Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
What to do about Failing Schools; More Lead Toys
Aired December 08, 2007 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KITTY PILGRIM, HOST: Tonight, rising outrage over stores that continue to sell toys that are filled with lead. You won't believe how many toys on retailers' shelves are toxic.
And new evidence that our public schools are failing a whole generation of students, particularly minority students, all that and much more straight ahead tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK, news, debate, and opinion. Here now, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening, everybody. President Bush announced a new plan to help Americans suffering in the mortgage crisis. But the administration will help only some homeowners by freezing interest rates on loans for five years. Now critics say it's too little too late.
The White House announcement came amid new evidence the war on the middle class homeowners is escalating. The number of people in danger of losing their homes rose to a new record in the third quarter of this year.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (voice-over): Finally, details of the government's plan to help mortgage holders facing foreclosure. The picture is still less than clear.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm pleased to announce that our efforts have yielded a promising new source of relief for American homeowners.
PILGRIM: But a closer look finds it will only help a fraction of people facing foreclosure. Homeowners are eligible if they took out a loan between 2005 and July of this year, which is due to reset to a higher interest rate any time from the beginning of 2008 through July 2010.
Treasury Secretary Paulson admitting it is not a perfect plan.
HENRY PAULSON, TREASURY SECRETARY: The approach announced today is not a silver bullet. We face a difficult problem for which there is no perfect solution.
PILGRIM: None of the people currently delinquent on loans or currently facing foreclosure will be helped and there are over a million already this year. The president said the plan could potentially help 1.2 million people.
Other industry analysts put it much lower.
JOHN TAYLOR, NATL. COMM. REINVESTMENT COALITION: This plan is too narrowly defined. It is only going to help, you know, 10, 15 percent of that population, none of the people who are currently in foreclosure.
PILGRIM: Even if a homeowner qualifies for the federal interest rate freeze, consumer mortgage groups say details of the arrangement are still not clearly outlined.
ANDREW JAKABOVICS, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: It is really not clear from what has been released so far exactly what qualifies as a hardship, whether they basically are going to try and force you to basically live a very, very, very constrained lifestyle until you can pay these things off, if at all.
PILGRIM: The Mortgage Bankers Association estimates the foreclosure problem will intensify next year and already about 5.5 percent of borrowers are now at least 30 days late making a mortgage payment.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The president said this is not a bailout to predatory lenders, speculators, or people who took out a mortgage they could not afford. The Bush administration is also still working on other details such as how to deal with the impact of foreclosures on the capital markets and working out new rules to stop deceptive lending practices
Well, one day before President Bush announced his plan, Senator Hillary Clinton unveiled her proposal to deal with the mortgage crisis. Senator Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, said the nation cannot afford to wait for a new president. Her proposals include a foreclosure moratorium of at least 90 days.
Middle class Americans also reeling now from soaring gasoline prices. House Democrats passed a bill to increase the fuel economy of cars and roll back tax breaks for energy companies. But the Senate blocked the bill, and President Bush is threatening to veto the legislation. Lawmakers are now working on a compromise legislation.
Jessica Yellin reports from Capitol Hill -- Jessica.
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Kitty. And they're hoping to have a vote on that compromise by the end of the week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
YELLIN (voice-over): Democrats say the energy bill will relieve the pressure on your pocketbook by making cars more fuel-efficient.
REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD), MAJORITY LEADER: This provision alone will save American families an estimated $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million gallons per day.
YELLIN: But there's a catch. More fuel-efficient cars are more expensive, and, in the short term, it will cost consumers more. One consumer advocacy group estimates, the price of the average car will go up $1,000 to $1,500. And it's estimated it will take two to three years to make that up in gas savings.
Republicans insist, other aspects of the bill will drive up the cost of gas and electricity.
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: They seem to have a no tax left behind policy. All of this is a squeeze on the taxpayer's pocket.
YELLIN: The bill wipes away tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Republicans and the American Petroleum Institute maintain that will be passed on to the consumer.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: You can't tax your way to energy independence. You can't tax your way to providing a greater supply of energy in America.
YELLIN: And they insist the lack of incentives for domestic oil exploration will drive up prices and keep us dependent on foreign oil. But Democrats say no, the bill encourages companies to develop alternative sources of energy, which would reduce our use of foreign oil.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
YELLIN: Democrats say they need about a dozen more votes and they'll be negotiating over the weekend. There is broad agreement among both Democrats and Republicans to keep the fuel efficiency standards in the bill and Democrats say they're willing to negotiate on the tax provision -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Jessica, thank you. Jessica Yellin, reporting.
