Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Majority Power; Voter Discontent; Bush & Karzai; Government- Funded Stem Cell Research Debated; Sharpton & Fox
Aired May 23, 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: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, is an embryo a human life? Should federal dollars be paying for embryonic stem cell research? The sponsors of legislation to fund such research will be here tonight to debate with two other congressmen who want to kill the legislation.
And our national security threatened by seaports overrun with cheap Chinese imports. Union leaders say the United States must act now to protect our ports from terrorists. We'll have a special report.
And the Reverend Al Sharpton will join us. Reverend Sharpton today meeting with President Vicente Fox of Mexico, demanding an apology for offensive comments about black Americans.
The U.S. Senate is our top story tonight. In the fight over filibusters, bipartisan civility ended weeks ago. Last-minute efforts to reach a compromise that would save the filibuster and prevent an up-and-down vote on judicial appointments appears to have failed. Cots and blankets have been sent into the Senate in preparation for an all-night debate. Tomorrow, senators will vote on the filibuster.
Joe Johns reports on history in the making.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The ceremonial arrival of the sleeping cots at the Capitol signaled a protracted debate: the intention of the congressional leadership to work late into the night, even all night. Putting a finer point on it, Majority Leader Bill Frist went to the floor just before noon, arguing the Senate has spent enough time debating the judicial nomination of Priscilla Owen.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: And today marks the 20th day of Senate floor debate on Justice Owen's nomination. We have spent more floor time on Priscilla Owen than on all the sitting Supreme Court justices combined.
JOHNS: With the votes to end debate and kill the filibusters for judicial nominees likely to occur in less than 24 hours, President Bush himself kept up the pressure.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I expect them to get an up-or--down vote. That's what I expect. And I think the American people expect that, as well. They ought to have a fair hearing, and they ought to get an up-or-down vote on the floor
JOHNS: Talks to head off the showdown were expected to continue Monday evening, but the Democratic leader was pessimistic.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: I would hope that something can still be worked out, but I think each day that goes by the possibility is less. I think the odds of something being worked out now are very, very remote.
JOHNS: The Senate's senior Democrat who was involved in last week's talks was already expressing resignation.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: That we would even come to a moment such as this, sad, sad, sad, sad it is.
JOHNS: And Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, whose husband was once majority leader, praised the current leader, but included a note of inevitability.
SEN. ELIZABETH DOLE (R), NORTH CAROLINA: So let the record be clear. The majority leader has pursued compromise with vigor, and he should be commended for doing so. But, of course, when compromise fails, action must take its place.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS: A vote is scheduled noon tomorrow, or at least expected, to try to cut off debate. Negotiations do continue. A meeting scheduled for this hour. Senator John McCain saying it could be the last chance -- Lou.
DOBBS: Joe, thank you very much. Joe Johns from Capitol Hill.
And where does the public stand on the issue of filibusters and judicial nominations? The latest CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll shows a majority of voters disgusted with leaders of both parties, but narrowly favoring ending the filibuster. The CNN poll also shows President Bush's approval rating has fallen to near the lowest of his presidency.
Bill Schneider reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): President Bush's numbers continue to drop. The president's current job approval rating, 46 percent. Half the public disapproves of the way President Bush is handling his job. That's the president's worst rating in over a year. What's the problem?
BUSH: We're going to permanently solve the Social Security issue so you can grow up with peace of mind.
SCHNEIDER: Not working. Fifty-nine percent now disapprove of the president's handling of Social Security. Eleven points higher than in early February, when the President started his Social Security campaign.
And on the economy?
BUSH: The economy is getting better. Today we got some good news. We added 262,000 new jobs last month.
SCHNEIDER: Not much celebration. Fifty-eight percent disapprove of the way the President is handling the economy, the worst all year.
How about Iraq?
BUSH: And I'm confident we're making great progress in Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: The public is not. Fifty-six percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
Does President Bush get a positive rating on anything?
BUSH: America is answering new dangers with firm resolve.
SCHNEIDER: Yes. The President continues to get high marks for his handling of terrorism. But terrorism may have faded in importance.
A whopping 57 percent of Americans say they disagree with George W. Bush on the issues that matter most to them. That number has never been higher than 51 percent.
President Bush won't be on the battle again. Congress will. And the Senate is facing the great filibuster debate.
Most Americans do not want the Senate to change its rules. Republicans say that's not the issue.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: The issue is not cloture votes per se. It's the partisan leadership-led use of cloture vote to kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees.
SCHNEIDER: Oh, yes it is, say Democrats.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: The Senate's tradition and its rules protect debate and guarantee that we can't be trampled upon.
SCHNEIDER: Advantage? Democrats. By 48-40 percent, the public favors the Democratic over the Republican side in the filibuster debate.
Asked whether the country would be better off if the Republicans or the Democrats controlled Congress, the public gives the Democrats an 11-point edge. The last time people gave the Democrats that big an edge was in December 1998.
What did the GOP Congress do in December 1998? They impeached President Bill Clinton.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: In the latest "Wall Street Journal"-NBC News poll, a majority of Americans say they disapprove of the job Congress is doing. That's the first time a majority has felt that way since 1994.
And you know what happened to Congress in 1994? The voters booted the Democratic majority out -- Lou.
DOBBS: And something called a Contract with America was formed and carried out as policy. Do you believe we're looking at that kind of incredible profound shift as a result of what appears to be the public sentiment, Bill?
SCHNEIDER: Well, there are real danger signs for Republicans right now. But one thing that they have going for them, it's a year and a half -- a year and a half before the next congressional election. A year and a half is several lifetimes in politics.
DOBBS: And the next most important question I would think is, given these poll numbers, do you think the Democrats and the Republicans are smart enough to pay heed that they are out of step with their constituents?
SCHNEIDER: Well, they may be out of step with most voters, but they tend to pay attention, particularly in the House, but in the Senate, too, to their base. The Republicans to their conservative base, the Democrats to their liberal base. And in this case, I think on the filibuster issue they are listening to the militants in both parties who are saying do not compromise.
DOBBS: Well, perhaps then they will have an opportunity to hear from their constituents broadly come 2006. Bill Schneider, thank you.
SCHNEIDER: Sure.
DOBBS: President Bush showed no signs of concern about those latest poll numbers when he held a news conference with the president of Afghanistan today. Hamid Karzai wants control of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. President Bush told him no.
Dana Bash reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three- and-a-half years after American forces helped drive the Taliban out of his country, Hamid Karzai came to the White House to tell the president it's time he has more say over U.S. troops there, but got no promises.
BUSH: Of course our troops will respond to U.S. commanders, but our U.S. commanders and our diplomatic mission there is in a consulting relationship with the government.
BASH: President Karzai is under political pressure at home to assert more control over U.S. military operations and made his position clear Sunday on CNN.
HAMID KARZAI, AFGHAN PRESIDENT: Operations that involve going to people's homes, that involves knocking on people's doors, must stop, must not be done without the permission of the Afghan government.
BASH: But the U.S. wants broad powers to pursue terror suspects. So while Mr. Bush promised consultation, a new partnership agreement suggests President Karzai did not get the control he was seeking. It said, "U.S. and coalition forces are to continue to have the freedom of action required to conduct appropriate military operations."
The two leaders took pains to talk up their special relationship, but growing grievances were hard to mask. Mr. Bush complained there is still too much illegal poppy cultivation for heroin in Afghanistan, and President Karzai also left without a pledge for more custody over Afghan prisoners held by the U.S.
Mr. Karzai said new details of alleged abuse of Afghan detainees made him "sad," but tried to downplay the significance.
KARZAI: I recognize individual acts do not reflect either on governments or on societies.
BASH: He called a retracted "Newsweek" report, U.S. interrogators desecrated the Quran a gossip column and seemed to contradict White House claims the magazine was responsible for deadly protests in his country.
KARZAI: Those demonstrations were in reality not related to the "Newsweek" story. They were more against the elections in Afghanistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: An attempt to calm emotions over that issue, President Karzai talked of his experience going to mosques in the U.S. and overall tolerance he says he has seen towards Muslims in this country, saying, "The 'Newsweek' story is not America's story" -- Lou.
DOBBS: Did President Karzai, in your opinion, exhibit knowledge that he was contravening precisely what the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the White House had said just the past week as to who was responsible for those deaths in Afghanistan?
BASH: Well, it's unclear if he knew he was apparently contradicting what we heard from the White House, Lou, but he did say quite clearly that he believes that the protests there were because of his government, and protesting his government.
I should tell you that later the White House stuck by their story. They insist still that the protests were perhaps about Afghanistan but the violence was because of "Newsweek."
DOBBS: It is also, I would think, heartening to the White House to see an independent Afghanistan government being formed and nurtured. Thank you very much. Dana Bash. BASH: Sure.
