan: what one convicted criminal must give up if she is to avoid incarceration. That story is next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The founders of the highly successful Minuteman Project along our southern border today were at Capitol Hill. And they held a news conference with members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus on their success.
My guests tonight and members of that caucus, strong supporters of the Minutemen. Congressman Scott Garette of New Jersey and Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona join us tonight from the nation's capital. Good to have you with us, gentleman.
Let me begin if I may with you Congressman Hayworth. The Minuteman Project was vilified, even President Bush referring to them as vigilantes. I had the opportunity to meet them. I found them to be decent, good Americans out doing something that too few of us do, and that is get involved in activity in support of the country. What is your reaction?
REP. J.D. HAYWORTH, (R) ARIZONA: Lou, I would agree with your assessment, because these Minutemen were really following the time honored tradition in our representative republic of peacefully petitioning the government for redress of their grievances -- in this case, a major grievance which is the failure of the federal government to control our borders.
They are thoughtful people, they did this despite name calling. You mentioned the unfortunate term the president used. And I would just take issue with that, because I think this was like a nationwide Neighborhood Watch on that stretch of border in my home state of Arizona.
DOBBS: And Congressman Garette, your thoughts about these Minutemen and their plans to expand? Do you think that's practical? Do you think it's possible.
REP. SCOTT GARETTE, (R) NEW JERSEY: I certainly think it is practical and it is absolutely possible. I heard you say recently this country can control their own destiny if Washington will just step up to the plate and do it. Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration, we have not done it.
And so it's falling upon just regular citizens. And I've met these people, and they're like you and I, they have an interest in their community and their backyard.
And it's really no different than a Neighborhood Watch program, because they are not arresting people, they're not catching people. All they are doing is becoming the eyes and the ears for law enforcement and referring that information over to law enforcement.
DOBBS: You bring up a point -- and let me turn to you, Congressman Hayworth on this -- the idea that in Washington immigration reform is so complicated that border security three-and-a- half years after September 11, is nonexistent.
There is a shell game -- it is nothing less than a sham perpetrated by both parties, frankly, and the Department of Homeland Security that we're in control of our borders, particularly the southern border. What is it going to take for the United States Congress -- and I'll ask you this to speak to the House of Representatives to be honest, to create a will, to protect every day Americans from terror to take charge of illegal immigration?
HAYWORTH: Well, I hope and pray it does not take another 9/11, because you and I have talked before, I believe the next type of attack would be 9/11 to the tenth power if you will.
I think it's readily apparent to the vast majority of Americans that the bottom line on this question of border security is national security. It is synonymous.
The good news is in this institution, the House of Representatives -- and I heard from folks in Minnesota, in Michigan, in Maine, across Arkansas, down to Arizona, obviously, in California -- the people understand this. And their elected representatives ignore this at their own peril.
DOBBS: Congressman Garette, your thoughts?
GARETTE: Well, I agree with it wholeheartedly. You know, if you look back to the history of Congress, it goes back to 1996, at that time Congress said that we should have 10,000 agents on our borders to make sure we are a secure country by the year 2001 -- interesting date that they set that deadline. But Congress and this administration didn't get that job done unfortunately.
Now, the House at least, has said that we should support the agents on the front line of this duty by saying that we should have 2,000 of them -- additional men on the scene to make sure we can secure our borders.
Unfortunately, as you know, this administration only wants to fund us -- or put actually people out there at 10 percent of that figure, around 200 people. That's not going to be enough to get it done. And so the Minutemen are still going to be the ones to do the job. DOBBS: Congressman Garette, Congressman Hayworth, thank you both for being us here tonight, as always.
GARETTE: Thank you, Lou.
HAYWORTH: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Still ahead, the results of our poll tonight, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. And one judge's creative sentencing leaving a Green Bay Packers fan with an impossible decision -- caught between jail and we'll tell you next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of our poll. 91 percent of you say you support the use of filibusters in the U.S. Senate.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts on the exporting of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Mark in Arlington, Texas wrote to say, "Lou, I finally have figured out how to replace my job that was outsourced to India. All I have to do is move to Mexico, learn the language, then cross the border back into the U.S. as an illegal immigrant."
Terry McKinley from Vermillion, Minnesota, "thank you for your continuing focus on the plight of U.S. workers losing jobs to foreign countries. Isn't it painfully ironic that those who can least afford to shop at Wal-Mart are those who must, because they've lost their jobs to the foreign companies producing Wal-Mart products."
Jim Reinhardt in Midland City, Alabama wrote in about the latest so-called free trade agreement, the secret trade agreement. Jim had another idea about what CAFTA actually stands for, "CAFTA: Congress All For Trashing America."
And Janet Crouse of Atlantic City, New Jersey, "after following your stories on CAFTA, I begin to think that soon all our country will be able to produce are service jobs, waiting on the Chinese and Latin Americans who will come with our trade deficit money to visit."
We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at LouDobbs.com. And each of you whose e-mail is read on this program receives a copy of my book "Exporting America." And our e-mail newsletters available at LouDobbs.com as well.
Finally tonight, a tough decision for a Wisconsin football fan. Sharon Rosenthal was found guilty of stealing $3,000 from a labor union. Now the judge has given her a very difficult decision -- talk about creative justice -- the judge insisting that she either spend 90 days in jail, or give up her Green Bay Packers tickets.
