Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Filibuster Deal; 'Surviving Family Vacations'

Aired May 24, 2005 - 9:00   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. They made history late last night, breaking this filibuster in the Senate. Now the fallout will begin today. Some conservative groups with a strong and sometimes angry reaction this morning.
Also, this huge controversy looming in the House today, as well. A vote on stem cell research that may trigger the president's first veto.

And betrayal at the bank. Bank employees accused of stealing account information from hundreds of thousands of Americans. That's ahead, too, on this AMERICAN MORNING.

ANNOUNCER: From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Soledad O'Brien and Bill Hemmer.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome back, everybody.

Also ahead this morning, part two on our series this week on surviving family vacations.

HEMMER: Good luck. Today we talk about something called togethering. That's what they call it in the travel business.

It's when families like hook up with another family. They try to save money. And we'll see whether or not that leads to some big headaches. I'm thinking the answer is yes on that.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: If you want that to work, the way you do it is you send your family with another family and then you go somewhere else on your vacation.

O'BRIEN: Alone.

HEMMER: That's tomorrow's segment.

CAFFERTY: In the wake of the killing of a judge down there in Atlanta, Georgia, in a courtroom a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that convicted murderers may not be brought into court in shackles and chains for their sentencing. The jury, they feel, might be prejudiced against the defendant if they see him in shackles and chains. The same jury that found him guilty of committing a murder.

Good idea or not? AM@CNN.com.

HEMMER: All right, Jack. Thanks.

First, the headlines at the top of the hour. Back to Carol with those.

Hello.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Good morning to all of you.

"Now in the News," American troops coming under fire in Iraq this morning. A car bomb leaving at least three U.S. soldiers dead. The troops were on patrol in Baghdad.

In a separate incident, one U.S. soldier was killed in a drive-by shooting. The military now investigating both incidents.

Army Reservist Lynndie England back in military court on the same charges but with a different legal team. The Army has re-filed the same seven counts stemming from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. If convicted this time, England could face up to 11 years in prison.

To California now, where comedians Jay Leno and Chris Tucker are expected to testify in the Michael Jackson trial. Once Jackson's defense wraps up, the prosecution will start presenting rebuttal witnesses. Sources tell CNN that portion of the trial could take just two days. At least that's what they tell us.

And four of the quintuplets born near Phoenix, Arizona, are home now. We told you about this story a while back. The Moreno quintuplets were born three weeks ago to a surrogate mother. Well, the littlest one is still in the hospital, but the rest are home now. And mom says she spends most of her time feeding and changing diapers, as many as 32 diapers a day.

Oh.

O'BRIEN: Oh. I so feel her pain, and only a little smidgen of it. We're going to talk to her this week about her babies.

COSTELLO: Oh, she's so -- well, she never sleeps anyway, so it wouldn't even be early for her.

O'BRIEN: Can you imagine 32 diapers changed?

COSTELLO: Yes.

O'BRIEN: And all she does is nurse those kids all day, I'm sure.

COSTELLO: I had trouble with my dog.

HEMMER: Thanks, Carol.

O'BRIEN: Thanks, Carol.

Well, Judge Priscilla Owen could be approved for the federal bench today. A deal struck last night headed off a Senate crisis over the president's judicial nominees.

Joe Johns live for us at the Capitol.

Hey, Joe. Good morning to you. Walk us through the compromise, if you will.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Soledad, this deal came after days of negotiations and soul-searching in the United States Senate. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans signing on to agree to allow three of the president's most controversial nominees. Two others are not promised a vote.

Democrats agree to use the filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. Republicans agree not to kill the filibuster. Key negotiators say everybody got something and everybody gave something up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: This is a victory for bipartisanship. And so those people who are challenging this on some partisan basis are missing the point in many respects, and that is that a bipartisan centrist group with some folks who are not ordinarily centrists came together to preserve the right of the filibuster. But also -- and I think this is an important point -- to effect up-or-down votes on almost all judges. Only those that would be subject to extraordinary circumstances are unlikely to get a vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We were trying to pull the Senate back from going over a precipice. We wanted to preserve the rights in the minority. We believe that the Democrats had abused the filibuster, which they had in the past couple of years. And we wanted to stop that from happening again, and it was a bipartisan effort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Senate leaders who got out of the way of the negotiations last week had different takes on the deal. Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat, essentially declaring victory. The Republican, Senator Bill Frist, saying it's not over yet.

But perhaps one of the strongest reactions of all coming from Dr. James Dobson, conservative of Focus on the Family. We have a graphic in part of what he said.

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I'm certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust." Perhaps the bottom line is that both sides can claim they won something and lost something in the battle before the battle for the Supreme Court -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: So Joe, three judges come up for a vote now. It could start as early as today, right?