The White House tonight is struggling to explain the administration's response to new intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. U.S. intelligence agencies are now saying Iran stopped trying to build nuclear weapons four years ago. The White House admits President Bush knew about some of that intelligence earlier than the president originally said.
Ed Henry has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): White House press secretary Dana Perino admitted President Bush could have been more accurate about when he learned that Iran's nuclear weapons program may have been halted.
DANA PERINO, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can see where you could see that the president could have been more precise in that language, but the president was being truthful.
HENRY: The president's candor is at issue because at his Tuesday news conference, dominated by questions about the new national intelligence estimate on Iran, he said this.
BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John -- Mike McConnell who came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was.
HENRY: But it turns out at that meeting, the president did get at least some information about Iran halting its program, according to Perino's new account of that August briefing by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.
PERINO: McConnell told the president, if the new information turns out to be true, what we thought we knew for sure is right. Iran does in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program, but it may be suspended.
HENRY: Perino also now says McConnell specifically told the president in August that this information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment of Iran.
PERINO: Even getting into the details of what the information was in terms of what the actual raw intelligence was...
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: Perino said McConnell stressed it would take a long time to check out the new intelligence carefully. But the key question is, given that private uncertainty in August, why did the president continue to publicly suggest Tehran was an imminent threat?
PERINO: He was told there is new information that -- confirming what we thought to be the case, that they were pursing a nuclear weapon and they had actually a nuclear weapons program previously undisclosed.
HENRY: But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid put out a blistering statement demanding to know why the president and Vice President Cheney did not cool down their public charges against Iran last fall. Reid saying: "It was exactly this type of misleading rhetoric that led us into a misguided war in Iraq."
Ed Henry, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is continuing to use tough language about Iran. Rice saying the United States still wants another United Nations resolution against Tehran. The Bush administration says Iran could easily turn its nuclear program into a nuclear weapons program.
Still to come, just because a toy contains toxic levels of lead does not mean you cannot buy it. Bill Tucker will have the story -- Bill.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kitty, more than a third of toys tested on shelves of retailers contained lead. One toy, this one, is loaded with lead and I'll have the story straight ahead.
PILGRIM: Thanks, Bill. Also, rising fury over the federal government's failure to your to protect Americans from dangerous foods.
And new calls for justice for imprisoned former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Parents buying toys for their children this Christmas should be worried. Millions lead-contaminated toys were recalled this year, and most of those toys were made in communist China. But there is disturbing new evidence of even more toxic toys still on the store shelves. A recent study of more than 1,200 toys found 35 percent of them contained dangerous levels of lead.
Bill Tucker has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): It doesn't get much hotter than Hannah Montana, and there aren't many girls' handbags with more lead than this Hannah Montana handbag, nearly four times the allowable standard. The handbag has not been recalled nor have hundreds of other toys containing lead.
MICHAEL SCHADE, CTR. FOR HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL & JUSTICE: We tested over 1,200 toys since the late summer. We found that approximately 35 percent of the toys contained detectable levels of lead. Over 15 percent of those toys contained levels of lead that were over 600 parts per million, which is the CPSC standard for leaden paint.
TUCKER: Healthytoys.org has a complete list of the toys it tested with its findings. The Web site for consumers is the result of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, the Ecology Center and other consumer groups not satisfied with either the Consumer Product Safety Commission standards or efforts.
JEFF GEARHART, ECOLOGY CENTER: We had 215 products that tested over the CPSC recall standard of 600 parts per million. Only 23 of those have been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So we hear about the recalls, but we don't hear about the products that they're missing.
TUCKER: Nor do consumers hear about the high levels of other toxic chemicals found in toys like cadmium, mercury and arsenic. It's an old complaint for consumer groups that regulators are working with outdated regulations.
JEAN HALLORAN, CONSUMERS UNION: CPSC standards are extremely out of date. Having had very little staff, one of the things they've neglected is adding standards and updating standards, the lead standard in particular is from 30 years ago.
TUCKER: Current legislation, if passed, would dramatically increase funding to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and double the size of its staff.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: But there is no attempt currently under way to update the 30-year old standards governing chemicals allowable in the products. Now just one word of warning about the company's Web site, Kitty, healthytoys.org, it has been a very popular Web site this week. We posted it on our Web site. A lot of people have been going there. So viewers might need to be a little bit patient when they go to the Web site, let the thing load as they work their way through. It's a good Web site, though.