The judge gave Rosenthal the choice of serving time or donating her family's four seats to charity for next season. Rosenthal still has 60 days in which to decide whether it will be 90 days or four tickets for a season. Thanks for begin with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. A new bipartisan plan to allocate funs for security at our nation's ports based on risk. Congresswoman Jane Harmon and Senator Susan Collins will be our guests here tomorrow evening.
Also tomorrow here, former Republican Senator John Danforth who says the Republican Party has turned into the political arm of conservative Christians. We'll be discussing his views and the Republican Party.
Exporting jobs to middle America, a new alternative to offshore outsourcing. How about that? We'll have a special report tomorrow. And we hope you'll be with us.
For tonight, thanks for being with us. Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now -- Anderson.
END
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 27, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, President Bush's bold new energy plan. More nuclear power stations and new oil refineries among the proposals. But will his plan do anything to cut soaring gasoline prices?
Exporting America tonight, how new technology is in fact making it even easier to export one of this country's most prized creative industries and sends thousands more or our jobs overseas.
And majority rule, minority rights: the battle over the president's judicial appointments and the fairness of the filibuster. My guest tonight, a leading Democratic senator who says abolishing the filibuster would threaten our system of checks and balances. We'll have a debate.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.
DOBBS: Good evening.
A dramatic security scare at the White House today. Secret Service agents rushed President Bush to an underground shelter after radar appeared to show an unidentified aircraft approaching the White House.
Heavily armed guards turned away tourists and visitors. They took up defensive positions around the perimeter of the White House. Helicopters were ordered to intercept the reported intruder. But it turned out that supposed aircraft was in fact a radar anomaly.
The president quickly returned to the Oval Office. The White House said the president was in the shelter for only a very short amount of time.
The security alert did not delay a major speech on the part of the president on energy. The president declared it is time for America to resume building nuclear power stations. President Bush also announced a plan to encourage the construction of new oil refineries on former military bases.
Andrea Koppel reports from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the second time in a week, President Bush was talking energy. And this is why...
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I fully understand that many folks around this country are concerned about the high price of gasoline.
KOPPEL: Among the president's energy proposals, to expand tax credits to include clean diesel technology in automobiles, to grant the federal government final say over the location of liquefied natural gas import terminals in order to increase the supply of natural gas, to build oil refineries on closed military bases, and to offer risk insurance for nuclear power plants to protect the nuclear industry against regulatory delays.
The president's decision to add new initiatives to his energy plan took Republicans and Democrats by surprise. Coming just days after he failed to reach agreement with the Saudi Crown Prince to lower gas prices, and less than a week after the House passed a Republican-backed energy bill, Democrats said the president looked desperate.
REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The president is not proposing anything today that will deal with gasoline prices in America for years to come.
KOPPEL (on camera): But the White House says the nation's energy woes didn't develop overnight and they won't be fixed overnight, either. Still, in the short term, it is a growing political problem for President Bush, who said a soldier recently asked him why he didn't lower gas prices. The president's response, "If I could, I would."
Andrea Koppel, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: The president's critics say the new energy initiative will do nothing to address the current energy crisis or end our dependence on foreign oil. The same critics say the president's proposals on oil refineries and nuclear power plants are simply unrealistic.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One of the ways to increase domestic oil production is to open more refineries. But the last oil refinery built in the United States began operation in 1976.
President Bush proposed using closed military bases for those sites. But oil industry experts say refineries didn't open for decades because profit margins didn't support new construction. Oil refining margins have improved recently, but there is no guarantee they will continue. JOHN KINGSTON, PLATTS OIL: Ultimately, the profitability is going to be determined by refining margins, which recently have been very good. If they can be sustained, then these things are feasible.
If the refining margins are bad, it doesn't matter, you can give away the land for one dollar. It's not going to make any difference.
PILGRIM: President Bush also says the way of the future is nuclear power. But President Bush proposes a risk insurance to offset delays in building nuclear power plants. Experts are skeptical.
HENRY SOKOLSKI, NONPROLIFERATION POLICY EDUCATION CENTER: Well, I mean, you would have to know exactly what he means by insuring the risks. That's code generally for a guaranteed loan. And that means the taxpayers is held holding the bag if these power plants, if they're built, don't produce profits.
PILGRIM: The president cited the fact that France gets 70 percent of its electricity from "safe, clean nuclear power." But costs to build nuclear power plants are high because of regulatory and safety issues. Also, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste from plants has been a longstanding concern.
As for European nuclear power, a U.N. nuclear energy report last year found in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden they are planning to phase out nuclear power.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, the construction and opening of refineries can take years. The cost of licensing and starting up a nuclear power plant often create a public outcry over safety and the environment. So it's clear that the dependence on foreign oil is a problem. But this strategy in no way is a short-term fix -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, we need short term and we need long term, as well. So at least the discussion, the national discussion on this critical issue has begun.
Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.
On Capitol Hill today, a major reversal from the majority party. House Speaker Dennis Hastert today said Republicans are now willing to step back, as he put it, on new ethics rules. Critics of those rules say they were designed to protect one person, Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reports on this escalating political battle.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is why Republicans retreated. The ethics questions swirling around Tom DeLay were taking their toll on the majority leader and his party.
REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: You guys better get out of my way. Where's our security?
HENRY: Back in January, Republicans changed the ethics rules to make it harder to launch investigations of misconduct. Democrats allege this was an attempt to shield DeLay.
Speaker Dennis Hastert insists the changes were meant to protect all members. But he acknowledges the only way to end the controversy is to restore the old rules and let the ethics panel investigate whether DeLay let lobbyists pay for overseas trips.
REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Right now we can't clear his name. The media wants to talk about ethics as long as we're at a stalemate. That's all that is in the press today, is the ethics stalemate. We need to move forward. We need to get this behind us.
HENRY: In private, other Republicans are even blunter. One lawmaker said he's worried the Democratic line of attack that Republicans were being arrogant may be effective because there's some truth to it. But there could be political fallout for both parties as the scrutiny of DeLay has a ripple effect.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to amend their own travel records. And staffers flocked to a closed-door refresher course on the ethics rules this week.
JASON ROE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN AIDE: You know, I think in a political sense, absolutely, everyone is concerned that this thing is ratcheting up the partisanship in Washington. But I think everyone is a little on edge about what we're going through right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Republicans are the ones who are on edge right now because they are not sure how this Tom DeLay investigation will end up. But Republicans are vowing they are going to retaliate.
They are going to push for all kinds of investigations of top Democrats. This is basically going to become a tit-for-tat, and it's going to get ugly real fast -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ugly real fast, and as we continue to see improved, I think is a fair way to put it, improved reporting on the part of the national media on the amount of money being spent to lobby, to entertain these congressmen, ethics rules not only need to be -- it seems at least to this reporter -- fixed in the short term, but also fixed to stop all of this obviously building power on the part of lobbyists.
Is there that move afoot in the midst of this ugly partisan battle?
HENRY: I think clearly you are going to see a reform movement, because what we're seeing now is that the DeLay case has been really shining a light on the fact that there have been over 5,000 trips for lawmakers in both parties that were funded by private sources over the last five years. And the bottom line is, the financing is so murky that it may not have just been Tom DeLay who possibly had lobbyists paying for his travel.
That's supposed to be against House rules, but it's not really enforced very well. You are going to see a push for that to be fixed. You're going to see possibly a push to improve the way the whole situation with lobbyists in general is dealt with.
The person at the center of this, Jack Abramoff, ended up raking in something like $82 million from some Indian tribes over a few years. He's now facing an investigation as to whether or not he defrauded those tribes.
There are a lot of people now raising questions about why something was not done years ago. So you are certainly going to see a push for reform. And it's a push that a lot of people in both parties will not like -- Lou.
DOBBS: And as you suggest, Ed, it's little wonder that often we say Republicans and Democrats in this country our elected officials in Washington, they represent the best government money can buy.
Ed, thank you very much. Ed Henry from Capitol Hill.
As we've reported, there is another major battle under way in Congress -- this one over filibusters.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said Republicans might change the Senate's rules in order to nullify Democratic filibusters over the president's judicial nominees. Still ahead here tonight, a leading Democratic senator will be with us to tell us why he believes changing those rules would greatly damage the Senate.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you support the use of filibusters in the U.S. Senate, yes or no? Please cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up.
Up next here, illegal alien crackdown, how some local law enforcement agencies are now beginning to face up to the escalating immigration crisis in this country and take responsibility in their communities.
And a court case that we don't normally cover on this broadcast, but the Michael Jackson child molestation trial has taken an even more bizarre turn today. We'll have a live report for you next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Progress to report tonight in the fight against illegal immigration. Local police in states across the country have for years refused to enforce immigration laws or even ask suspects about their immigration status. Southern California police are simply overwhelmed with tens of thousands of illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes in this country.
Now, police in two California counties have decided to reverse a decade's-old policy of ignoring those immigration violations. And Casey Wian has the story from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton plans to modify a longstanding LAPD policy forbidding officers from questioning suspects about their immigration status. Bratton wants L.A. cops to be able to identify and arrest the most dangerous illegal aliens, including many gang members.
CHIEF WILLIAM BRATTON, LAPD: We are attempting to go after the worst of the worst. And individuals who have been arrested, convicted, served time in jail and then been deported, but then come back into the country again, they definitely fit that profile.
WIAN: Bratton is meeting with immigrant rights groups who say they are afraid the new policy will result in racial or ethnic profiling and discourage immigrants from reporting crimes. And it must still be approved by the city's police commission.
(on camera): An estimated 30,000 illegal aliens who've committed other crimes are walking the streets of Los Angeles today. For a quarter century, they've had a free pass from local police who have been prohibited from arresting them for immigration law violations.
(voice-over): But a growing number of local law enforcement agencies are ending so-called sanctuary policies. Los Angeles County, which has about 5,000 illegal aliens in custody every day, is training jail staff to identify and report them to federal immigration authorities.
And this week, Orange County, California, Sheriff Mike Carona announced plans to join a federal program that will train 500 deputies as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. They will gain access to ICE's criminal database and no longer turn a blind eye to criminal illegal aliens.
SHERIFF MIKE CARONA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: They know who those career criminals are, those who are coming through the system over and over again. And rather than throwing their hands in the air and saying, well, there is nothing we can do about it because it's a federal issue, now we're going to be ale to take advantage of federal resources as federal officers. Just a great way of doing business.
WIAN: With nearly half a million fugitive aliens loose in the United States, it's also a good start.
Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: And police in other states are also beginning to abandon those so-called sanctuary laws, laws that have prevented police from enforcing immigration laws. Local police now in Florida and Alabama have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and do so. There are now proposals for similar programs in the states of New York, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Connecticut. Immigration and Customs Enforcement today announced a major bust of illegal aliens in Florida. Sixty-six illegal aliens were arrested after they were found working on a construction project.
The project they were working on? The new federal courthouse in Orlando, Florida.