JOHNS: That's correct. We do know and we do expect a vote for Priscilla Owen on the floor of the United States Senate. Also, we do expect those senators -- those judges who have been agreed to, to get votes as well, although it's not clear in what order and what time -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Our Joe Johns for us this morning. Joe, thanks a lot.

So how does one score this political deal? Are there winners or losers? CNN political analyst Ron Brownstein is in our Washington bureau this morning.

Hey, Ron. Nice to see you.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning, Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Who to you pick as a winner here?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, I think this is a real compromise in that both sides have taken very tough steps. And it's hard to say that one party clearly got an advantage over the other.

The Democrats accept three judges who most in the party really wanted to stop, and also a diminished capacity to filibuster. In the future, the Republicans, on the other hand, accepted a continued right for Democrats to filibuster, which could have some influence over the process. And there's a zinger in here for the president as well that hasn't been talked about much. But clearly, in this agreement you have a large group, a bipartisan group of senators saying they want him to take more responsibility for diffusing this crisis by changing the way he operates and by consulting more with the Senate as he makes these -- as he makes these nominations.

O'BRIEN: Bill Frist had a leadership role here. In the end, what he wanted didn't pan out. Is he a big loser in this regard?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, Frist made a real calculated gamble here I think. Frist basically outsourced the effort to find a solution to this problem to this very unusual kind of renegade group of mavericks and old bulls and newcomers, and he was taking the hard line, insisting there had to be an up-or-down vote. And I think he paid a price for stepping back and allowing others to take the leadership role.

Historically, you could argue if Lyndon Johnson was there or Bob Dole, they probably would have been the one going to the last hour to see if a deal was possible. Frist decided to play a very different role. Some say it's influenced by his 2008 ambitions, and he did, I think, pay a price for that, because there was a signal that a chunk of his party was not willing to follow his leadership on this.

O'BRIEN: You mentioned just a moment ago some of the loopholes, really big loopholes. The Democrats can still filibuster, the nuclear option, to a large degree, still on the table. So can this last?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, it's interesting. I think the president will have as much impact on whether this agreement survives as the Senate does itself.

As you say, this is a very tenuous agreement. It depends on trust on each side. The Democrats have to convince the Republicans that they really are only filibustering in extraordinary circumstances. The Republicans will have to be convinced of that or else they can go back and revisit the nuclear option.

Where this really comes to head is a Supreme Court nominee. If the president nominates someone who is going to polarize the Senate and the country deeply, this agreement will come under enormous stress. But if he follows the kind of spirit of this agreement and finds someone who can have relatively broad support, this might prove more stable and durable than people now expect.

O'BRIEN: So what's your feeling of that? What do you predict?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, it's very hard to know. I mean, the president did re-nominate seven judges who were filibustered last year. He tends to put down his head and move forward with what he thinks is right, even at the cost of polarization.

Look, the basic story of modern Washington is more confrontation. The Senate is becoming more like the House, more party line voting. But this is an important achievement by these -- by this group to sort of resist that centrifugal current and say there can still be a center that rejects a polarized choice from Republicans or Democrats.

The spirit, I think, is there. In practice, we will see the real test when the president, if he does, get a Supreme Court nomination.

O'BRIEN: What's the impact on the White House, overall, not just specifically about the Supreme Court, but overall? Is there some message sent to the president?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think, first of all, on the narrow question there is definitely a message that they want more consultation on the judges, and they want him to, I think, send them judges that will not provoke the kinds of disputes that we have seen. Now, the broader question is whether this is a signal on the overall governing strategy.

By and large, the president on most issues, not all, but most issues, has pursued policies that tend to polarize the parties very much on Capitol Hill. His strategy has been to put out ideas that energize conservatives, push away most Democrats, and then put enormous pressure on the moderates to come over to his side, the moderates from both parties. What I think you were seeing here was the moderates saying, look, we don't want to be put in that position always of having to choose between opposing the president and accepting ideas that may be too conservative for our taste. They are asserting a desire to exert more influence.

Now, whether that lasts on to Social Security would be the most obvious example, immigration or others, we'll have to see. But it was, I think, a statement by the moderates that went beyond judges to sort of reasserting their desire to be given more of a choice that they're comfortable with and not this kind of polarized "us or them" kind of politics.

O'BRIEN: Ron Brownstein in Washington for us this morning. Ron, thanks.

BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Bill.

HEMMER: About 10 minutes past the hour now.

There's another issue that will capture headlines today in Washington. The House will vote on a bill that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Some scientists believe that stem cells could lead to cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. But the process involves the destruction of a human embryo, and that's something the president is firmly against, and he would likely use the first veto of his administration to block this bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm 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 is -- I'm against that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: House vote counters believe they have enough votes to pass the bill, but they do not know if they have enough to override a veto.