DOBBS: First lady Laura Bush is wrapping up a tour of the Middle East. She met with the wife of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and she praised the Egyptian president for introducing political reforms and promoting peace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY: It's my generation that can facilitate. My generation of Palestinians, my generation of Israelis, my generation of Egyptians that can facilitate peace here and the spread of freedom across the Middle East and across the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: After being in Israel and Jordan over the weekend, Mrs. Bush will end her visit to Egypt tomorrow and head home.
Coming up next, the Bush administration says it's not its policy for Medicaid to provide Medicaid's Viagra for sex offenders. We'll tell you why your tax dollars are paying for precisely that incomprehensible practice.
And how our wide open border with Mexico could finally be secured if the recommendations in a new congressional report are enacted.
We'll have that story for you and a great deal more coming right up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: A review of New York Medicaid recipients has led to a remarkable, almost incredible discovery in New York State. In New York -- and there is little doubt that the practice extends beyond New York -- taxpayer dollars are paying for Viagra prescriptions for some of the most dangerous sex offenders in the country.
Christine Romans joins me now and has the report -- Christine.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, it's been called a perverse use of taxpayer money. Others call it a perfect example of the bureaucracy of the federal government. And the public is absolutely outraged.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS (voice-over): This little blue pill is improving the sexual function for convicted sex offenders, and you're paying for it. New York State's controller found nearly 200 convicted sex offenders had received Medicaid-reimbursed Viagra in the past year.
These are level three sex offenders, the most likely to abuse again, some convicted for crimes against children as young as two years old. New York Senator Chuck Schumer says it's like giving convicted murders an assault rifle when they get out of prison. SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: They ought to do a thorough check and see what kind of medications is Medicaid giving out to people who shouldn't have them for one reason or another.
ROMANS: A 1998 federal mandate requires state Medicaid programs pay for Viagra like all FDA-approved medically necessary drugs. That raises ethical questions about whether this drug is medically necessary.
DAVID MAGNUS, STANFORD CENTER FOR BIOMEDICAL ETHICS: You wonder about the prescribing habits of some of the physicians who are writing scripts in these cases.
ROMANS: A spokesman for the centers for Medicare and Medicaid said, "Medicaid should not pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders, period."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: But it is. And these 200 sex offenders getting Medicaid Viagra, it's just in one state, and just one type of sexual dysfunction drug. There's little doubt that thousands of other sex offenders nationwide are taking Viagra and these drugs today at taxpayer expense.
Now, the federal government says it is going to work with the states to try to figure out a way that it can refine that language from 1998.
DOBBS: Refine that language. What kind of idiots are we talking about? How could -- the White House -- what does the administration say?
ROMANS: It was asked at the White House press briefing today, and the White House press spokesman said he hasn't brought it up with the president yet, but they're going to look into it.
DOBBS: Delightful. Incredible. Thank you.
ROMANS: You're welcome.
DOBBS: Christine Romans.
A new congressional draft report says sending thousands of National Guard troops or state militia to our border with Mexico would stop the flood of illegal aliens into this country. An estimated three million illegal aliens crossed the border with Mexico last year. The report says the Arizona minutemen should be a model for the government to protect our borders.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It might sound like a radical plan to send 36,000 National Guard troops to man the U.S.-Mexico border, but the author of a new congressional report says it's one option the Bush administration should seriously consider.
JOHN STONE, IMMIGRATION REPORT AUTHOR: We have the forces readily available through the National Guard and regular federal forces now, so there's no excuse for not securing the border immediately and then building a permanent solution once the border is secure.
SYLVESTER: The idea stems from the Minuteman Project. Nine hundred volunteers stood guard in Arizona for 30 days and border crossings dropped significantly. According to a draft Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus report, "The tide of illegal crossings on the borders of the United States is beyond unsatisfactory. It is catastrophic."
REP. CHARLES NORWOOD (R), IMMIGRATION REFORM CAUCUS: Congress is not doing the job of appropriating the money, and we need to show the willpower to protect our borders for pity sakes. And we may be the only country in the world with an open border that anybody can cross over.
SYLVESTER: Putting federal troops on the border would only be a short-term fix. Long term, the caucus recommends increasing the size of the Border Patrol from 10,000 agents to 50,000. The agents are better trained than the National Guard in immigration law and Spanish, but in the meantime the presence of the National Guard troops could send a powerful message.
STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Deploying troops on the border in this way would convey to everyone in America, in Mexico and perspective illegal aliens throughout the world, would at least get the message that, hey, America now really is going to make some attempt to enforce its laws.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Border Patrol agents are leery of the plan because they say the National Guard troops are not trained to handle sensitive immigration matters, and they are fearful any incident could quickly escalate. The Bush administration is not responding to the draft proposal -- Lou.
DOBBS: That draft proposal, and it is precisely that, why would the Border Patrol respond to this as an immigration issue? It is a border security issue first, and it seems to make perfect sense in that regard, does it not?
SYLVESTER: I think that they are concerned that -- that this would be seen as a long-term solution. They say that obviously more boots on the ground would be very helpful in various context, but what they are concerned about is you might have a situation where you would have a Border Patrol or a National Guard troop get into it with one of the illegal aliens and that that could quickly escalate. The courts would then step in, and it would take away some of the powers. But I think...
DOBBS: Excuse me, Lisa. I've just got to ask a question. You're talking about the United States of America, U.S. soil, and you are talking about people crossing our border and defending that border, somebody would get into something? I'm afraid I'm lost at that.
SYLVESTER: What they are concerned about is that if you had the National Guardsmen out there, and that they were not qualified or not trained in order to deal with some of these sensitive immigration matters, that there might be some kind of a conflict. And if there was some type of a conflict, the courts might step in, take some legal action, and actually take away some of their enforcement power.
But as you say, Lou, this is an issue of, the bottom line is, our borders need to be patrolled.
DOBBS: And people with their concerns so misplaced. And I would point out that when you talk about the Border Patrol objecting, you're talking about the executives of the Border Patrol, the management, the administration, if you will, not the border patrolmen who have told me over and over again they want help. And if it's necessary to put in the U.S. National Guard in the time it takes to raise the support and the forces to man our Border Patrol, then that seems like a reasonable beginning.
Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Would you support the deployment of U.S. troops to secure border security, yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Outrage tonight from residents, many of them in Oregon, that has prompted state officials there to move a Mexican flag out of sight in a government office. The Mexican flag has been hanging in the Oregon State Employment Office visible to all who entered the lobby. Even worse, the Mexican flag was hanging above a nearby American flag.
We remind you this is a government office, a U.S. government office, in fact. And one resident simply called it downright un- American and protested.
The Oregon Employment Office says the Mexican flag was hung in that office by an employee. It says the flag remains in the office, but it can no longer be seen by visitors. And we are assured that it hangs below the U.S. flag.
The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by a Mexican citizen on death row in Texas. Jose Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. Medellin is appealing his conviction, claiming that he and 50 other Mexican citizens now on death row were denied their legal rights from their consulates in violation of international law.
The international court of justice at the Hague ruled last year that those 51 convictions violated the 1969 Vienna Convention. President Bush ordered state courts to review the issue. The Supreme Court says it would be premature to hear that appeal until it's run its course at the state level.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the dissenting opinion, said federal courts should review the issue of whether international law should be binding on U.S. courts.
Up next, why the family of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan says the Army's investigation into their son's death was an outright sham.
And the battle over stem cells. Should your taxpayer dollars be used to fund stem cell research? I'll be talking with four top members of Congress at the center of this debate still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Four American troops have been killed in a new wave of insurgent attacks in Iraq. A fifth American soldier was killed in a vehicle accident. 1,635 American troops have now been killed in Iraq since the war began.
Insurgents today also launched new attacks against Iraqis. A car bomb outside a Baghdad restaurant killed at least 10 people. Insurgents also attacked a mosque in that city. Two people were killed in that attack.
In the north of the country, 15 Iraqis were killed in a double car bomb attack. More than 20 others wounded.
Almost 150 U.S. troops have been killed fighting radical Islamists in Afghanistan. One of those soldiers, former NFL star Pat Tillman. He was killed in a friendly fire incident. Tillman's family has told "The Washington Post" the Army investigations into his death were a sham and full of lies.
Jamie McIntyre reports -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, that Army investigation found that while there was no official intent to hide the truth, the delay in notifying the family and others that Pat Tillman's death was the results of friendly fire caused what it said was an atmosphere of suspicion. That suspicion is deepening.
His mother and father telling "The Washington Post" now they believe the Army intentionally lied as part of a cover-up. Tillman's father, Patrick Sr., told "The Post," "They realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a hand basket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."