ICE says the illegal aliens used fake Social Security numbers and other documents to gain employment. The aliens are from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras.
We report here extensively on the many benefits enjoyed by millions of illegal aliens in this country. One of those benefits is in-state tuition in many states. And it's being offered by a rising number of states.
However, the state legislatures approving those bills appear to have overlooked what some might consider to be a rather obvious problem. That is, regardless whether an illegal alien has a college degree or not, it is illegal for anyone to hire them.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If a person enters the United States illegally, they find open arms in education. Primary and secondary schooling is granted free to their children under a 1982 ruling from the United States Supreme Court.
And now several states offer illegals in-state tuition rates to colleges and universities...
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: What's happening is that these states are beginning to offer in-state tuitions. Nine states currently offer in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens. Six more are currently considering it.
Lou, one of the most obvious facts that's been overlooked here, as Representative Steven King from Iowa points out, it doesn't matter whether they have a degree or not. It's still illegal to hire them. Now...
DOBBS: What is the incentive for these colleges and universities to bring in illegal aliens?
TUCKER: The incentive, the educators would say, the motivation, not so much the incentive. They say these kids are...
DOBBS: I don't care what those state educators say.
TUCKER: Well, but their argument is...
DOBBS: Is there a financial incentive for them to do so? TUCKER: No, there's not. There's no financial incentive for them to do it at all.
They're not receiving federal money to educate these kids. In fact, most of these kids do not get financial aid.
What the educators are saying is these kids were brought here by their parents, they're not responsible for the actions of their parents. So they shouldn't be held accountable, as it were, for the sins of the parents.
DOBBS: OK. Bill Tucker, thank you very much.
TUCKER: But...
DOBBS: And we want to apologize -- I'm sorry.
TUCKER: And Lou, there's really one important thing here I wanted to bring up. In the process of reporting this story, Lou, the most interesting thing that I learned today is that the immigration code, the Reform Act of 1996, there's a section which prohibits states -- not prohibits states from offering in-state tuition discounts, it says to states, if you offer an in-state tuition discount to illegal aliens, you must offer that discount to any citizen of any other state. Meaning, if you are in Nebraska, and you want to go to a school in another state where they offer in-state tuition to illegals, you are entitled to it.
DOBBS: So, is this being enforced?
TUCKER: No, it's not.
DOBBS: I bet they are just delighted to hear that you have put that forward for the public to take advantage of.
TUCKER: Well, I certainly hope they do.
DOBBS: But it's a wonderful thing. It's not often we see U.S. citizens obtaining the same rights as illegal aliens. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.
The State Department has just renewed its travel alert for northern Mexico. The department is now warning Americans again about what it calls a wave of violence on the Mexican side of the border.
That alert says the violent drug wars have resulted in the kidnappings and murders of foreigners, especially Americans. The State Department first warned about violence in Mexico in January. Then our embassy in Mexico City tried to back away from it.
President Vicente Fox was kind of upset about it. But the State Department, showing courage, has taken, in fact, notice of that wave of violence and has issued the warning.
Coming up next here, a key witness testifying in the Michael Jackson case, a case that is seemingly daily becoming increasingly bizarre. We'll have the latest for you on that.
And then, how to stop the invasion of illegal aliens into this country. I'll be talking with a national columnist who says closing our border is not the answer.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Michael Jackson's ex-wife today took the stand as a witness for the prosecution. Debbie Rowe, who divorced Jackson six years ago, was called to testify about an interview she gave back in 2003. In that interview, Rowe defended Jackson against molestation charges.
Ted Rowlands is now outside the courthouse in Santa Maria, California, with the report for us -- Ted.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Debbie Rowe was on the stand for approximately 40 minutes today. As prosecutors promised, she tied Michael Jackson into the conspiracy, if you will, that prosecutors say took place when they were developing this video, this rebuttal video.
Jackson himself called Debbie Rowe and asked for her participation. She asked if she could then see Michael again and the kids after things settled down. Jackson says, "Yes, you could."
What didn't happen for prosecutors which was promised in front of this jury is that Debbie Rowe says nothing in her answers were scripted. They had hoped that Debbie Rowe would give some credence to the accuser's mother in this case who claims that basically a gun was held to her head to say exactly what the Jackson folks wanted her to say in a similar interview.
Debbie Rowe said emphatically that wasn't the case. In fact, she came across as a woman that wanted to be reacquainted with Jackson.
At one point, prosecutors said, "You want to be reacquainted with Michael Jackson and reintroduced to the children?" And she said, "Yes." And they said, "Why do you want to be reacquainted with Jackson?" And she said "He is my friend."
And she started to break down on the stand. Whether or not prosecutors were caught off guard by this or if they expected it is hard to say at this point. Obviously, she will be on the stand for a considerable amount of time for tomorrow. But to say that she is a clear, strong prosecution witness at this point I think would be inaccurate.
She seems to be helping both sides a bit with her testimony thus far -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ted, just a couple of quick questions. Give us a better sense of who Debbie Rowe is, how she and Jackson parted, and the arrangements thereto. ROWLANDS: Well, this is a woman who was married to Michael Jackson for a two-year period. She had known him for 20 years. She worked at a doctor's office that Jackson frequented. And she's the mother of two of his three children.
She detailed the arrangement that she had with Jackson for visitation early on after the children were born, said that every 45 days she had eight hours with the kids and that was all. At some point she said the relationship was so sterile that she just gave it up and gave Jackson full custody.
She now wants partial custody of these children. And that is pending down in Los Angeles. So it's a key component here where she is coming from.