Another bill up for a vote today involves stem cells from umbilical cords. The White House supports that.

The president expected with a statement later today, 2:00 Eastern Time from the Rose Garden, weather permitting. And we'll have live coverage when that happens.

Weather permitting, we say. Here's Chad Myers again at the CNN Center.

(WEATHER REPORT) O'BRIEN: Well, if your paycheck doesn't stretch far enough, maybe it's time to relocate. A new report from salary.com lists the best and worst cities for making your money go further.

The top valued cities are: New London, Connecticut; Huntsville, Alabama; Baltimore, Maryland; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The index compared local salaries with the cost of living and unemployment rates.

As you may have expected, New York and San Francisco top the list of the least affordable cities. That was followed by Stamford, Connecticut; San Jose, California; and San Diego in California, too.

HEMMER: If you're looking for a vacation, the second part of our series starts today. Planning vacations with another family, good luck. Tips on to how you can have a great time without hating each other at the end. It's our special series, and we call it "Surviving Family Vacations." We'll get to it after a break here.

O'BRIEN: Also ahead, an update on what could be the biggest breach of bank security in U.S. history. New details on how four major banks were hit. That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

Stay with us. We're back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HEMMER: This morning, the second part of our series called "Surviving Family Vacations." A new trend called togethering. And while you may not know what it means, chances are you've already done it. Or you might be planning on it, too.

Samantha Brown is from the Travel Channel. She's here with me this morning.

Nice to see you in person.

SAMANTHA BROWN, TRAVEL CHANNEL: Nice to see you, too.

HEMMER: Out jetsetting around the big globe out there.

A couple of things. You say, first of all, unrelated families are doing this for companionship? You can share the baby-sitting duties, which saves money, and ultimately that kind of like is the deal here, too, saving money.

BROWN: Absolutely. I mean, a great way to save money is to go in on a house together. That's one of the most popular choices. It's something that I always do as well.

And also, you're not eating out every night, you're cooking in the kitchen. But there are some pitfalls to it.

HEMMER: Yes, there are. And that's what we want to talk -- I think this is the juicy stuff here.

BROWN: Exactly right. Let's get to the good stuff.

HEMMER: What do you have to be prepared for?

BROWN: Well, you really have to compromise your own wants and needs of your family for the good of the group. You are going to lose privacy time with your own family. And if you're a family where the husband and the -- and the wife work, and the children have hectic schedules, you may need a vacation to yourself.

HEMMER: I'm telling you.

BROWN: You don't want to share time with another family.

HEMMER: Or at the end of that vacation you need another vacation.

BROWN: Exactly.

HEMMER: You say make sure you know the expectations, what are your family expectations going into this.

BROWN: Right. Do you want to spend the day at the pool? Would you like to go to an aquarium? Do you want to do a museum?

You know, see what people want to do, your family and the other family, then schedule it. You're going to have to do a lot more scheduling when you're traveling in a large group.

HEMMER: Here's the other issue that comes back again. It comes back to cash always, doesn't it?

BROWN: Yes.

HEMMER: You say be honest about your money.

BROWN: That's hard to do, isn't it? It's hard to say, listen, I can't afford this vacation. So you have to be honest with what your budge is, and both families have to agree on a vacation that fits that budget.

HEMMER: Now, I think this next one is most critical. Know the group dynamics.

BROWN: You've got to like each other, don't you?

HEMMER: Slightly.

BROWN: Like, what if you don't like -- so if -- it's a good idea to maybe go out to dinner before you plan this vacation to see if your children get along, see if the spouses gate long, and that sort of thing. Also, you also want to keep in mind the other parents' child rearing tactics.

How are they in discipline? Are they loose? Do they let the kids eat chocolate in the morning? Do they let them stay out late? So you need to sit your kids down before you go on a vacation and say, listen, our house rules are still going to apply here. Then loosen up since you are on vacation.

HEMMER: And the only way you find out about that is if you spend some time with the other family, too, and see how they interact.

BROWN: Absolutely.

HEMMER: OK. You say cruises are great for families and doing this. Why?

BROWN: Yes. One budget. It's an all-inclusive, so you know your up-front costs. It's sort of one of those something for everything -- something for everyone vacations where you can go off to a spa, you can go to the pool, everyone meets for lunch, everyone's happy.

HEMMER: Next on the list is resorts. What about those?

BROWN: Resorts are great. They can get a little expensive. There are a few that are wonderful for -- for your money.

Holiday Inn has SunSpree resorts. All the Holiday Inn rules still apply here. Children under 19 stay free, if they're with their -- with their parents. Children under 12 eat free.