Tillman was a 27-year-old defensive back for the Atlanta Cardinals when he turned down a $3.6 million pro-football deal to serve his country after September 11. The Army knew very quickly after this incident that he had not died in an exchange of gunfire with Taliban fighters but in a friendly fire incident. But they didn't announce it for more than a month. That was after his memorial service that took place in Arizona. The -- in response to the angry comments from the family, the Army gave CNN a statement today. It says in part, "The Army reaffirms it's sadness for the family. The Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death. For these we apologize. We cannot undo the early mistakes."
It went on to say, "In the 393 days since his death the Army actively and directly informed the Tillman family, keeping them apprised of the results of three separate investigations to answer questions with candor and completeness."
But the Army does admit it made a number of mistakes, among them keeping Tillman's brother in the dark. He was a fellow Ranger, part of the unit and there at the time, and he wasn't told until a month later what happened to his brother -- Lou.
DOBBS: Has the U.S. Army held accountable those responsible for the decision to withhold the information from the family and for all the pain that has ensued since?
MCINTYRE: Well, some of the soldiers who were involved in the incident have been disciplined, but the family doesn't believe they have gotten nearly the discipline they thought. And no one has been held accountable or found negligent for withholding the information.
The official explanation is they wanted to make sure they had all the facts. But they admit in retrospect that they waited far too long.
DOBBS: And for any soldier this would be incomprehensible and simply unacceptable. Pat Tillman displaying great sacrifice and patriotism. Has the secretary of defense offered any statement, has the White House?
MCINTYRE: The secretary of defense has not gotten involved with this. It's all been handled by the -- by the Army.
DOBBS: Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon. Thank you.
Coming up next here, should taxpayers be funding embryonic stem cell research? The sponsors of legislation that would raise federal funding for stem cell research, we'll debate two congressmen who are strongly opposed to their legislation.
And Reverend Al Sharpton meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox about his controversial comments about African-Americans. Reverend Sharpton joins us tonight from Mexico City.
Also tonight, cheap Chinese imports choking our ports. Union leaders say their workers are overwhelmed. And all of that combines to create a threat to our national security.
That story and a great deal more still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: The battle over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is being waged on Capitol Hill this week. A new CNN/"USA Today" Gallup poll released this hour shows just how contested this issue is in the country.
When asked what the government should do about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, 53 percent of the respondents said there should be no restrictions or an easing of restrictions; 43 percent said the restrictions should remain the same or funding should be stopped altogether.
Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle are co- sponsors of a bill in the House to lift President Bush's ban on the use of federal dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. President Bush said he would veto any bill that expands public funding for embryonic research. It would be the first veto of his presidency.
Joining me now from Capitol Hill are Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle. They say embryonic stem cell research is critical to advance science that may help cure disease. Congressman Dave Weldon and Congressman Bart Stupak want to kill the DeGette- Castle legislation. They say embryonic stem cell research has not proven anything yet, and taxpayers should not be forced to fund what they call the destruction of human embryos.
Congressmen and women -- or woman I should say -- good to have you with us.
REP. DIANA DEGETTE (D), COLORADO: Great being here.
DOBBS: Let me start with you, Congresswoman DeGette. Why is it important? There is private financing for embryonic stem cell research, there is research going on around the country. Why is it so important in your mind, and you, Congressman Castle, to move forward with this legislation?
DEGETTE: Embryonic stem cell research holds tremendous promise for curing diseases that affect tens of millions of Americans -- diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's.
In 2001, the president issued an executive order that severely limited this research, and not only has the federal role been greatly limited, which has caused the research to be held back, but also we don't have federal ethical standards.
What Mike Castle and I want to do, we want to allow couples who are already going through in vitro fertilization to donate the embryos which are part of that technique but left over and would be thrown away. We think if those couples agree, if they consent to having them be used for research, then the majority of Americans, as we saw in your poll, think that that should be appropriate. And the promise of embryonic stem cell research is great for millions of Americans.
DOBBS: Congressman Weldon, you don't agree with that. In point of fact, you strongly object because embryonic stem cell research has really not been applied for human disease, is that your position? REP. DAVE WELDON (R), FLORIDA: Well, absolutely. I'm a physician. I still see patients. I have been practicing medicine for 25 years. As a matter of fact, I typically grab some medical journals and read them on the plane as I fly here to Washington. Here's one of them that I read on the flight up here. Nice article about cord blood stem cells treating a very bad pediatric condition. I have yet to see an article on embryonic stem cells.
And I hired a Ph.D researcher to work in my office and comb not the medical literature, but the rat and mouse literature, and they don't really even have a good model of treating an animal disease with embryonic stem cells.
And I think this is really a lot of hype, in my opinion, and most of the promise is in adult and cord blood stem cells.
DOBBS: Congressman Castle, I want you, if you would, to respond to Congressman Weldon, but first, if we could put up a quote from President Bush expressing his strong opposition, saying "I am a strong supporter of adult stem cell research, of course. But I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life -- I'm against that."
First, you're breaking with your president, the same party, and actually going strongly against his beliefs and the majority of the members in the House and their position. Why?
REP. MIKE CASTLE (R), DELAWARE: Well, hopefully not a majority of members in the House, but just the Republican members.
DOBBS: Well, the Republican members I should have said.
CASTLE: But here's why, Lou. There's 110 million people out there who are suffering from diseases that could be helped by embryonic stem cell research. They have only been around for about six years in the discovery stage. Adult stem cells have been around for about 30 years.
They do solve some things, but of the 15 diseases that kill the most Americans, it can only apply to one, really blood type diseases, if you will.
Embryonic stem cell research, by the word of all the scientists, researchers out there, has tremendous promise in -- to move forward to be able to prevent diseases, to be able to cure diseases potentially.
And sure, it's potential. And sure, it's research. But we have $28 billion a year going to the NIH right now. And if we can take that money and we can really make this work, as the hope is, think of all the people out there who might have a greater opportunity in life.
To me, there's absolutely no question whatsoever about what we should be doing. And I would agree that we haven't advanced it as far as we will at some point in the future, but in terms of the number of years and the advances which have been made, it's a pretty good track record.
So this is the right thing to do. And I would hope that we can start it tomorrow and finish it sometime in the near future.
DOBBS: Congressman Stupak, as Congressman Castle says, it begins tomorrow. Why are you fighting so hard against this? And do you accept what Congressman Castle has just said?
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: No, I don't accept what Congressman Castle said. There's a lot of research going on on stem cells that is not funded by the federal government. A lot of us believe we should not have the federal government funding research to create life only to destroy life later on.
I think there's a far greater ethical value issue that we have to ask here. Do we, in fact, create human life, which you do through embryonic stem cells, only to manipulate it, to research it? We think not. We think very strongly about that. And that's an issue that we should have a debate on. Unfortunately, tomorrow's debate will be limited to about just over two hours. But I think as a country, I sat through -- and I know Dave and a lot of us went through the cloning legislation. And the hearings we had on that were just excellent about medical ethics, and just who we are as a people, and does the United States want to be a leader in values? And -- or are we just going to be a leader in scientific research, no matter what the cost, or what we manipulate to meet our ends?
We think that there's a line you should not cross. Should not create human life merely to destroy it in hope of some research, when you have other valuable areas we should be researching, as Congressman Weldon said, the adult stem cell area.
DOBBS: Congresswoman DeGette, the fact is, after the South Korean announcement, Senator Arlen Specter said just point blank that he is concerned -- and this is not obviously meant to encapsulize all of the ethical issues and everything else, but he said, quote, "The United States is being left farther behind every day." Is that your sense of what is at stake here?
DEGETTE: Yes, this research is going on as it is. And no one can deny this research is going on. We need to make sure that the research is open and robust, and that it has strict ethical standards, which is what our bill does.
It's important to remember what this research is. It's embryos which are created already for in vitro fertilization techniques, and which will be thrown away. And many of my pro-life supporters say, is it more ethical to just throw away those embryos, or to allow the patients to donate them for research that could cure diseases that affect tens of millions of Americans?
DOBBS: Congressman Weldon, would you -- would you agree with that assessment?
WELDON: Well, the critical issue here is the research involves killing a human embryo. There are no restrictions on private entities funding this research. The state of California is putting tens of millions of dollars into this research -- the state of New Jersey, Harvard University. The critical issue here is, you have millions and millions of taxpayers who are pro-life, who object to this kind of research who are being asked to help foot the bill for this and a lot of us in Washington feel that we should not go in this direction, and I feel very, very strongly that this research is going the same way that fetal tissue research went 10 years ago. We had the same debates. A lot of the same people who are getting up advocating for this, make the same bogus claims that fetal tissue research was going to cure everything. If you look at the research, it's highly questionable.
DOBBS: And, Congressman Stupak, the fact is, as Congresswoman DeGette said, those embryos are, simply -- become medical waste. Does that in any way mitigate your view about ending life to save life?