Is she trying to please Michael Jackson to get custody and end this fight, or could she be a strong prosecution witness and really fight him to the end? Because, of course, if he goes to jail, she'll probably get the kids.
Very interesting. And we'll, I'm sure, find out more tomorrow as she continues to testify.
DOBBS: And just a question that at least confounds me. Michael Jackson, not for the first time, accused of being a child molester, a sex offender, yet he has custody of these children. There's been no state inquiry into his -- his status as a parent and whether or not those -- whether a state agency should be examining the situation independently of these trials?
ROWLANDS: Well, yes, there is and there was. The Child Protective Services in Los Angeles were called immediately after the Martin Bashir video aired because of some concerns. And they dropped that case, apparently -- of course, this is all information that has not -- is not public information, but there was an investigation.
Whether there still is, is not known. And whether it will come into this custody battle between Rowe and Jackson is also something to think about.
But the bottom line is this woman did not seem to be a woman who was battling Michael Jackson for custody. She seemed like a woman that wanted back into his life and the children's life. When she broke down at the time she was emotional, it was when she was talking about being his close friend and saying she wanted back into his life.
DOBBS: Ted Rowlands, we thank you. We look forward to your report tomorrow evening.
Coming up next, I'll be talking with a national columnist who says closing our nation's borders won't do any good in the battle against illegal immigration and the efforts to secure our borders.
Also ahead, exporting one of our most creative industries to cheap foreign labor markets.
And two leading congressmen who strongly support the Minuteman Project and their plans to expand that project across the nation.
All of that, plus your thoughts and a great deal more still ahead here tonight.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Turning now to the escalating immigration crisis in this country, Ruben Navarrette is a columnist for the "San Diego Union- Tribune." And in a column this weekend he wrote about the illegal immigration crisis saying, "Just for fun, let's say we could close the border. It still won't do any good. The United States can deploy an army, build a wall. It wouldn't do any good as long as U.S. employers continue to hire illegal immigrants."
Ruben Navarrette joins us now from San Diego.
Ruben, good to have you here.
RUBEN NAVARRETTE, "SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE": Thanks, Lou. Good to be here.
DOBBS: Let's start -- I happen to agree with you 100 percent that employers of illegal aliens -- and I don't care whether they are individuals or small business or large business -- should be fined and fined heavily because they are bottom line at the foundation of the problem. But when you say you can't close the border, can't build a wall, are you really saying we cannot have border security in this country?
NAVARRETTE: Well, there are two different questions there, Lou. This has been discussed because one of the things that inspired my column was Arnold Schwarzenegger our governor was asked recently at a gathering of news executives well what would you do about the illegal immigration problem. And he said, well, close the border. Those three words.
Now, I watch your show, and I know you talk about this topic a lot. I know Congress is debating this topic a loot. It's a complicated issue. And it probably is going to have a complicated solution. Arnold just cut to the chase and said it's simple, close the border. Well, you don't simply close the border. That's 2,000 miles of terrain.
DOBBS: Now you're talking to Governor Schwarzenegger. You are talking to me, partner. What I asked you is -- why can you not control the border? I mean that's what Governor Schwarzenegger said. What I'm saying is control the border. Why can't you?
NAVARRETTE: Right. There's a difference. I'm all for controlling the border. I just don't think you can close the border, seal the border. And I think that sometimes people get caught up in the rhetoric. They talk about deporting 10 million people. John McCain and others say that's not going to happen. You simply just can't close a 2,000 mile stretch of border. You should have more Border Patrol agents. Congress says...
DOBBS: Can I give you a suggestion, Ruben? Can I just throw something at you?
NAVARRETTE: Sure.
DOBBS: Since we're talking about this. And you think this is a highly complex issue.
NAVARRETTE: It really is.
DOBBS: The complexity seems to be something that a lot of people hide behind. I know you don't hide behind anything. So, you and I can have a straightforward discussion here. But the fact is you can control our border and put -- create border security that is real and effective so long as you have a commitment and the political will to do so. The country does not right now -- at least the country does, but this Congress and this administration do not.
And with the cooperation of the Mexican government, that border could be controlled in a matter of weeks. Would you or would you not agree?
NAVARRETTE: I disagree.
Let me agree with part of what you said, which is that there is not a commitment -- you are quite right -- either in Congress or with Americans as a whole, a commitment to controlling illegal immigration.
Now the reason is we worship nothing in this country as much as the almighty dollar. And it's economic forces that keep people hiring these illegal immigrants to afford a cost of living, a kind of living that we wouldn't have otherwise.
But back to your original point, I think you cannot simply secure the border to the degree you would like to see it secured or I would like to see it secured. The Minutemen for all that's been talked about, that's a 40-mile stretch of border they were concentrating on. I'm talking about 2,000 miles of border. And even if you put an army on that border, even if you put a wall on that border, I've got news for you, the immigrants will dig a tunnel, go underneath the wall and come out the other end.
DOBBS: When you say something like that -- and I understand you are trying to look at the complexity as you put it. But let's -- what I find disconcerting in this discussion -- one is the efforts by some when one's talking about reforming our immigration laws or securing the border, the only response they have is you've got to be a racist if you are concerned about it because many of the Hispanic activist groups, as you know, they are playing the race card day in and day out because they have got nothing else to say. In my view, they are the ones who are racists on this issue trying to convert an immigration problem into a racial problem. It is not that. You and I both know it. But the idea that Americans suddenly haven't got the ability to do what we need to do in this case, secure our borders for our national security, to do so in part to stop illegal immigration suggests that we're impotent, as well as lacking will. This country has been built on a tradition of getting done what others say is impossible. I assure you, I don't -- I can't imagine anyone saying this is impossible. It seems relatively, forgive me, straightforward and simple.