And they also have kid suites. These are large family suites where part of the room is designed like a circus or a jungle.

HEMMER: Oh, I like that idea.

BROWN: But the jungle or the circus, Bill?

HEMMER: Yes. Dump the kids off there and let's go out to dinner.

OK. You mentioned the hotels. How do you find hotels with good incentive?

BROWN: You want to go to travel network -- FamilyTraveNetwork.com.

HEMMER: OK.

BROWN: And VacationKids.com. They have great, hot deals. They also have tips and reviews of hotels.

HEMMER: Vacationkids.com, FamilyTravelNetwork.com. We've got it.

Togethering...

BROWN: Togethering.

HEMMER: We are more educated now, aren't we?

BROWN: We really are.

HEMMER: Great to see you.

BROWN: Nice to see you, too.

HEMMER: And when you travel, travel well, OK?

BROWN: Thank you.

HEMMER: All right. Samantha Brown for the Travel Channel.

Also, tomorrow, part three of our series "Surviving Family Vacations." We'll choose the right theme park then.

You want to come back for that?

BROWN: Sure.

HEMMER: All right. We'll get back to you in a moment here.

Let's get a break here.

In a moment, "Jeopardy!" crowning its ultimate champion and giving away its biggest prize ever, $2 million. Ken Jennings and the two other finalists vying for the title. They'll join us live as we continue in a moment here on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Let's get right to Jack. He's got the "Question of the Day" this morning.

Hello.

CAFFERTY: Thanks, Soledad.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday convicted murderers may not be shackled and chained in court during the sentencing phase of their trials. The court said visible restraints could adversely affect the jury's perception of the defendant. This is the same defendant the jury has just convicted of murder.

The two dissenting pointed to the "dire" security situation faced by the nation's courts. The question is, should convicted murderers be shackled when appearing in court for sentencing?

Peter in Houston, Texas, writes, "Time and again as an attorney, I have seen the explosive nature of these people who are without conscience and who lash out one last time at a system that finally caught up with them, endangering everyone in the courtroom."

Patricia in Michigan, "Would a rabid dog be taken into a room with a bunch of people without a leash? What are these people thinking?"

Rock in Florida writes, "How about a Taser receiver hidden under their orange jumpsuits? Give the transmitter to the families of the victim. That could be fun." And Doug in Ontario writes, "Shackled, handcuffed, hog-tied, straight-jacketed and put in a crate which is sat on by a very large guard. Convicted criminals should never have rights that could endanger innocent people."

HEMMER: Wow.

O'BRIEN: So Doug would disagree with the Supreme Court.

CAFFERTY: Mildly, yes . Yes, he may have issue. Well, it's stupid.

HEMMER: Thank you, Jack.

O'BRIEN: Yes.

CAFFERTY: It's just stupid.

HEMMER: Police have cracked what could be the biggest breach of security, bank security in U.S. history. About a million bank account numbers sold by insiders. Back in a moment, talking about an inside job when we continue after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Welcome, everybody. It's just about half past the hour on this AMERICAN MORNING.

Jay Leno expected to take the stand today in the Michael Jackson trial.

HEMMER: In a moment here, criminal defense attorney Anne Bremner has been in the courtroom from the very beginning. She was there yesterday. She's back with us today. And we'll talk to her, the whole -- Leno's connection to all of this and what we expect today.

You've got a comedian coming up later in the week, Chris Tucker. They're still pointing the finger at the accuser's mother. We'll see if it all adds up in a moment with Bremner.

O'BRIEN: Let's get to...

COSTELLO: What will Anne do when the trial ends? Where will she go?

O'BRIEN: I know. Can we still have her on anyway just to come and talk to us?

HEMMER: She's looking for a job.

COSTELLO: Yes, exactly.

Good morning. Good morning to all of you.

"Now in the News," the House is expected to vote today on a pair of bills for federal funding of stem cell research. Some lawmakers looking to loosen restrictions, but President Bush has vowed to veto one of the bills. The president is set to make a statement on stem cells and bioethics this afternoon about 2:00 Eastern Time, that's the p.m., in the afternoon.

Federal authorities are upping the reward in the search for two missing children in northern Idaho. They're now offering $100,000 for any information leading to the safe return of 8-year-old Shasta Groene and her 9-year-old brother, Dylan. Their mother and brother were found dead last Monday. Authorities say they still have no solid leads in the case.

Potentially damaging evidence against record producer Phil Spector. A judge has ruled past claims of gun threats against women can be introduced at his trial. This is what he looks like in trial these days. Spector is accused of murder in the shooting of actress Lana Clarkson at his southern California mansion more than two years ago.