STUPAK: No, no, they weren't created to be medical waste. They were created for reproduction, to create human life. That's what they are there for. They were not created, these embryos in the IV clinics, were not created for research or for medical science. They were created for life. You destroyed the very purpose for what it was intended to for.
DOBBS: We're going to have to end right there. We thank you very much and obviously look forward to the debate and the vote. Thank you very much. Congressman Weldon...
WELDON: Thank you.
DOBBS: ...Congressman Castle, Congressman DeGette, Congressman Stupak, thank you very much
In the wake of debates over stem cells and the filibuster, one might say politics have become somewhat polarized in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Tonight's "Quote of the Day" is on the current political climate in Washington. It comes from none other than the governor of the state of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, who said, quote, "I have a 72-hour rule. If I stay in Washington for more than 72 hours, I have to bathe myself in the same stuff I use when one of my dogs gets into a fight with a skunk -- stuff to get the smell out." Governor Schweitzer will be our guest here tomorrow evening. I think he will probably be more welcome here than he will be in Washington after saying that, but he's certainly welcome here.
And, demanding an apology from Mexico's president: I'll be joined by Reverend Al Sharpton who's just finished his meeting with President Vicente Fox. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: And, this just in to CNN. Another scare at the Capitol tonight. A small aircraft entered restricted airspace over Washington for the second time this month. Fighter jets were scrambled to escort the plane out of restricted airspace. Officials have issued an all- clear now for the Capitol. We'll be, of course, following the story and bringing you the latest developments throughout the evening here on CNN.
The Reverend Al Sharpton has demanded an apology from Mexican President Vicente fox for Fox's comments about American blacks. Last week, President Fox said Mexican citizens have taken jobs in the United States that, as he put it, not even blacks will do. Just hours ago, Reverend Sharpton met with President Fox in Mexico City and Reverend Sharpton joins us now from Mexico City.
Good to have you with us. Did you get your apology?
REV. AL SHARPTON, PRES., NAT'L ACTION NETWORK: No, we didn't. In fact, I told the president that his statement, that he regretted what he said if it hurt someone or offended someone because it was misinterpreted, was unacceptable. The fact of the matter is that what he said I don't think can lend to any misinterpretation. It is very clear in my mind -- in fact, I told him I come from Brooklyn, New York, and we have an expression there, to -- don't pee pee in my face and call it rain, and that's what his regret sounded like.
We did talk about other things. I talked to him about racism here in Mexico and in the United States. We talked about how there's the perception that he's driving some of his poor out of the country, encouraging them to go to the United States and competing with jobs for workers both Latino, African-American, as well as white, in the United States, and that we had to deal with immigration policy that has dealt with failure on both sides of the border and protect American workers, as well as get just paid wages for those of Mexican decent, which he should be concerned about. We also...
DOBBS: Did he express -- did he express -- did he share your concern about that very fact?
SHARPTON: He said that he had concern, but we said we must demonstrate it. I raised to him the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill that's being proposed. I intend to meet with Senator Kennedy on Washington on Wednesday around that bill, and there must be an effort to put legislation in that brings balance, and protects American workers as well as Mexican migrant workers and others that come to the United States.
We also talked about exchange between African-Americans and Mexicans. I said he should come to Harlem where 50 percent of black men are unemployed and he accepted my invitation to come. I want the "New York Amsterdam News, (ph)" our largest weekly, to host him. He needs to see the people he offended and that he referred to. He needs to talk about doing some technical training. I was at Wayne County Community College in Michigan yesterday, who are willing to train people of Mexican decent. We need to deal with the substance of the issue and I think we had a very blunt and frank discussion. I did not come to be placated. I wanted him to know our outrage and feel that (ph).
DOBBS: Your first statement suggests to me that the State Department would've describe your conversation as a full and frank exchange of views. At the same time, when you told President Fox that his citizens, Hispanics, were taking jobs from our citizens, Hispanics, as demonstrated by the Pew Hispanic Center's research just a month ago, what did he say?
SHARPTON: He said that's why we need dialogue and he said that he concurred with me that we cannot have those in business play a slave-wage type of job to Mexicans against jobs for Americans. I think that that is a crucial part of this. The speech that he made -- the statement that he made was him being passionate about, we need new immigration, but part of that has to be that -- there cannot be the perceived blessing of this administration in Mexico to send people into the United States into a job market that they know there are no wages and no job security for them.
DOBBS: Well, as you know, Reverend Sharpton, in my judgment you are at the center of -- the center of half of the problem, and that is that President Fox and the government of Mexico are running U.S. immigration policy right now.
The other half, of course, is on this side of the border, where the businesses that are exploiting illegal aliens and they're -- to require labor, the other half of the problem. All of those problems, as you say can be solved by dialogue, but just perhaps seeking the national interest on this side of the border would be helpful.
We thank you for sharing your views and extending the national interest there. Look forward to talking to you.
SHARPTON: All right. Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you, Reverend Al Sharpton from Mexico City.
Coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, "ANDERSON COOPER 360." Anderson has a preview for us -- Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Lou, thanks very much. Yeah, about 10 minutes from now on "360," the transformation of Laura Bush from wife in the background to woman on the world stage. We're going to look at the evolution of the first lady.
Also ahead tonight, school bus beating. A driver caught on tape getting physical with unruly students. Question is: Did he cross the line or did the kids have it coming? We're covering all the angles.
And finding relief in pins and needles. Talking about acupuncture, does it really work? "360" MD Sanjay Gupta investigates. That and more at the top of the hour -- Lou.
DOBBS: Looking forward to it. Thank you, Anderson.
And a reminder to vote in our poll tonight. Would you support the deployment of U.S. troops to secure our borders? Yes or no? Cast your vote please at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up at the end of the broadcast.
Still ahead -- is the flood of cheap Chinese imports into this country threatening our national security as well as our economic security? We'll have a special report for you. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: U.S. so-called free trade policies have, of course, resulted in record trade deficits, but also it's resulted in our nation's ports bulging with cheap Chinese imports. The deluge of imports, labor leaders now say, is making it all but impossible for workers to keep up with the flood of goods and strict security standards. And port security, they say, is all but impossible. Casey Wian has our special report from Long Beach, California.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Leaders of longshoremen's unions from nations throughout the Pacific Rim say there's a clear connection between a flood of cheap Chinese imports and growing threats to national security.
JAMES SPINOSA, PRESIDENT, ILWU: The influx of cargo that's coming in now from China is overwhelming, and it will continue to grow. It's creating a monumental problem at the terminals, and especially for our workforce. We find ourselves having to go 24/7, as an example, to accommodate the cargo, and working under very, very unsafe situations.
WIAN: Union leaders are meeting at the world's third busiest port complex to draw attention to improvements needed in port security and infrastructure. They say more cargo containers should be physically inspected, and they want longshoremen involved in the process. They also want global shipping companies to help pay for port expansions, and they want better trade deals.
RICHARD TRUMKA, SECRETARY TREASURER, AFL-CIO: We need trade agreements that will help workers, and not just bloat the already bloated profits of multinational corporations.
WIAN: The number of jobs at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have doubled in less than five years, mainly because imports from China are booming.
Unions outside the United States also say China is a problem, because it's depressing wages and working conditions.
PADDY CRUMLIN, MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA: That's why we are under the hammer, because there's no room in free trade for the worker. There's no room in free trade for strong unions. So what we're going to tell them is it's not free trade, it will be fair trade.
WIAN: Also on the agenda, the environmental impact of port congestion. Cargo backlogs, increasingly common in recent years, result in fuel discharge from container ships, and air pollution from idling trucks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: Perhaps the most startling claim is the one made by longshoremen's union leader Spinosa, who says that port security now is no better than it was on 9/11. He says his members still occasionally find Chinese illegal aliens smuggled in empty shipping containers -- Lou.
DOBBS: Are the -- labor unions, are they working with Homeland Security now any better than they were before, say, September 11th?
WIAN: Doesn't seem like the relationship has gotten any better. The union leaders say they want a bigger role in homeland security, in inspecting those containers. They say before 9/11, a lot more of the containers were inspected. The empty ones aren't even being inspected now. They say that's a danger to their members and a danger to the country, Lou.
DOBBS: Indeed, thank you very much. Casey Wian from the port of Long Beach.
Still ahead here, we'll have the results of tonight's poll, and a preview of what's ahead here tomorrow. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of tonight's poll, overwhelming: 92 percent of you say you would support the deployment of U.S. troops to assure border security; 8 percent said no.
We thank you for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Senator Pat Roberts, the powerful chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, will be our guest. He's fighting to expand the federal government's investigative powers. He's our guest. And the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza is also our guest. She will be here to discuss immigration, education reform, and of course, border security. And Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana is tired of politics in Washington. He will be here to talk about that. Please join us.