PILGRIM: Because so many people are checking?
TUCKER: Because so many people are concerned about it, as should be.
PILGRIM: I find it incomprehensible that's still on the shelves.
TUCKER: This is -- the 2,000 parts per million in this one little bag, which is almost four times the limit. The reason they can sell this and not have to recall it, Disney is not breaking the law, the CPSC can't make them recall this because, well, there is no standard for lead in children's toys, unbelievably. So you can have a toy like this with toxic levels of lead in it, well, it's OK because there is no standard for it.
PILGRIM: I can just hear the conversation at the counter between the mother and child over the child wanting something as popular as that.
TUCKER: I have had people in this bureau knowing full well that this is a loaded-with-lead toy, wanting me to give it to them because they wanted to take it home to give to their kids.
PILGRIM: OK. Thanks very much, Bill Tucker. That is unbelievable. That is unbelievable. Thank you, Bill.
A rash of tainted food scandals is also prompting Americans to question the safety of our food supply. Now, Congress is demanding answers from the Food and Drug Administration, and lawmakers want to know why the FDA is not protecting us from bad or even poisonous food. After all, that's what the FDA is supposed to do.
Louise Schiavone reports.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Millions of pounds of recalled beef, deaths from E. coli and spinach, pets killed by imported foods, problems with lettuce, peanut butter, chicken potpies, pizzas, all part of the problem faced by an overburdened an ill-equipped Food and Drug Administration.
GAIL H. CASSELL, FDA SCIENCE BOARD: They're operating in a crisis mode, firefighting mode, as it relates to regulatory science, not a proactive mode. And this is where you really run into problems, because you're only addressing emergencies and crises.
SCHIAVONE: No argument from Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.
MICHAEL LEAVITT, HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES SECY.: We have seen the warning signs in the last several months that our current system is not keeping up and that we have to respond.
SCHIAVONE: In Congress, where the spending begins, the push is on to expand the FDA's budget, in keeping with the recommendations of an advisory panel to the FDA.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of food for the nation.
SCHIAVONE: The FDA admits that its current budget level of less than $2 billion falls far short of what's needed to accomplish a mission greatly expanded by lawmakers in recent years.
CASSELL: Their inspection rate has gone down 78 percent in the last 35 years, while, as we know, in fact, the number of sites producing food and countries in which we importing foods have increased exponentially.
SCHIAVONE: Secretary Leavitt told Congress that the panel's recommendations have been taken to heart, and that the administration was expanding its budget proposal for the FDA.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: Kitty, in spite of it all, Leavitt says the U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world, but that advisory panel report says: "The way things stand now, the FDA is barely able to protect American consumers" -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Louise, it is the safest food supply in the world, I think we all know that, but with the volume of things that are coming in from overseas, you can't say that everything here is safe. It's not a contradictory statement, is it?
SCHIAVONE: Well, the problem is there are so many ports of entry, so many places where a lot of this material comes in, it's just impossible for the FDA, funded as it is now, lacking the state of science that it needs to monitor all of these products, to really do the job that American consumers need the FDA to do.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Louise Schiavone. Thanks, Louise.
We do have time now for some of "Your Thoughts." And we heard from Angela in Florida: "Lou, I think the only way this administration can keep our toys safe is to ban all toys exported from China. Why not bring the toys back into production in the U.S. I would gladly pay an extra couple of dollars to know that a toy is safe."
And Holden in Michigan wrote to us: "Lou, I am going to be a first-time voter next year. I have no good come from either party. And I am planning on voting as an independent. P.S., I watch your show every night just to get the truth." Thanks very much for that.
And Hal in New Jersey: "Lou, I am now a legitimate independent voter thanks to you. And now all we need are some legitimate independent candidates to replace the babbling bobbleheads in Congress."
E-mail us at loudobbs.com and those of you who e-mail is read here receive a copy of Lou's new book, "independents Day: Awaking the American Spirit."
Coming up, federal judges critical of the case against two convicted Border Patrol agents, we'll have a full report on how the government's "Border Betrayal" is now shakier than ever.