(STOCK MARKET REPORT)

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 24, 2005 - 9:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. They made history late last night, breaking this filibuster in the Senate. Now the fallout will begin today. Some conservative groups with a strong and sometimes angry reaction this morning.
Also, this huge controversy looming in the House today, as well. A vote on stem cell research that may trigger the president's first veto.

And betrayal at the bank. Bank employees accused of stealing account information from hundreds of thousands of Americans. That's ahead, too, on this AMERICAN MORNING.

ANNOUNCER: From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Soledad O'Brien and Bill Hemmer.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome back, everybody.

Also ahead this morning, part two on our series this week on surviving family vacations.

HEMMER: Good luck. Today we talk about something called togethering. That's what they call it in the travel business.

It's when families like hook up with another family. They try to save money. And we'll see whether or not that leads to some big headaches. I'm thinking the answer is yes on that.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: If you want that to work, the way you do it is you send your family with another family and then you go somewhere else on your vacation.

O'BRIEN: Alone.

HEMMER: That's tomorrow's segment.

CAFFERTY: In the wake of the killing of a judge down there in Atlanta, Georgia, in a courtroom a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that convicted murderers may not be brought into court in shackles and chains for their sentencing. The jury, they feel, might be prejudiced against the defendant if they see him in shackles and chains. The same jury that found him guilty of committing a murder.

Good idea or not? AM@CNN.com.

HEMMER: All right, Jack. Thanks.

First, the headlines at the top of the hour. Back to Carol with those.

Hello.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Good morning to all of you.

"Now in the News," American troops coming under fire in Iraq this morning. A car bomb leaving at least three U.S. soldiers dead. The troops were on patrol in Baghdad.

In a separate incident, one U.S. soldier was killed in a drive-by shooting. The military now investigating both incidents.

Army Reservist Lynndie England back in military court on the same charges but with a different legal team. The Army has re-filed the same seven counts stemming from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. If convicted this time, England could face up to 11 years in prison.

To California now, where comedians Jay Leno and Chris Tucker are expected to testify in the Michael Jackson trial. Once Jackson's defense wraps up, the prosecution will start presenting rebuttal witnesses. Sources tell CNN that portion of the trial could take just two days. At least that's what they tell us.

And four of the quintuplets born near Phoenix, Arizona, are home now. We told you about this story a while back. The Moreno quintuplets were born three weeks ago to a surrogate mother. Well, the littlest one is still in the hospital, but the rest are home now. And mom says she spends most of her time feeding and changing diapers, as many as 32 diapers a day.

Oh.

O'BRIEN: Oh. I so feel her pain, and only a little smidgen of it. We're going to talk to her this week about her babies.

COSTELLO: Oh, she's so -- well, she never sleeps anyway, so it wouldn't even be early for her.

O'BRIEN: Can you imagine 32 diapers changed?

COSTELLO: Yes.

O'BRIEN: And all she does is nurse those kids all day, I'm sure.

COSTELLO: I had trouble with my dog.

HEMMER: Thanks, Carol.

O'BRIEN: Thanks, Carol.

Well, Judge Priscilla Owen could be approved for the federal bench today. A deal struck last night headed off a Senate crisis over the president's judicial nominees.

Joe Johns live for us at the Capitol.

Hey, Joe. Good morning to you. Walk us through the compromise, if you will.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Soledad, this deal came after days of negotiations and soul-searching in the United States Senate. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans signing on to agree to allow three of the president's most controversial nominees. Two others are not promised a vote.

Democrats agree to use the filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. Republicans agree not to kill the filibuster. Key negotiators say everybody got something and everybody gave something up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: This is a victory for bipartisanship. And so those people who are challenging this on some partisan basis are missing the point in many respects, and that is that a bipartisan centrist group with some folks who are not ordinarily centrists came together to preserve the right of the filibuster. But also -- and I think this is an important point -- to effect up-or-down votes on almost all judges. Only those that would be subject to extraordinary circumstances are unlikely to get a vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We were trying to pull the Senate back from going over a precipice. We wanted to preserve the rights in the minority. We believe that the Democrats had abused the filibuster, which they had in the past couple of years. And we wanted to stop that from happening again, and it was a bipartisan effort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Senate leaders who got out of the way of the negotiations last week had different takes on the deal. Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat, essentially declaring victory. The Republican, Senator Bill Frist, saying it's not over yet.

But perhaps one of the strongest reactions of all coming from Dr. James Dobson, conservative of Focus on the Family. We have a graphic in part of what he said.

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I'm certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust." Perhaps the bottom line is that both sides can claim they won something and lost something in the battle before the battle for the Supreme Court -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: So Joe, three judges come up for a vote now. It could start as early as today, right?