NAVARRETTE: Again, I have to disagree. The reason it hasn't been done up to now, Lou, and it isn't so straightforward is because -- you are right, this is a great country. This is a country that can put a man on the moon. But in this regard, we can't seal that border to seal the border would mean San Diegans and people who live in Phoenix, and Dallas, and Boston would have to do without certain things like nannies and gardeners. And they are not willing to do it.
DOBBS: Well, you know, I'm not sure that's true. Because one of the things you suggest is they provide a quality of life in this country. I don't think that holds up to economic examination. That's too simple.
And number two, if people were paying fair wages to Americans, American citizens, they wouldn't be able to exploit illegal aliens.
NAVARRETTE: That's -- yes.
DOBBS: That's a fact.
NAVARRETTE: Lou, I have to disagree again. I think there's a whole host of jobs out there that Americans won't do.
DOBBS: Come on. Americans, real Americans respect all kinds of work.
NAVARRETTE: I was thinking about the 18-year-old kid at Starbucks, he won't pick peaches.
DOBBS: Depends what you pay him.
NAVARRETTE: No, not at any price.
DOBBS: Mr. Ruben, I've got to -- we've got to break up. I hope you come back and join us in the next week or two.
NAVARRETTE: Thank you, sir.
DOBBS: All right?
NAVARRETTE: You bet. Thank you, sir.
DOBBS: Now our special report on the shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, "Exporting America." Tonight, American architects are increasingly sending their work overseas to be completed by low cost firms denying young architects valuable experience and work. Christine Romans has the story. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEPHEN FISKUM, COO, HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON: This rendering was produced for about $800 by our counterparts in China.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Architect Steve Fiskum says this rendering of an Illinois hospital would have cost $4,000 to produce here in Minneapolis.
FISKUM: We do have those resources internally in our company. However sometimes the work load backs up, can't get to it right away and there's relatively fast turnaround in China. Plus, we have the opportunity to work 24 hours with a firm that's on the other side of the world.
ROMANS: A survey from the American Institute of Architects shows 11 percent of firms are outsourcing some architecture work. Another 14 percent are considering it. The high-value creative designs so far have stayed in the United States, but the more technical drawings and models are increasingly being made in China and India. It's the very work architecture students and interns here have long cut their teeth on.
FISKUM: Well yes, there is a dilemma presented because some of the traditional ways that we've trained architects may no longer be available. We'll have to search for new ways to accomplish that.
ROMANS: And there is a problem of liability. Even if the drawing is made 10,000 miles away, the architect of record is still responsible.
KERMIT BAKER, CHIEF ECON. AMERICAN INST. OF ARCHITECTS: Liability is a very big concern for architects. Architects stamp the drawings to ensure that that project is safe and meets all the specific indications it was designed to do.
ROMANS: Architect Bill Helmet is wary of this architectural outsourcing.
BILL HELLMUTH, PRES, HELLMUTH, OBATA + KASSABAUM: People talk about better, faster, cheaper. Usually only two of those words can end up in the same sentence and have any meaning. But the -- if it is just cheaper, you do become a commodity.
ROMANS: Becoming a commodity is a big fear in the architecture world where good design and reputation are still valued.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: So, Lou, if architects start sending bits and pieces of this whole process to cheap labor markets, is there any reason why entire projects can't ultimately be designed and executed there too, cutting American architecture firms out of the picture entirely It's a risk these firms run if they are going to start sending parts of the pieces over there. DOBBS: It's extraordinary. These jobs in these engineering firms, architectural firms moving this work to cheap foreign labor markets. The madness just continues despite mounting evidence that it doesn't pay and it certainly costs Americans jobs. You wonder when they are going to wake up.
ROMANS: For some of the architects the concern is letting the whole process out of their control. Even some of the folks who admit to doing this say they are a little concerned about not having the creative process in house all the time. But the speed and the cost are seductive for some of these guys.
DOBBS: Seductive -- and to the point they are going to eliminate jobs for working men and women in this country, I'd just as soon see the architects themselves come out. Let's get to some real productivity and efficiency.
Christine, thank you. Christine Romans.
The Supreme Court today heard arguments about whether the Arthur Andersen accounting firm received a fair trial in the Enron case.
The firm was convicted three years ago of obstruction of justice for destroying some documents related to its work for Enron. The documents, although they were destroyed, all of the records of those documents were intact.
Arthur Andersen's attorneys say the jury instructions in the case were confusing, and unfair and incorrect. At today's appearance before the Supreme Court, the justices gave every appearance of agreeing that the Arthur Andersen case should be overturned.
Coming up next here, the Senate debate over whether the filibuster is effective. Or is it an obstacle for Congress and freedom. One senator will join me next. We'll have a debate in our "Face Off" tonight over the filibuster, cloture and majority rule, minority right.
Leaders of the Minuteman Project share their expansion plans with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Two members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus join us here next. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In our "Face Off" tonight, the intense Senate battle over President Bush's judicial nominees and the filibuster. Should we keep the filibuster or should we not? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said Republicans are considering changing Senate rules to nullify the filibuster. My guest tonight says the so-called nuclear option, as it is put, would do great damage to the Senate. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is the minority whip, and joins us from Capitol Hill.