Also, public schools receiving failing grades when it comes to a whole generation of Americans, so why aren't the government and presidential candidates talking about this national crisis? We'll have all that straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: The government's conviction of imprisoned Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean is shakier than ever. A majority of judges in the federal appeals court hearing are critical of the government's prosecution of those two agents. And supporters firmly believe Ramos and Compean should receive a new trial.
Casey Wian reports from 5th Circuit Court of Appeals of New Orleans.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At a hearing of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, supporters of imprisoned Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean finally heard encouraging words.
Appellate Judge Grady Jolly declared: "It does seem to me like the government overreacted here," speaking of prosecutor's decision to charge the agents under a federal law requiring a 10-year mandatory sentence for using a gun to commit a crime. The agents were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison for wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler on the Texas border in 2005.
DAVID BOTSFORD, RAMOS' APPELATE ATTORNEY: I think it's difficult for anybody not to feel that there was overreaction, but whether or not overreaction by the government justifies a new trial, that's up to the court. There are discernible legal issues here.
WIAN: Issues including the efforts by prosecutors to hide Osvaldo Aldrete Davila's drug-smuggling history from the jury that convicted the agents. Davila claimed he was unarmed and that he didn't know the packages in the van he was driving contained 743 pounds of marijuana.
Attorneys for the agents argue Davila perjured himself during the trial. Appellate Judge Patrick Higginbotham stated the government's claim that Davila was an inexperienced low-level drug mule "defy common sense in the real world."
PATTY COMPEAN, JOSE COMPEAN'S WIFE: The judges are really pounding on the attorney general (INAUDIBLE), so that's great news.
WIAN: In fact, prosecutors knew Davila allegedly continued to smuggle marijuana while he was under U.S. government immunity from prosecution to testify against the Border Patrol agents.
MONICA RAMOS, IGNACIO RAMOS' WIFE: It's plain the see that my husband did not receive a fair trial.
T.J. BONNER, PRES., NATL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: I was extremely encouraged by the fact that they focused on those questions and made very supportive statements indicating that they will overturn the convictions of agents Ramos and Compean.
WIAN: Supporters were also encouraged by U.S. Attorney Mark Stelmach's admission that Davila "told some lies to prosecutors." U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the agents and gave the drug smuggler immunity and a border crossing card, attended the hearing but refused to speak with reporters.
Sutton released a statement saying: "Some in the media and on the Internet have tried to portray agents Compean and Ramos as heroes, but that narrative is false. The actions of Compean and Ramos in shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect, destroying evidence, and engaging in a cover-up are serious crimes."
But Compean's attorney sees the case differently.
BOB BASKETT, JOSE COMPEAN'S ATTORNEY: If I was a police officer having to do my duty under the cloud that this case has raised, I would be reluctant to act. Sometimes it might cost myself my life or fellow officers, something like that, so the line needs to be drawn and maybe this case will do it.
WIAN: A ruling on the motion for a new trial is expected in six to 10 weeks.
(on camera): Judge Jolly also stated that he believes the agents would not have been prosecuted for any crime if they had properly reported the shooting. That is exactly what supporters of Ramos and Compean have been saying all along.
Casey Wian, CNN, New Orleans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now if the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of Ramos and Compean and overturns the original verdict, the two would be granted a new trial. Re-prosecuting the agents might be a bit difficult for the government, their star witness, Aldrete Davila, is currently in jail in El Paso, awaiting trial on four drug-related offenses.
Coming up, the mayor of one of the nation's biggest cities speaks out about enforcing illegal immigration laws.
Also, intelligence fiasco over Iran's nuclear threat. Three of the best political analysts in the country argue about the options left for the Bush administration.
And why is the nation's public education system failing millions of students? We'll have some answers when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Tony Harris. LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK returns in moment. But first, here's a check of the headlines.
How about this? The rock star treatment for Oprah Winfrey. Her Des Moines, Iowa, reception today would make you think she was running for office. Not so, it's Oprah for Obama, 100 percent. Winfrey is appearing at two Barack Obama campaign stops in Iowa today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OPRAH WINFREY, TV HOST, OBAMA SUPPORTER: I not only care about this country, but there are times that I even worry about what happens to our country. And that is why, for the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: The Oprah-Bama pep rallies are not a one-day fair. The two will share the stage in South Carolina and New Hampshire tomorrow. Obama is not the only candidate to haul a popular, familiar face into the ring today. Senator Hillary Clinton here in Iowa counting on some Chelsea fans to boost her numbers on the campaign trail. The former first daughter and the Senator's mother also mixed it up with Clinton supporters today in Des Moines.