JOHNS: That's correct. We do know and we do expect a vote for Priscilla Owen on the floor of the United States Senate. Also, we do expect those senators -- those judges who have been agreed to, to get votes as well, although it's not clear in what order and what time -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Our Joe Johns for us this morning. Joe, thanks a lot.

So how does one score this political deal? Are there winners or losers? CNN political analyst Ron Brownstein is in our Washington bureau this morning.

Hey, Ron. Nice to see you.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning, Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Who to you pick as a winner here?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, I think this is a real compromise in that both sides have taken very tough steps. And it's hard to say that one party clearly got an advantage over the other.

The Democrats accept three judges who most in the party really wanted to stop, and also a diminished capacity to filibuster. In the future, the Republicans, on the other hand, accepted a continued right for Democrats to filibuster, which could have some influence over the process. And there's a zinger in here for the president as well that hasn't been talked about much. But clearly, in this agreement you have a large group, a bipartisan group of senators saying they want him to take more responsibility for diffusing this crisis by changing the way he operates and by consulting more with the Senate as he makes these -- as he makes these nominations.

O'BRIEN: Bill Frist had a leadership role here. In the end, what he wanted didn't pan out. Is he a big loser in this regard?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, Frist made a real calculated gamble here I think. Frist basically outsourced the effort to find a solution to this problem to this very unusual kind of renegade group of mavericks and old bulls and newcomers, and he was taking the hard line, insisting there had to be an up-or-down vote. And I think he paid a price for stepping back and allowing others to take the leadership role.

Historically, you could argue if Lyndon Johnson was there or Bob Dole, they probably would have been the one going to the last hour to see if a deal was possible. Frist decided to play a very different role. Some say it's influenced by his 2008 ambitions, and he did, I think, pay a price for that, because there was a signal that a chunk of his party was not willing to follow his leadership on this.

O'BRIEN: You mentioned just a moment ago some of the loopholes, really big loopholes. The Democrats can still filibuster, the nuclear option, to a large degree, still on the table. So can this last?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, it's interesting. I think the president will have as much impact on whether this agreement survives as the Senate does itself.

As you say, this is a very tenuous agreement. It depends on trust on each side. The Democrats have to convince the Republicans that they really are only filibustering in extraordinary circumstances. The Republicans will have to be convinced of that or else they can go back and revisit the nuclear option.

Where this really comes to head is a Supreme Court nominee. If the president nominates someone who is going to polarize the Senate and the country deeply, this agreement will come under enormous stress. But if he follows the kind of spirit of this agreement and finds someone who can have relatively broad support, this might prove more stable and durable than people now expect.

O'BRIEN: So what's your feeling of that? What do you predict?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, it's very hard to know. I mean, the president did re-nominate seven judges who were filibustered last year. He tends to put down his head and move forward with what he thinks is right, even at the cost of polarization.

Look, the basic story of modern Washington is more confrontation. The Senate is becoming more like the House, more party line voting. But this is an important achievement by these -- by this group to sort of resist that centrifugal current and say there can still be a center that rejects a polarized choice from Republicans or Democrats.

The spirit, I think, is there. In practice, we will see the real test when the president, if he does, get a Supreme Court nomination.

O'BRIEN: What's the impact on the White House, overall, not just specifically about the Supreme Court, but overall? Is there some message sent to the president?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think, first of all, on the narrow question there is definitely a message that they want more consultation on the judges, and they want him to, I think, send them judges that will not provoke the kinds of disputes that we have seen. Now, the broader question is whether this is a signal on the overall governing strategy.

By and large, the president on most issues, not all, but most issues, has pursued policies that tend to polarize the parties very much on Capitol Hill. His strategy has been to put out ideas that energize conservatives, push away most Democrats, and then put enormous pressure on the moderates to come over to his side, the moderates from both parties. What I think you were seeing here was the moderates saying, look, we don't want to be put in that position always of having to choose between opposing the president and accepting ideas that may be too conservative for our taste. They are asserting a desire to exert more influence.

Now, whether that lasts on to Social Security would be the most obvious example, immigration or others, we'll have to see. But it was, I think, a statement by the moderates that went beyond judges to sort of reasserting their desire to be given more of a choice that they're comfortable with and not this kind of polarized "us or them" kind of politics.

O'BRIEN: Ron Brownstein in Washington for us this morning. Ron, thanks.

BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Bill.

HEMMER: About 10 minutes past the hour now.

There's another issue that will capture headlines today in Washington. The House will vote on a bill that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Some scientists believe that stem cells could lead to cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. But the process involves the destruction of a human embryo, and that's something the president is firmly against, and he would likely use the first veto of his administration to block this bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm 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 is -- I'm against that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: House vote counters believe they have enough votes to pass the bill, but they do not know if they have enough to override a veto.