Senator, it is great to have you here.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Good to be with you, Lou. DOBBS: Let's start first with the idea of tying up a nomination, whether it be for the district, appellate, or Supreme, court. Is it really appropriate to filibuster a nomination and deny a vote, an up and down vote, to the entire Senate?
DURBIN: From the beginning of time in the United States Senate, we have had a filibuster, and the idea is, that any senator, any member of the minority, can stand up and speak, and to make that senator sit down and go to a vote, you need an extraordinary majority. So, if I object to a bill or nomination to a cabinet position or to a judgeship, I can filibuster that. And if 60 members of the Senate say it's time for debate to end, sit down, Senator Durbin, they have the power to do it.
Senator Frist wants to change that rule for the first time in 214 years,and I think it's a mistake. It really is changing the rules in the middle of the game. It's violating a basic tradition and principle in the Senate that we've honored since the Founding Fathers created it.
DOBBS: Or, at least since 1806. In point of fact, the number of votes were changed in 1919, and the -- with cloture, giving the opportunity to end filibuster. Again, with the Byrd Amendment, reducing it from 67 to 60 votes.
DURBIN: That's right.
DOBBS: At what point do you and the Senate just say, the majority does rule and, historically, if you are a fan of history, as you suggest, Senator, the fact is that so many important initiatives within the U.S. Senate, including civil rights, have been forestalled by filibuster.
DURBIN: But, Lou, see, that's why the Senate is so unique. Two senators from every state. Two senators from New York. Two senators from Rhode Island, two from Delaware, two from California -- it's because it was designed to protect the minority, and the rules have created the filibuster because it forces compromise and it forces bipartisanship. You have to reach across the aisle for controversial nominees and controversial bills to build a bipartisan coalition. That's why the Senate is so unique, and to change that, to throw that away because President Bush has had only 95 percent of his nominees approved by the Senate, I think is a serious mistake.
DOBBS: Yes, and let me be clear, Senator, I'm not suggesting this because I think that every one of the nominees of President Bush is appropriate or inappropriate for that matter, whether Democrat or Republican. It just seems to me that, under the Constitution, which is a fairly unique document in its own way, calling upon the Senate for advise-and-consent, not filibuster, it seems to me that the majority rule in the Senate would be an appropriate pathway to follow, for both Democrats and Republicans, the minority party and the majority party over time. Why not?
DURBIN: Well, because, for two centuries, the Senate has had this tradition. It basically says that the checks and balances of the Senate mean something, and the Senate, as an institution, will give each senator the power to stand up, as Mr. Smith went to Washington in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, to fight for something they believe in. And, over time, as you mentioned, we've said, well, 60 senators ought to be able to shut down a filibuster. I think that's reasonable. It requires bipartisanship. And when it comes to a nominee looking for a lifetime position on the court, we want to make sure those men and women are moderate, that they are responsive to the values and the needs of America.
DOBBS: So moderate becomes the litmus test?
DURBIN: I think it's an important test.
DOBBS: You don't want a full commitment to your ideology or the opposing party?
DURBIN: Well, I don't think it's healthy. When it comes to a judge, you've got to find someone who's going to interpret the law as close as they can to the accuracy of the law, rather than push a political agenda from the left or from the right.
DOBBS: Senator Dick Durbin, we thank you for being here tonight. Appreciate it.
DURBIN: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Our "Quote of the Day" tonight comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld testified today before the Senate Appropriations Committee about the Defense budget for 2006 and in response to a question about whether U.S. troop levels in Iraq were appropriate, and about the General Shinseki's famous prediction that several hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed for effective administration of Iraq following the war, Secretary Rumsfeld said, and we quote, "The more troops you have, the more targets you have and the more people you might get killed."
At the top of the hour here on CNN, "ANDERSON COOPER 360," a white supremacist attack caught on tape. Anderson joins us now to tell us about that and give us a preview. Anderson?
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Lou, thanks very much.
Yeah, we got a story you kind of got to see to believe. A white supremacist decides to fire bomb an Oklahoma synagogue, but before he does, he turns on his videocamera and hits the record button. We have the tape, the cops got the guy, and the courts just ruled, he's going to jail.
Also tonight, the desperate search for a child used in pornography. Police are asking for your help tonight. The question is, can you piece together the clues to try to help rescue a girl who is in serious danger? We have that and more at the top of the hour. Lou?
DOBBS: Looking forward to it, Anderson. Thank you. Tonight, a radio host on the liberal Air America Network is apologizing for a skit that included an apparent gunshot warning to President Bush. Randi Rhodes said she's sorry if she offended anyone by the bit, as she calls it, which she called poorly written. The skit featured an audio clip of four gunshots and a shotgun being cocked in response to President's Bush's plan to reform Social Security.
And, next, new praise for the Minuteman Project from Capitol Hill. Two members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus tell us how they are helping to support the volunteer project along our border.
And, tough justice for one Green Bay Packers fan: what one convicted criminal must give up if she is to avoid incarceration. That story is next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The founders of the highly successful Minuteman Project along our southern border today were at Capitol Hill. And they held a news conference with members of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus on their success.
My guests tonight and members of that caucus, strong supporters of the Minutemen. Congressman Scott Garette of New Jersey and Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona join us tonight from the nation's capital. Good to have you with us, gentleman.
Let me begin if I may with you Congressman Hayworth. The Minuteman Project was vilified, even President Bush referring to them as vigilantes. I had the opportunity to meet them. I found them to be decent, good Americans out doing something that too few of us do, and that is get involved in activity in support of the country. What is your reaction?