I'm Tony Harris. Now back to LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK.
PILGRIM: The nation's public school system is often referred to as the great equalizer in our society. But our public schools are failing an entire generation of Americans.
Now earlier this week, Lou sat down with Jawanza Kunjufu, the author of "Black Students: Middle Class Teachers"; and Pedro Noguera, a teacher and coeditor of "Unfinished Business."
They discussed why this country's public education system is in crisis. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PEDRO NOGUERA, NYU SCHOOL OF EDUCATION: We were not putting the investment where we need to, which is in the schools, as you said before. We have got to recognize that the schools are our future, the foundation of democracy, and the key to creating the leaders in science and business in the future will be to invest in public education.
But we're not making that investment now. And the number one place where we could make that investment would have been teaching. Right now our teachers, not simply salary, but we're not creating incentives to get the best college students into the teaching profession, and that's one of the critical issues.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: And lining them up with the subjects they're teaching, in other words...
NOGUERA: That's right, making sure.
DOBBS: ... majoring in the subject they're teaching. Jawanza, your thoughts, why can't we just bring this urgency? Why can't our political leaders understand this is a crisis? We're literally losing millions of folks.
JAWANZA KUNJUFU, AUTHOR, "BLACK STUDENTS, MIDDLE CLASS STUDENTS": Well, as you know, Lou, there's also a two-tiered system. I mean, regardless of the state, in my home state of Illinois, there are some school districts that only receive between $5,000 and $10,000 per student per year, while in the same state, there are some other school districts where they receive between $15,000 and $25,000 per child.
And yet we naively expect these two students from these two school districts to be able to compete equally for the limited slots at the University of Illinois.
DOBBS: Yes. I think that's a great -- so how do you solve it?
KUNJUFU: Well, obviously, we can't rely totally on the funding of schools via property taxes.
DOBBS: The idea that the education, the solution is financial, that also isn't a complete answer, it's certainly critically important. But we have got the issues of teachers unions focusing more on tenure and security of employment than on quality and performance. I think you both would agree with that.
KUNJUFU: I would.
DOBBS: We have to get a push-back there. We have got to come to terms with the fact our first crisis is in, obviously, the earlier grades, because those are the grades not preparing young men and women for high school.
But we have got to have discipline in the schools, we have got to come together over that issue. Why can't we do that, both at the local level, the state level and the federal level?
NOGUERA: Well, I think the other thing, though, in the just released international comparison in science and math, the United States was way behind several countries.
DOBBS: Oh, absolutely.
NOGUERA: Canada is number two in literacy. And you look what Canada does differently, universal health care. Health is an educational issue. We have sick kids in our school. We have kids with asthma. We have kids with health conditions that make it difficult to go to school. So in some ways we're expecting schools to solve problems that are not simply educational.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Well, that's an interesting point.
KUNJUFU: I was just going to reinforce that from the standpoint of special education, which, when we had Brown versus Topeka in '54, we didn't have special ed., we have it now in 1975. And unfortunately, African-American children are 17 percent of the children in public schools, but 41 percent of the special ed. children and only 3 percent of the gifted and talented children.
So, Lou, I'm raising the question, is special ed. the new form of segregation? Is it the new form of...
DOBBS: Well, what do you mean when you say that?
KUNJUFU: ... tracking? Well, I'm concerned about the disproportionate percentage of black and brown children in special ed. and the small percentage of black and brown children in gifted and talented. So not only are we funding schools...
DOBBS: Well, when you say it's segregation, what are you really saying though? Are you saying that there is some sort of artificial standard being applied to minority children that places them in special ed. or are you saying that there's some...
KUNJUFU: Yes.
DOBBS: ... treatment of those children or their parents that leads to their being placed in special education?
KUNJUFU: I'm saying that black and brown children, and specifically black and brown male children, are disproportionately and unfairly placed in special education. And I'm saying that children who are placed in special ed. unfairly create a prime population to drop out years later.
NOGUERA: But I could add there, that would only be a problem if special ed. were not a dumping ground for kids. In special education, you're supposed to have someone who actually knows your learning needs and has the strategy to meet those needs.
But in too many districts we put kids into special ed. That we don't know how to teach or don't necessarily want to teach.
DOBBS: Why is it that we're not hearing these presidential candidates say this is a crisis, we have got to move? Why is it, like there's sort of like an institutional process at work here, everybody has got a pace? And I mean, I swear to you, and we're talking about half the kids in this country dropping out of high school, guys, I see that as a crisis, I may be nuts, but that's a crisis to me.