Another bill up for a vote today involves stem cells from umbilical cords. The White House supports that.

The president expected with a statement later today, 2:00 Eastern Time from the Rose Garden, weather permitting. And we'll have live coverage when that happens.

Weather permitting, we say. Here's Chad Myers again at the CNN Center.

(WEATHER REPORT) O'BRIEN: Well, if your paycheck doesn't stretch far enough, maybe it's time to relocate. A new report from salary.com lists the best and worst cities for making your money go further.

The top valued cities are: New London, Connecticut; Huntsville, Alabama; Baltimore, Maryland; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The index compared local salaries with the cost of living and unemployment rates.

As you may have expected, New York and San Francisco top the list of the least affordable cities. That was followed by Stamford, Connecticut; San Jose, California; and San Diego in California, too.

HEMMER: If you're looking for a vacation, the second part of our series starts today. Planning vacations with another family, good luck. Tips on to how you can have a great time without hating each other at the end. It's our special series, and we call it "Surviving Family Vacations." We'll get to it after a break here.

O'BRIEN: Also ahead, an update on what could be the biggest breach of bank security in U.S. history. New details on how four major banks were hit. That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

Stay with us. We're back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HEMMER: This morning, the second part of our series called "Surviving Family Vacations." A new trend called togethering. And while you may not know what it means, chances are you've already done it. Or you might be planning on it, too.

Samantha Brown is from the Travel Channel. She's here with me this morning.

Nice to see you in person.

SAMANTHA BROWN, TRAVEL CHANNEL: Nice to see you, too.

HEMMER: Out jetsetting around the big globe out there.

A couple of things. You say, first of all, unrelated families are doing this for companionship? You can share the baby-sitting duties, which saves money, and ultimately that kind of like is the deal here, too, saving money.

BROWN: Absolutely. I mean, a great way to save money is to go in on a house together. That's one of the most popular choices. It's something that I always do as well.

And also, you're not eating out every night, you're cooking in the kitchen. But there are some pitfalls to it.

HEMMER: Yes, there are. And that's what we want to talk -- I think this is the juicy stuff here.

BROWN: Exactly right. Let's get to the good stuff.

HEMMER: What do you have to be prepared for?

BROWN: Well, you really have to compromise your own wants and needs of your family for the good of the group. You are going to lose privacy time with your own family. And if you're a family where the husband and the -- and the wife work, and the children have hectic schedules, you may need a vacation to yourself.

HEMMER: I'm telling you.

BROWN: You don't want to share time with another family.

HEMMER: Or at the end of that vacation you need another vacation.

BROWN: Exactly.

HEMMER: You say make sure you know the expectations, what are your family expectations going into this.

BROWN: Right. Do you want to spend the day at the pool? Would you like to go to an aquarium? Do you want to do a museum?

You know, see what people want to do, your family and the other family, then schedule it. You're going to have to do a lot more scheduling when you're traveling in a large group.

HEMMER: Here's the other issue that comes back again. It comes back to cash always, doesn't it?

BROWN: Yes.

HEMMER: You say be honest about your money.

BROWN: That's hard to do, isn't it? It's hard to say, listen, I can't afford this vacation. So you have to be honest with what your budge is, and both families have to agree on a vacation that fits that budget.

HEMMER: Now, I think this next one is most critical. Know the group dynamics.

BROWN: You've got to like each other, don't you?

HEMMER: Slightly.

BROWN: Like, what if you don't like -- so if -- it's a good idea to maybe go out to dinner before you plan this vacation to see if your children get along, see if the spouses gate long, and that sort of thing. Also, you also want to keep in mind the other parents' child rearing tactics.

How are they in discipline? Are they loose? Do they let the kids eat chocolate in the morning? Do they let them stay out late? So you need to sit your kids down before you go on a vacation and say, listen, our house rules are still going to apply here. Then loosen up since you are on vacation.

HEMMER: And the only way you find out about that is if you spend some time with the other family, too, and see how they interact.

BROWN: Absolutely.

HEMMER: OK. You say cruises are great for families and doing this. Why?

BROWN: Yes. One budget. It's an all-inclusive, so you know your up-front costs. It's sort of one of those something for everything -- something for everyone vacations where you can go off to a spa, you can go to the pool, everyone meets for lunch, everyone's happy.

HEMMER: Next on the list is resorts. What about those?

BROWN: Resorts are great. They can get a little expensive. There are a few that are wonderful for -- for your money.

Holiday Inn has SunSpree resorts. All the Holiday Inn rules still apply here. Children under 19 stay free, if they're with their -- with their parents. Children under 12 eat free.