REP. J.D. HAYWORTH, (R) ARIZONA: Lou, I would agree with your assessment, because these Minutemen were really following the time honored tradition in our representative republic of peacefully petitioning the government for redress of their grievances -- in this case, a major grievance which is the failure of the federal government to control our borders.
They are thoughtful people, they did this despite name calling. You mentioned the unfortunate term the president used. And I would just take issue with that, because I think this was like a nationwide Neighborhood Watch on that stretch of border in my home state of Arizona.
DOBBS: And Congressman Garette, your thoughts about these Minutemen and their plans to expand? Do you think that's practical? Do you think it's possible.
REP. SCOTT GARETTE, (R) NEW JERSEY: I certainly think it is practical and it is absolutely possible. I heard you say recently this country can control their own destiny if Washington will just step up to the plate and do it. Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration, we have not done it.
And so it's falling upon just regular citizens. And I've met these people, and they're like you and I, they have an interest in their community and their backyard.
And it's really no different than a Neighborhood Watch program, because they are not arresting people, they're not catching people. All they are doing is becoming the eyes and the ears for law enforcement and referring that information over to law enforcement.
DOBBS: You bring up a point -- and let me turn to you, Congressman Hayworth on this -- the idea that in Washington immigration reform is so complicated that border security three-and-a- half years after September 11, is nonexistent.
There is a shell game -- it is nothing less than a sham perpetrated by both parties, frankly, and the Department of Homeland Security that we're in control of our borders, particularly the southern border. What is it going to take for the United States Congress -- and I'll ask you this to speak to the House of Representatives to be honest, to create a will, to protect every day Americans from terror to take charge of illegal immigration?
HAYWORTH: Well, I hope and pray it does not take another 9/11, because you and I have talked before, I believe the next type of attack would be 9/11 to the tenth power if you will.
I think it's readily apparent to the vast majority of Americans that the bottom line on this question of border security is national security. It is synonymous.
The good news is in this institution, the House of Representatives -- and I heard from folks in Minnesota, in Michigan, in Maine, across Arkansas, down to Arizona, obviously, in California -- the people understand this. And their elected representatives ignore this at their own peril.
DOBBS: Congressman Garette, your thoughts?
GARETTE: Well, I agree with it wholeheartedly. You know, if you look back to the history of Congress, it goes back to 1996, at that time Congress said that we should have 10,000 agents on our borders to make sure we are a secure country by the year 2001 -- interesting date that they set that deadline. But Congress and this administration didn't get that job done unfortunately.
Now, the House at least, has said that we should support the agents on the front line of this duty by saying that we should have 2,000 of them -- additional men on the scene to make sure we can secure our borders.
Unfortunately, as you know, this administration only wants to fund us -- or put actually people out there at 10 percent of that figure, around 200 people. That's not going to be enough to get it done. And so the Minutemen are still going to be the ones to do the job. DOBBS: Congressman Garette, Congressman Hayworth, thank you both for being us here tonight, as always.
GARETTE: Thank you, Lou.
HAYWORTH: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Still ahead, the results of our poll tonight, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. And one judge's creative sentencing leaving a Green Bay Packers fan with an impossible decision -- caught between jail and we'll tell you next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of our poll. 91 percent of you say you support the use of filibusters in the U.S. Senate.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts on the exporting of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Mark in Arlington, Texas wrote to say, "Lou, I finally have figured out how to replace my job that was outsourced to India. All I have to do is move to Mexico, learn the language, then cross the border back into the U.S. as an illegal immigrant."
Terry McKinley from Vermillion, Minnesota, "thank you for your continuing focus on the plight of U.S. workers losing jobs to foreign countries. Isn't it painfully ironic that those who can least afford to shop at Wal-Mart are those who must, because they've lost their jobs to the foreign companies producing Wal-Mart products."
Jim Reinhardt in Midland City, Alabama wrote in about the latest so-called free trade agreement, the secret trade agreement. Jim had another idea about what CAFTA actually stands for, "CAFTA: Congress All For Trashing America."
And Janet Crouse of Atlantic City, New Jersey, "after following your stories on CAFTA, I begin to think that soon all our country will be able to produce are service jobs, waiting on the Chinese and Latin Americans who will come with our trade deficit money to visit."
We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at LouDobbs.com. And each of you whose e-mail is read on this program receives a copy of my book "Exporting America." And our e-mail newsletters available at LouDobbs.com as well.
Finally tonight, a tough decision for a Wisconsin football fan. Sharon Rosenthal was found guilty of stealing $3,000 from a labor union. Now the judge has given her a very difficult decision -- talk about creative justice -- the judge insisting that she either spend 90 days in jail, or give up her Green Bay Packers tickets.
The judge gave Rosenthal the choice of serving time or donating her family's four seats to charity for next season. Rosenthal still has 60 days in which to decide whether it will be 90 days or four tickets for a season. Thanks for begin with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. A new bipartisan plan to allocate funs for security at our nation's ports based on risk. Congresswoman Jane Harmon and Senator Susan Collins will be our guests here tomorrow evening.
Also tomorrow here, former Republican Senator John Danforth who says the Republican Party has turned into the political arm of conservative Christians. We'll be discussing his views and the Republican Party.
Exporting jobs to middle America, a new alternative to offshore outsourcing. How about that? We'll have a special report tomorrow. And we hope you'll be with us.
For tonight, thanks for being with us. Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now -- Anderson.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