NOGUERA: It's definitely going to come back to haunt us. Because when you don't graduate from high school, your chances of ending up in prison are much greater, of ending up unemployed or not being able to support yourself and your family.
The consequences for this affect the entire society, and that's what we need to realize, not just those kids, but the entire society is going to be affected by it.
DOBBS: And you know what, Jawanza, I don't care if -- let's say society isn't affected, if your heart doesn't say that tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands of students losing that opportunity in high school, if that isn't the crisis enough, I don't care if the rest of the country is insulated, isolated and immunized against the effect, that's enough.
KUNJUFU: I totally agree. But let me just mention this, these are two friends of mine, Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton. Bill Cosby takes the position that we need to look internally and look at personal responsibilities to improve our academic achievement like increasing study time and reducing the amount of time watching television, the media covers that.
If Al Sharpton looks at some systemic issues, some societal issues with regards to the funding of schools or how we're looking at prisons, then the media will not cover that. And that's why the candidates are not looking at this issue because you get very little media play when you...
DOBBS: All right. But...
KUNJUFU: ... look at issues like this.
DOBBS: You raised that issue again, on prisons. What do prisons got to do with high schools?
KUNJUFU: Well, let me say this, Lou. I think you have seen this, and I can document this from "Education Week" in The Washington Post. There are governors, hear me clearly, there are governors that determine prison growth based on second to fourth grade reading scores.
How asinine that you would consider building prisons based on a poor performance of your second and fourth graders in reading versus an creating an environment for those children to thrive and grow and learn.
DOBBS: Well, why don't you just tell us who those governors are, because I think there ought to be somebody slapped upside the head. Because that's de facto saying, we're going to run up a white flag and the heck with what is going to happen in our educational system.
NOGUERA: And every dollar we spend on prisons is a dollar we don't have for health care, for education, for security. It's really a very shortsighted direction we're headed in.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, thank you very much. We appreciate you both being here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Straight ahead, was Mitt Romney's speech on religion a risky leap of faith or success? Well, three top political analysts on the role of religion in presidential politics.
And repairing our "Broken Borders" where the federal government has failed. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon tells us why he has reversed course on illegal immigration law enforcement.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: One of the biggest so-called sanctuary cities is finally preparing to enforce this nation's laws against illegal immigration. The mayor of Phoenix, Arizona has reversed course and wants police officers to ask people under arrest about their immigration status. Now the mayor says he changed direction because the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibilities to deal with illegal immigration.
Lou asked Mayor Phil Gordon why the leaders of both political parties are still ignoring the will of the people on this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MAYOR PHIL GORDON (D), PHOENIX, ARIZONA: Well, I -- first, let me make your point. It's exactly right. No matter where one has been on this debate, the multiple sides of immigration and reform and what order and border security, everyone has agreed it is the most important domestic issue for years.
And you can have the president, the majority of Congress, and we can't pass anything? It's unconscionable, in that sense, and it is a national responsibility. Until we have that done, it's never going to get solved.
But you're right. Locally, we have to have a balance between local police going after the criminals, the robbers, the murderers that are legal and illegal in this city, and also, at the same time, those that are committing crimes, not be prevented from asking what the immigration status is.
DOBBS: Now you've got a number of towns around you, the chief of police, of Phoenix, point of fact, a man who works for you in the city of Phoenix, has been very adamant in support of order 1.4, and maintaining a sanctuary city, in the midst of Maricopa County where Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 287(g) which permits his deputies to carry out enforcement of immigration law.
So are you saying you are going to go to 287(g) as well in the city of Phoenix?
GORDON: Mr. Dobbs, no, actually, if I may -- first of all, we have, I believe, the best police chief, best manager in the country, and the best department. Obviously, every mayor is, you know, a little biased, but Phoenix's police record is unblemished. And in fact in the...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, I want to be clear. I'm not casting any aspersions.
GORDON: No, no, no, no, I know.
DOBBS: I want to get to the issue of 287(g) which gives your officers in that city the opportunity to work with immigration -- federal immigration authorities.
GORDON: Absolutely. The point that I was going to make, though, is, so that nobody misunderstood that's watching with respect to what our chief is about and the department, and the officers, we actually work with ICE uniquely in the company.