And they also have kid suites. These are large family suites where part of the room is designed like a circus or a jungle.

HEMMER: Oh, I like that idea.

BROWN: But the jungle or the circus, Bill?

HEMMER: Yes. Dump the kids off there and let's go out to dinner.

OK. You mentioned the hotels. How do you find hotels with good incentive?

BROWN: You want to go to travel network -- FamilyTraveNetwork.com.

HEMMER: OK.

BROWN: And VacationKids.com. They have great, hot deals. They also have tips and reviews of hotels.

HEMMER: Vacationkids.com, FamilyTravelNetwork.com. We've got it.

Togethering...

BROWN: Togethering.

HEMMER: We are more educated now, aren't we?

BROWN: We really are.

HEMMER: Great to see you.

BROWN: Nice to see you, too.

HEMMER: And when you travel, travel well, OK?

BROWN: Thank you.

HEMMER: All right. Samantha Brown for the Travel Channel.

Also, tomorrow, part three of our series "Surviving Family Vacations." We'll choose the right theme park then.

You want to come back for that?

BROWN: Sure.

HEMMER: All right. We'll get back to you in a moment here.

Let's get a break here.

In a moment, "Jeopardy!" crowning its ultimate champion and giving away its biggest prize ever, $2 million. Ken Jennings and the two other finalists vying for the title. They'll join us live as we continue in a moment here on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Let's get right to Jack. He's got the "Question of the Day" this morning.

Hello.

CAFFERTY: Thanks, Soledad.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday convicted murderers may not be shackled and chained in court during the sentencing phase of their trials. The court said visible restraints could adversely affect the jury's perception of the defendant. This is the same defendant the jury has just convicted of murder.

The two dissenting pointed to the "dire" security situation faced by the nation's courts. The question is, should convicted murderers be shackled when appearing in court for sentencing?

Peter in Houston, Texas, writes, "Time and again as an attorney, I have seen the explosive nature of these people who are without conscience and who lash out one last time at a system that finally caught up with them, endangering everyone in the courtroom."

Patricia in Michigan, "Would a rabid dog be taken into a room with a bunch of people without a leash? What are these people thinking?"

Rock in Florida writes, "How about a Taser receiver hidden under their orange jumpsuits? Give the transmitter to the families of the victim. That could be fun." And Doug in Ontario writes, "Shackled, handcuffed, hog-tied, straight-jacketed and put in a crate which is sat on by a very large guard. Convicted criminals should never have rights that could endanger innocent people."

HEMMER: Wow.

O'BRIEN: So Doug would disagree with the Supreme Court.

CAFFERTY: Mildly, yes . Yes, he may have issue. Well, it's stupid.

HEMMER: Thank you, Jack.

O'BRIEN: Yes.

CAFFERTY: It's just stupid.

HEMMER: Police have cracked what could be the biggest breach of security, bank security in U.S. history. About a million bank account numbers sold by insiders. Back in a moment, talking about an inside job when we continue after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Welcome, everybody. It's just about half past the hour on this AMERICAN MORNING.

Jay Leno expected to take the stand today in the Michael Jackson trial.

HEMMER: In a moment here, criminal defense attorney Anne Bremner has been in the courtroom from the very beginning. She was there yesterday. She's back with us today. And we'll talk to her, the whole -- Leno's connection to all of this and what we expect today.

You've got a comedian coming up later in the week, Chris Tucker. They're still pointing the finger at the accuser's mother. We'll see if it all adds up in a moment with Bremner.

O'BRIEN: Let's get to...

COSTELLO: What will Anne do when the trial ends? Where will she go?

O'BRIEN: I know. Can we still have her on anyway just to come and talk to us?

HEMMER: She's looking for a job.

COSTELLO: Yes, exactly.

Good morning. Good morning to all of you.

"Now in the News," the House is expected to vote today on a pair of bills for federal funding of stem cell research. Some lawmakers looking to loosen restrictions, but President Bush has vowed to veto one of the bills. The president is set to make a statement on stem cells and bioethics this afternoon about 2:00 Eastern Time, that's the p.m., in the afternoon.

Federal authorities are upping the reward in the search for two missing children in northern Idaho. They're now offering $100,000 for any information leading to the safe return of 8-year-old Shasta Groene and her 9-year-old brother, Dylan. Their mother and brother were found dead last Monday. Authorities say they still have no solid leads in the case.

Potentially damaging evidence against record producer Phil Spector. A judge has ruled past claims of gun threats against women can be introduced at his trial. This is what he looks like in trial these days. Spector is accused of murder in the shooting of actress Lana Clarkson at his southern California mansion more than two years ago.

(STOCK MARKET REPORT)

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