For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now -- Anderson.
COOPER: Lou, thanks very much.
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 May 23, 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: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, is an embryo a human life? Should federal dollars be paying for embryonic stem cell research? The sponsors of legislation to fund such research will be here tonight to debate with two other congressmen who want to kill the legislation.
And our national security threatened by seaports overrun with cheap Chinese imports. Union leaders say the United States must act now to protect our ports from terrorists. We'll have a special report.
And the Reverend Al Sharpton will join us. Reverend Sharpton today meeting with President Vicente Fox of Mexico, demanding an apology for offensive comments about black Americans.
The U.S. Senate is our top story tonight. In the fight over filibusters, bipartisan civility ended weeks ago. Last-minute efforts to reach a compromise that would save the filibuster and prevent an up-and-down vote on judicial appointments appears to have failed. Cots and blankets have been sent into the Senate in preparation for an all-night debate. Tomorrow, senators will vote on the filibuster.
Joe Johns reports on history in the making.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The ceremonial arrival of the sleeping cots at the Capitol signaled a protracted debate: the intention of the congressional leadership to work late into the night, even all night. Putting a finer point on it, Majority Leader Bill Frist went to the floor just before noon, arguing the Senate has spent enough time debating the judicial nomination of Priscilla Owen.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: And today marks the 20th day of Senate floor debate on Justice Owen's nomination. We have spent more floor time on Priscilla Owen than on all the sitting Supreme Court justices combined.
JOHNS: With the votes to end debate and kill the filibusters for judicial nominees likely to occur in less than 24 hours, President Bush himself kept up the pressure.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I expect them to get an up-or--down vote. That's what I expect. And I think the American people expect that, as well. They ought to have a fair hearing, and they ought to get an up-or-down vote on the floor
JOHNS: Talks to head off the showdown were expected to continue Monday evening, but the Democratic leader was pessimistic.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: I would hope that something can still be worked out, but I think each day that goes by the possibility is less. I think the odds of something being worked out now are very, very remote.
JOHNS: The Senate's senior Democrat who was involved in last week's talks was already expressing resignation.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: That we would even come to a moment such as this, sad, sad, sad, sad it is.
JOHNS: And Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, whose husband was once majority leader, praised the current leader, but included a note of inevitability.
SEN. ELIZABETH DOLE (R), NORTH CAROLINA: So let the record be clear. The majority leader has pursued compromise with vigor, and he should be commended for doing so. But, of course, when compromise fails, action must take its place.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS: A vote is scheduled noon tomorrow, or at least expected, to try to cut off debate. Negotiations do continue. A meeting scheduled for this hour. Senator John McCain saying it could be the last chance -- Lou.
DOBBS: Joe, thank you very much. Joe Johns from Capitol Hill.
And where does the public stand on the issue of filibusters and judicial nominations? The latest CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll shows a majority of voters disgusted with leaders of both parties, but narrowly favoring ending the filibuster. The CNN poll also shows President Bush's approval rating has fallen to near the lowest of his presidency.
Bill Schneider reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): President Bush's numbers continue to drop. The president's current job approval rating, 46 percent. Half the public disapproves of the way President Bush is handling his job. That's the president's worst rating in over a year. What's the problem?
BUSH: We're going to permanently solve the Social Security issue so you can grow up with peace of mind.
SCHNEIDER: Not working. Fifty-nine percent now disapprove of the president's handling of Social Security. Eleven points higher than in early February, when the President started his Social Security campaign.
And on the economy?
BUSH: The economy is getting better. Today we got some good news. We added 262,000 new jobs last month.
SCHNEIDER: Not much celebration. Fifty-eight percent disapprove of the way the President is handling the economy, the worst all year.
How about Iraq?
BUSH: And I'm confident we're making great progress in Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: The public is not. Fifty-six percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
Does President Bush get a positive rating on anything?
BUSH: America is answering new dangers with firm resolve.
SCHNEIDER: Yes. The President continues to get high marks for his handling of terrorism. But terrorism may have faded in importance.
A whopping 57 percent of Americans say they disagree with George W. Bush on the issues that matter most to them. That number has never been higher than 51 percent.
President Bush won't be on the battle again. Congress will. And the Senate is facing the great filibuster debate.
Most Americans do not want the Senate to change its rules. Republicans say that's not the issue.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: The issue is not cloture votes per se. It's the partisan leadership-led use of cloture vote to kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees.
SCHNEIDER: Oh, yes it is, say Democrats.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: The Senate's tradition and its rules protect debate and guarantee that we can't be trampled upon.
SCHNEIDER: Advantage? Democrats. By 48-40 percent, the public favors the Democratic over the Republican side in the filibuster debate.
Asked whether the country would be better off if the Republicans or the Democrats controlled Congress, the public gives the Democrats an 11-point edge. The last time people gave the Democrats that big an edge was in December 1998.
What did the GOP Congress do in December 1998? They impeached President Bill Clinton.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: In the latest "Wall Street Journal"-NBC News poll, a majority of Americans say they disapprove of the job Congress is doing. That's the first time a majority has felt that way since 1994.
And you know what happened to Congress in 1994? The voters booted the Democratic majority out -- Lou.
DOBBS: And something called a Contract with America was formed and carried out as policy. Do you believe we're looking at that kind of incredible profound shift as a result of what appears to be the public sentiment, Bill?
SCHNEIDER: Well, there are real danger signs for Republicans right now. But one thing that they have going for them, it's a year and a half -- a year and a half before the next congressional election. A year and a half is several lifetimes in politics.
DOBBS: And the next most important question I would think is, given these poll numbers, do you think the Democrats and the Republicans are smart enough to pay heed that they are out of step with their constituents?
SCHNEIDER: Well, they may be out of step with most voters, but they tend to pay attention, particularly in the House, but in the Senate, too, to their base. The Republicans to their conservative base, the Democrats to their liberal base. And in this case, I think on the filibuster issue they are listening to the militants in both parties who are saying do not compromise.
DOBBS: Well, perhaps then they will have an opportunity to hear from their constituents broadly come 2006. Bill Schneider, thank you.
SCHNEIDER: Sure.
DOBBS: President Bush showed no signs of concern about those latest poll numbers when he held a news conference with the president of Afghanistan today. Hamid Karzai wants control of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. President Bush told him no.
Dana Bash reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three- and-a-half years after American forces helped drive the Taliban out of his country, Hamid Karzai came to the White House to tell the president it's time he has more say over U.S. troops there, but got no promises.
BUSH: Of course our troops will respond to U.S. commanders, but our U.S. commanders and our diplomatic mission there is in a consulting relationship with the government.
BASH: President Karzai is under political pressure at home to assert more control over U.S. military operations and made his position clear Sunday on CNN.
HAMID KARZAI, AFGHAN PRESIDENT: Operations that involve going to people's homes, that involves knocking on people's doors, must stop, must not be done without the permission of the Afghan government.
BASH: But the U.S. wants broad powers to pursue terror suspects. So while Mr. Bush promised consultation, a new partnership agreement suggests President Karzai did not get the control he was seeking. It said, "U.S. and coalition forces are to continue to have the freedom of action required to conduct appropriate military operations."
The two leaders took pains to talk up their special relationship, but growing grievances were hard to mask. Mr. Bush complained there is still too much illegal poppy cultivation for heroin in Afghanistan, and President Karzai also left without a pledge for more custody over Afghan prisoners held by the U.S.
Mr. Karzai said new details of alleged abuse of Afghan detainees made him "sad," but tried to downplay the significance.
KARZAI: I recognize individual acts do not reflect either on governments or on societies.
BASH: He called a retracted "Newsweek" report, U.S. interrogators desecrated the Quran a gossip column and seemed to contradict White House claims the magazine was responsible for deadly protests in his country.
KARZAI: Those demonstrations were in reality not related to the "Newsweek" story. They were more against the elections in Afghanistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: An attempt to calm emotions over that issue, President Karzai talked of his experience going to mosques in the U.S. and overall tolerance he says he has seen towards Muslims in this country, saying, "The 'Newsweek' story is not America's story" -- Lou.
DOBBS: Did President Karzai, in your opinion, exhibit knowledge that he was contravening precisely what the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the White House had said just the past week as to who was responsible for those deaths in Afghanistan?
BASH: Well, it's unclear if he knew he was apparently contradicting what we heard from the White House, Lou, but he did say quite clearly that he believes that the protests there were because of his government, and protesting his government.
I should tell you that later the White House stuck by their story. They insist still that the protests were perhaps about Afghanistan but the violence was because of "Newsweek."
DOBBS: It is also, I would think, heartening to the White House to see an independent Afghanistan government being formed and nurtured. Thank you very much. Dana Bash. BASH: Sure.
DOBBS: First lady Laura Bush is wrapping up a tour of the Middle East. She met with the wife of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and she praised the Egyptian president for introducing political reforms and promoting peace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY: It's my generation that can facilitate. My generation of Palestinians, my generation of Israelis, my generation of Egyptians that can facilitate peace here and the spread of freedom across the Middle East and across the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: After being in Israel and Jordan over the weekend, Mrs. Bush will end her visit to Egypt tomorrow and head home.
Coming up next, the Bush administration says it's not its policy for Medicaid to provide Medicaid's Viagra for sex offenders. We'll tell you why your tax dollars are paying for precisely that incomprehensible practice.
And how our wide open border with Mexico could finally be secured if the recommendations in a new congressional report are enacted.
We'll have that story for you and a great deal more coming right up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: A review of New York Medicaid recipients has led to a remarkable, almost incredible discovery in New York State. In New York -- and there is little doubt that the practice extends beyond New York -- taxpayer dollars are paying for Viagra prescriptions for some of the most dangerous sex offenders in the country.
Christine Romans joins me now and has the report -- Christine.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, it's been called a perverse use of taxpayer money. Others call it a perfect example of the bureaucracy of the federal government. And the public is absolutely outraged.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS (voice-over): This little blue pill is improving the sexual function for convicted sex offenders, and you're paying for it. New York State's controller found nearly 200 convicted sex offenders had received Medicaid-reimbursed Viagra in the past year.
These are level three sex offenders, the most likely to abuse again, some convicted for crimes against children as young as two years old. New York Senator Chuck Schumer says it's like giving convicted murders an assault rifle when they get out of prison. SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: They ought to do a thorough check and see what kind of medications is Medicaid giving out to people who shouldn't have them for one reason or another.
ROMANS: A 1998 federal mandate requires state Medicaid programs pay for Viagra like all FDA-approved medically necessary drugs. That raises ethical questions about whether this drug is medically necessary.
DAVID MAGNUS, STANFORD CENTER FOR BIOMEDICAL ETHICS: You wonder about the prescribing habits of some of the physicians who are writing scripts in these cases.
ROMANS: A spokesman for the centers for Medicare and Medicaid said, "Medicaid should not pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders, period."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: But it is. And these 200 sex offenders getting Medicaid Viagra, it's just in one state, and just one type of sexual dysfunction drug. There's little doubt that thousands of other sex offenders nationwide are taking Viagra and these drugs today at taxpayer expense.
Now, the federal government says it is going to work with the states to try to figure out a way that it can refine that language from 1998.
DOBBS: Refine that language. What kind of idiots are we talking about? How could -- the White House -- what does the administration say?
ROMANS: It was asked at the White House press briefing today, and the White House press spokesman said he hasn't brought it up with the president yet, but they're going to look into it.
DOBBS: Delightful. Incredible. Thank you.
ROMANS: You're welcome.
DOBBS: Christine Romans.
A new congressional draft report says sending thousands of National Guard troops or state militia to our border with Mexico would stop the flood of illegal aliens into this country. An estimated three million illegal aliens crossed the border with Mexico last year. The report says the Arizona minutemen should be a model for the government to protect our borders.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It might sound like a radical plan to send 36,000 National Guard troops to man the U.S.-Mexico border, but the author of a new congressional report says it's one option the Bush administration should seriously consider.
JOHN STONE, IMMIGRATION REPORT AUTHOR: We have the forces readily available through the National Guard and regular federal forces now, so there's no excuse for not securing the border immediately and then building a permanent solution once the border is secure.
SYLVESTER: The idea stems from the Minuteman Project. Nine hundred volunteers stood guard in Arizona for 30 days and border crossings dropped significantly. According to a draft Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus report, "The tide of illegal crossings on the borders of the United States is beyond unsatisfactory. It is catastrophic."
REP. CHARLES NORWOOD (R), IMMIGRATION REFORM CAUCUS: Congress is not doing the job of appropriating the money, and we need to show the willpower to protect our borders for pity sakes. And we may be the only country in the world with an open border that anybody can cross over.
SYLVESTER: Putting federal troops on the border would only be a short-term fix. Long term, the caucus recommends increasing the size of the Border Patrol from 10,000 agents to 50,000. The agents are better trained than the National Guard in immigration law and Spanish, but in the meantime the presence of the National Guard troops could send a powerful message.
STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Deploying troops on the border in this way would convey to everyone in America, in Mexico and perspective illegal aliens throughout the world, would at least get the message that, hey, America now really is going to make some attempt to enforce its laws.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Border Patrol agents are leery of the plan because they say the National Guard troops are not trained to handle sensitive immigration matters, and they are fearful any incident could quickly escalate. The Bush administration is not responding to the draft proposal -- Lou.
DOBBS: That draft proposal, and it is precisely that, why would the Border Patrol respond to this as an immigration issue? It is a border security issue first, and it seems to make perfect sense in that regard, does it not?
SYLVESTER: I think that they are concerned that -- that this would be seen as a long-term solution. They say that obviously more boots on the ground would be very helpful in various context, but what they are concerned about is you might have a situation where you would have a Border Patrol or a National Guard troop get into it with one of the illegal aliens and that that could quickly escalate. The courts would then step in, and it would take away some of the powers. But I think...
DOBBS: Excuse me, Lisa. I've just got to ask a question. You're talking about the United States of America, U.S. soil, and you are talking about people crossing our border and defending that border, somebody would get into something? I'm afraid I'm lost at that.
SYLVESTER: What they are concerned about is that if you had the National Guardsmen out there, and that they were not qualified or not trained in order to deal with some of these sensitive immigration matters, that there might be some kind of a conflict. And if there was some type of a conflict, the courts might step in, take some legal action, and actually take away some of their enforcement power.
But as you say, Lou, this is an issue of, the bottom line is, our borders need to be patrolled.
DOBBS: And people with their concerns so misplaced. And I would point out that when you talk about the Border Patrol objecting, you're talking about the executives of the Border Patrol, the management, the administration, if you will, not the border patrolmen who have told me over and over again they want help. And if it's necessary to put in the U.S. National Guard in the time it takes to raise the support and the forces to man our Border Patrol, then that seems like a reasonable beginning.
Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Would you support the deployment of U.S. troops to secure border security, yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Outrage tonight from residents, many of them in Oregon, that has prompted state officials there to move a Mexican flag out of sight in a government office. The Mexican flag has been hanging in the Oregon State Employment Office visible to all who entered the lobby. Even worse, the Mexican flag was hanging above a nearby American flag.
We remind you this is a government office, a U.S. government office, in fact. And one resident simply called it downright un- American and protested.
The Oregon Employment Office says the Mexican flag was hung in that office by an employee. It says the flag remains in the office, but it can no longer be seen by visitors. And we are assured that it hangs below the U.S. flag.
The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by a Mexican citizen on death row in Texas. Jose Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. Medellin is appealing his conviction, claiming that he and 50 other Mexican citizens now on death row were denied their legal rights from their consulates in violation of international law.
The international court of justice at the Hague ruled last year that those 51 convictions violated the 1969 Vienna Convention. President Bush ordered state courts to review the issue. The Supreme Court says it would be premature to hear that appeal until it's run its course at the state level.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the dissenting opinion, said federal courts should review the issue of whether international law should be binding on U.S. courts.
Up next, why the family of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan says the Army's investigation into their son's death was an outright sham.
And the battle over stem cells. Should your taxpayer dollars be used to fund stem cell research? I'll be talking with four top members of Congress at the center of this debate still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Four American troops have been killed in a new wave of insurgent attacks in Iraq. A fifth American soldier was killed in a vehicle accident. 1,635 American troops have now been killed in Iraq since the war began.
Insurgents today also launched new attacks against Iraqis. A car bomb outside a Baghdad restaurant killed at least 10 people. Insurgents also attacked a mosque in that city. Two people were killed in that attack.
In the north of the country, 15 Iraqis were killed in a double car bomb attack. More than 20 others wounded.
Almost 150 U.S. troops have been killed fighting radical Islamists in Afghanistan. One of those soldiers, former NFL star Pat Tillman. He was killed in a friendly fire incident. Tillman's family has told "The Washington Post" the Army investigations into his death were a sham and full of lies.
Jamie McIntyre reports -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, that Army investigation found that while there was no official intent to hide the truth, the delay in notifying the family and others that Pat Tillman's death was the results of friendly fire caused what it said was an atmosphere of suspicion. That suspicion is deepening.
His mother and father telling "The Washington Post" now they believe the Army intentionally lied as part of a cover-up. Tillman's father, Patrick Sr., told "The Post," "They realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a hand basket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."
Tillman was a 27-year-old defensive back for the Atlanta Cardinals when he turned down a $3.6 million pro-football deal to serve his country after September 11. The Army knew very quickly after this incident that he had not died in an exchange of gunfire with Taliban fighters but in a friendly fire incident. But they didn't announce it for more than a month. That was after his memorial service that took place in Arizona. The -- in response to the angry comments from the family, the Army gave CNN a statement today. It says in part, "The Army reaffirms it's sadness for the family. The Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death. For these we apologize. We cannot undo the early mistakes."
It went on to say, "In the 393 days since his death the Army actively and directly informed the Tillman family, keeping them apprised of the results of three separate investigations to answer questions with candor and completeness."
But the Army does admit it made a number of mistakes, among them keeping Tillman's brother in the dark. He was a fellow Ranger, part of the unit and there at the time, and he wasn't told until a month later what happened to his brother -- Lou.
DOBBS: Has the U.S. Army held accountable those responsible for the decision to withhold the information from the family and for all the pain that has ensued since?
MCINTYRE: Well, some of the soldiers who were involved in the incident have been disciplined, but the family doesn't believe they have gotten nearly the discipline they thought. And no one has been held accountable or found negligent for withholding the information.
The official explanation is they wanted to make sure they had all the facts. But they admit in retrospect that they waited far too long.
DOBBS: And for any soldier this would be incomprehensible and simply unacceptable. Pat Tillman displaying great sacrifice and patriotism. Has the secretary of defense offered any statement, has the White House?
MCINTYRE: The secretary of defense has not gotten involved with this. It's all been handled by the -- by the Army.
DOBBS: Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon. Thank you.
Coming up next here, should taxpayers be funding embryonic stem cell research? The sponsors of legislation that would raise federal funding for stem cell research, we'll debate two congressmen who are strongly opposed to their legislation.
And Reverend Al Sharpton meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox about his controversial comments about African-Americans. Reverend Sharpton joins us tonight from Mexico City.
Also tonight, cheap Chinese imports choking our ports. Union leaders say their workers are overwhelmed. And all of that combines to create a threat to our national security.
That story and a great deal more still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: The battle over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is being waged on Capitol Hill this week. A new CNN/"USA Today" Gallup poll released this hour shows just how contested this issue is in the country.
When asked what the government should do about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, 53 percent of the respondents said there should be no restrictions or an easing of restrictions; 43 percent said the restrictions should remain the same or funding should be stopped altogether.
Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle are co- sponsors of a bill in the House to lift President Bush's ban on the use of federal dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. President Bush said he would veto any bill that expands public funding for embryonic research. It would be the first veto of his presidency.
Joining me now from Capitol Hill are Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle. They say embryonic stem cell research is critical to advance science that may help cure disease. Congressman Dave Weldon and Congressman Bart Stupak want to kill the DeGette- Castle legislation. They say embryonic stem cell research has not proven anything yet, and taxpayers should not be forced to fund what they call the destruction of human embryos.
Congressmen and women -- or woman I should say -- good to have you with us.
REP. DIANA DEGETTE (D), COLORADO: Great being here.
DOBBS: Let me start with you, Congresswoman DeGette. Why is it important? There is private financing for embryonic stem cell research, there is research going on around the country. Why is it so important in your mind, and you, Congressman Castle, to move forward with this legislation?
DEGETTE: Embryonic stem cell research holds tremendous promise for curing diseases that affect tens of millions of Americans -- diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's.
In 2001, the president issued an executive order that severely limited this research, and not only has the federal role been greatly limited, which has caused the research to be held back, but also we don't have federal ethical standards.
What Mike Castle and I want to do, we want to allow couples who are already going through in vitro fertilization to donate the embryos which are part of that technique but left over and would be thrown away. We think if those couples agree, if they consent to having them be used for research, then the majority of Americans, as we saw in your poll, think that that should be appropriate. And the promise of embryonic stem cell research is great for millions of Americans.
DOBBS: Congressman Weldon, you don't agree with that. In point of fact, you strongly object because embryonic stem cell research has really not been applied for human disease, is that your position? REP. DAVE WELDON (R), FLORIDA: Well, absolutely. I'm a physician. I still see patients. I have been practicing medicine for 25 years. As a matter of fact, I typically grab some medical journals and read them on the plane as I fly here to Washington. Here's one of them that I read on the flight up here. Nice article about cord blood stem cells treating a very bad pediatric condition. I have yet to see an article on embryonic stem cells.
And I hired a Ph.D researcher to work in my office and comb not the medical literature, but the rat and mouse literature, and they don't really even have a good model of treating an animal disease with embryonic stem cells.
And I think this is really a lot of hype, in my opinion, and most of the promise is in adult and cord blood stem cells.
DOBBS: Congressman Castle, I want you, if you would, to respond to Congressman Weldon, but first, if we could put up a quote from President Bush expressing his strong opposition, saying "I am a strong supporter of adult stem cell research, of course. But I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life -- I'm against that."
First, you're breaking with your president, the same party, and actually going strongly against his beliefs and the majority of the members in the House and their position. Why?
REP. MIKE CASTLE (R), DELAWARE: Well, hopefully not a majority of members in the House, but just the Republican members.
DOBBS: Well, the Republican members I should have said.
CASTLE: But here's why, Lou. There's 110 million people out there who are suffering from diseases that could be helped by embryonic stem cell research. They have only been around for about six years in the discovery stage. Adult stem cells have been around for about 30 years.
They do solve some things, but of the 15 diseases that kill the most Americans, it can only apply to one, really blood type diseases, if you will.
Embryonic stem cell research, by the word of all the scientists, researchers out there, has tremendous promise in -- to move forward to be able to prevent diseases, to be able to cure diseases potentially.
And sure, it's potential. And sure, it's research. But we have $28 billion a year going to the NIH right now. And if we can take that money and we can really make this work, as the hope is, think of all the people out there who might have a greater opportunity in life.
To me, there's absolutely no question whatsoever about what we should be doing. And I would agree that we haven't advanced it as far as we will at some point in the future, but in terms of the number of years and the advances which have been made, it's a pretty good track record.
So this is the right thing to do. And I would hope that we can start it tomorrow and finish it sometime in the near future.
DOBBS: Congressman Stupak, as Congressman Castle says, it begins tomorrow. Why are you fighting so hard against this? And do you accept what Congressman Castle has just said?
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: No, I don't accept what Congressman Castle said. There's a lot of research going on on stem cells that is not funded by the federal government. A lot of us believe we should not have the federal government funding research to create life only to destroy life later on.
I think there's a far greater ethical value issue that we have to ask here. Do we, in fact, create human life, which you do through embryonic stem cells, only to manipulate it, to research it? We think not. We think very strongly about that. And that's an issue that we should have a debate on. Unfortunately, tomorrow's debate will be limited to about just over two hours. But I think as a country, I sat through -- and I know Dave and a lot of us went through the cloning legislation. And the hearings we had on that were just excellent about medical ethics, and just who we are as a people, and does the United States want to be a leader in values? And -- or are we just going to be a leader in scientific research, no matter what the cost, or what we manipulate to meet our ends?
We think that there's a line you should not cross. Should not create human life merely to destroy it in hope of some research, when you have other valuable areas we should be researching, as Congressman Weldon said, the adult stem cell area.
DOBBS: Congresswoman DeGette, the fact is, after the South Korean announcement, Senator Arlen Specter said just point blank that he is concerned -- and this is not obviously meant to encapsulize all of the ethical issues and everything else, but he said, quote, "The United States is being left farther behind every day." Is that your sense of what is at stake here?
DEGETTE: Yes, this research is going on as it is. And no one can deny this research is going on. We need to make sure that the research is open and robust, and that it has strict ethical standards, which is what our bill does.
It's important to remember what this research is. It's embryos which are created already for in vitro fertilization techniques, and which will be thrown away. And many of my pro-life supporters say, is it more ethical to just throw away those embryos, or to allow the patients to donate them for research that could cure diseases that affect tens of millions of Americans?
DOBBS: Congressman Weldon, would you -- would you agree with that assessment?
WELDON: Well, the critical issue here is the research involves killing a human embryo. There are no restrictions on private entities funding this research. The state of California is putting tens of millions of dollars into this research -- the state of New Jersey, Harvard University. The critical issue here is, you have millions and millions of taxpayers who are pro-life, who object to this kind of research who are being asked to help foot the bill for this and a lot of us in Washington feel that we should not go in this direction, and I feel very, very strongly that this research is going the same way that fetal tissue research went 10 years ago. We had the same debates. A lot of the same people who are getting up advocating for this, make the same bogus claims that fetal tissue research was going to cure everything. If you look at the research, it's highly questionable.
DOBBS: And, Congressman Stupak, the fact is, as Congresswoman DeGette said, those embryos are, simply -- become medical waste. Does that in any way mitigate your view about ending life to save life?
STUPAK: No, no, they weren't created to be medical waste. They were created for reproduction, to create human life. That's what they are there for. They were not created, these embryos in the IV clinics, were not created for research or for medical science. They were created for life. You destroyed the very purpose for what it was intended to for.
DOBBS: We're going to have to end right there. We thank you very much and obviously look forward to the debate and the vote. Thank you very much. Congressman Weldon...
WELDON: Thank you.
DOBBS: ...Congressman Castle, Congressman DeGette, Congressman Stupak, thank you very much
In the wake of debates over stem cells and the filibuster, one might say politics have become somewhat polarized in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Tonight's "Quote of the Day" is on the current political climate in Washington. It comes from none other than the governor of the state of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, who said, quote, "I have a 72-hour rule. If I stay in Washington for more than 72 hours, I have to bathe myself in the same stuff I use when one of my dogs gets into a fight with a skunk -- stuff to get the smell out." Governor Schweitzer will be our guest here tomorrow evening. I think he will probably be more welcome here than he will be in Washington after saying that, but he's certainly welcome here.
And, demanding an apology from Mexico's president: I'll be joined by Reverend Al Sharpton who's just finished his meeting with President Vicente Fox. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: And, this just in to CNN. Another scare at the Capitol tonight. A small aircraft entered restricted airspace over Washington for the second time this month. Fighter jets were scrambled to escort the plane out of restricted airspace. Officials have issued an all- clear now for the Capitol. We'll be, of course, following the story and bringing you the latest developments throughout the evening here on CNN.
The Reverend Al Sharpton has demanded an apology from Mexican President Vicente fox for Fox's comments about American blacks. Last week, President Fox said Mexican citizens have taken jobs in the United States that, as he put it, not even blacks will do. Just hours ago, Reverend Sharpton met with President Fox in Mexico City and Reverend Sharpton joins us now from Mexico City.
Good to have you with us. Did you get your apology?
REV. AL SHARPTON, PRES., NAT'L ACTION NETWORK: No, we didn't. In fact, I told the president that his statement, that he regretted what he said if it hurt someone or offended someone because it was misinterpreted, was unacceptable. The fact of the matter is that what he said I don't think can lend to any misinterpretation. It is very clear in my mind -- in fact, I told him I come from Brooklyn, New York, and we have an expression there, to -- don't pee pee in my face and call it rain, and that's what his regret sounded like.
We did talk about other things. I talked to him about racism here in Mexico and in the United States. We talked about how there's the perception that he's driving some of his poor out of the country, encouraging them to go to the United States and competing with jobs for workers both Latino, African-American, as well as white, in the United States, and that we had to deal with immigration policy that has dealt with failure on both sides of the border and protect American workers, as well as get just paid wages for those of Mexican decent, which he should be concerned about. We also...
DOBBS: Did he express -- did he express -- did he share your concern about that very fact?
SHARPTON: He said that he had concern, but we said we must demonstrate it. I raised to him the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill that's being proposed. I intend to meet with Senator Kennedy on Washington on Wednesday around that bill, and there must be an effort to put legislation in that brings balance, and protects American workers as well as Mexican migrant workers and others that come to the United States.
We also talked about exchange between African-Americans and Mexicans. I said he should come to Harlem where 50 percent of black men are unemployed and he accepted my invitation to come. I want the "New York Amsterdam News, (ph)" our largest weekly, to host him. He needs to see the people he offended and that he referred to. He needs to talk about doing some technical training. I was at Wayne County Community College in Michigan yesterday, who are willing to train people of Mexican decent. We need to deal with the substance of the issue and I think we had a very blunt and frank discussion. I did not come to be placated. I wanted him to know our outrage and feel that (ph).
DOBBS: Your first statement suggests to me that the State Department would've describe your conversation as a full and frank exchange of views. At the same time, when you told President Fox that his citizens, Hispanics, were taking jobs from our citizens, Hispanics, as demonstrated by the Pew Hispanic Center's research just a month ago, what did he say?
SHARPTON: He said that's why we need dialogue and he said that he concurred with me that we cannot have those in business play a slave-wage type of job to Mexicans against jobs for Americans. I think that that is a crucial part of this. The speech that he made -- the statement that he made was him being passionate about, we need new immigration, but part of that has to be that -- there cannot be the perceived blessing of this administration in Mexico to send people into the United States into a job market that they know there are no wages and no job security for them.
DOBBS: Well, as you know, Reverend Sharpton, in my judgment you are at the center of -- the center of half of the problem, and that is that President Fox and the government of Mexico are running U.S. immigration policy right now.
The other half, of course, is on this side of the border, where the businesses that are exploiting illegal aliens and they're -- to require labor, the other half of the problem. All of those problems, as you say can be solved by dialogue, but just perhaps seeking the national interest on this side of the border would be helpful.
We thank you for sharing your views and extending the national interest there. Look forward to talking to you.
SHARPTON: All right. Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you, Reverend Al Sharpton from Mexico City.
Coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, "ANDERSON COOPER 360." Anderson has a preview for us -- Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Lou, thanks very much. Yeah, about 10 minutes from now on "360," the transformation of Laura Bush from wife in the background to woman on the world stage. We're going to look at the evolution of the first lady.
Also ahead tonight, school bus beating. A driver caught on tape getting physical with unruly students. Question is: Did he cross the line or did the kids have it coming? We're covering all the angles.
And finding relief in pins and needles. Talking about acupuncture, does it really work? "360" MD Sanjay Gupta investigates. That and more at the top of the hour -- Lou.
DOBBS: Looking forward to it. Thank you, Anderson.
And a reminder to vote in our poll tonight. Would you support the deployment of U.S. troops to secure our borders? Yes or no? Cast your vote please at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up at the end of the broadcast.
Still ahead -- is the flood of cheap Chinese imports into this country threatening our national security as well as our economic security? We'll have a special report for you. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: U.S. so-called free trade policies have, of course, resulted in record trade deficits, but also it's resulted in our nation's ports bulging with cheap Chinese imports. The deluge of imports, labor leaders now say, is making it all but impossible for workers to keep up with the flood of goods and strict security standards. And port security, they say, is all but impossible. Casey Wian has our special report from Long Beach, California.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Leaders of longshoremen's unions from nations throughout the Pacific Rim say there's a clear connection between a flood of cheap Chinese imports and growing threats to national security.
JAMES SPINOSA, PRESIDENT, ILWU: The influx of cargo that's coming in now from China is overwhelming, and it will continue to grow. It's creating a monumental problem at the terminals, and especially for our workforce. We find ourselves having to go 24/7, as an example, to accommodate the cargo, and working under very, very unsafe situations.
WIAN: Union leaders are meeting at the world's third busiest port complex to draw attention to improvements needed in port security and infrastructure. They say more cargo containers should be physically inspected, and they want longshoremen involved in the process. They also want global shipping companies to help pay for port expansions, and they want better trade deals.
RICHARD TRUMKA, SECRETARY TREASURER, AFL-CIO: We need trade agreements that will help workers, and not just bloat the already bloated profits of multinational corporations.
WIAN: The number of jobs at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have doubled in less than five years, mainly because imports from China are booming.
Unions outside the United States also say China is a problem, because it's depressing wages and working conditions.
PADDY CRUMLIN, MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA: That's why we are under the hammer, because there's no room in free trade for the worker. There's no room in free trade for strong unions. So what we're going to tell them is it's not free trade, it will be fair trade.
WIAN: Also on the agenda, the environmental impact of port congestion. Cargo backlogs, increasingly common in recent years, result in fuel discharge from container ships, and air pollution from idling trucks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: Perhaps the most startling claim is the one made by longshoremen's union leader Spinosa, who says that port security now is no better than it was on 9/11. He says his members still occasionally find Chinese illegal aliens smuggled in empty shipping containers -- Lou.
DOBBS: Are the -- labor unions, are they working with Homeland Security now any better than they were before, say, September 11th?
WIAN: Doesn't seem like the relationship has gotten any better. The union leaders say they want a bigger role in homeland security, in inspecting those containers. They say before 9/11, a lot more of the containers were inspected. The empty ones aren't even being inspected now. They say that's a danger to their members and a danger to the country, Lou.
DOBBS: Indeed, thank you very much. Casey Wian from the port of Long Beach.
Still ahead here, we'll have the results of tonight's poll, and a preview of what's ahead here tomorrow. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of tonight's poll, overwhelming: 92 percent of you say you would support the deployment of U.S. troops to assure border security; 8 percent said no.
We thank you for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Senator Pat Roberts, the powerful chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, will be our guest. He's fighting to expand the federal government's investigative powers. He's our guest. And the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza is also our guest. She will be here to discuss immigration, education reform, and of course, border security. And Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana is tired of politics in Washington. He will be here to talk about that. Please join us.
For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now -- Anderson.
COOPER: Lou, thanks very much.
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