We have ICE agents embedded full time within our police department. And, in fact, while the sheriff has discussed what he and his deputies are doing, the Phoenix Police have been the individuals that arrested 5,000 illegal...
DOBBS: Again, Mayor, I'm not in any way criticizing your police department. I'm saying that they have been proponents of what has been effectively a sanctuary city. And what I'm trying to understand is, if you are going to use 287(g), which would allow you, as does -- it does Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, the opportunity to work directly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the enforcement of immigration law.
GORDON: No. The answer would be no on that. But what we are working on is...
DOBBS: Why not?
GORDON: ... to actually be able to get ICE directly by the officers involved so that we don't divert the time, hours to take a police officer off the street, once that is determined, and then go book them and everything. So, it's a partnership that we're developing that will balance that, the police officer on the street, and still require the federal government to do some of the responsibility.
DOBBS: Why would you not use 287(g), which is a tremendous resource? GORDON: Right, well, one, we have 3,000 offers to train, 3,000 officers at six months would take so many off the street. We've answered, the Phoenix police have 2.3 million calls a year for just 3,000 officer, 550...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: So what will be the immediate effect then on the city of Phoenix as you change the sanctuary posture of Phoenix?
GORDON: Well, one, again, I think it will allow everyone to know what -- that we aren't a sanctuary city. That we cooperate with the federal government and ICE and arrest individuals, because of their status, or turn them over to ICE if they are found at drop houses if they have committed crimes or they're there illegally.
But to answer your question directly, it will allow officers, as you said, that have arrested someone for violating a crime, not to be prohibited from calling ICE, the federal government in, or determining their immigration status through ICE. We don't have...
DOBBS: All 3,000 of your officers will be able to do that under the program that's going to be created?
GORDON: That's what the professionals are developing right now. I don't know what the numbers will be or how.
DOBBS: Mayor Phil Gordon, we thank you very much.
GORDON: Thank you very much.
DOBBS: And I have to tell you, as one who has covered this issue for some time, I think you have made an exactly correct decision to reverse that direction of your city, in regard of order 1.4. And I wish you all the very best. I'm sure the people of Phoenix are grateful, as well.
GORDON: Thank you, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Straight ahead, has religion become the defining issue or a distraction in presidential politics? Three of the best political analysts anywhere will join us. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Joining me now are three of the best political analysts in the country. We have Errol Lewis, columnist for The New York Daily News. We have Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for TIME magazine, and he also the author of "The Undecided Voter's Guide to the Next President," which now out in paperback, by the way. And in our D.C. bureau, we have Diana West, a columnist for The Washington Times, and she also has a book, she is the author of "The Death of the Grown-up." And we're glad to have you all here. Thank you very much. Let's start with Mitt Romney. Now he gave a very key speech this week on religion. And it got mixed reviews. He basically said, I don't define my candidacy by my religion. But it was a bit of a risk. Was it a risk and a success or a risk and not a success, Mark? Let's start with you.
MARK HALPERIN, TIME: I think a risk and probably a success. We'll know on Election Day maybe if it helped or not. This is a guy who is an active guy. He ran the Olympics in an active way. He was a businessman in an active way, got elected in Massachusetts being active.
He didn't want to sit back, lose this election not having given a speech. So I think pretty well-executed, definitely the right idea. And he has got to stop the perception that he is a waffler. I think it was more about showing he was man of character, showing his heart, that it wasn't (ph) about a religion.
PILGRIM: It was a very nicely written speech, but -- and he wrote it himself, I understand. It also -- though, there was some criticism about the timing of it. That some critics said it should have been done six weeks earlier, that he had started to lose some ground in the polls to Mr. Huckabee and that it was done to basically counter that threat.
Now does that take away the power of the speech or is that just a logical time to give the speech.
ERROL LOUIS, THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: I think it does take away from the power of it. I think it should have been done frankly six months ago. These questions have been swirling for quite a while now. You can find articles going back over a year in fact, of people predicting, correctly I think, that there would be a little bit of disquiet with Mormonism.
It's an unusual religion, a lot of people either know very little about it or what little they know is skewed to the negative. So he could have and really should have cleared this up. By doing it now, it makes it look as if it was done for, in some ways, the wrong reason, only because he is falling in the polls, that he has got this particular guy coming up on him, who happens to be a Baptist preacher who is eating into his evangelical voters.
It would have been better if that question were disposed of and he had simply wanted to speak from the heart.
PILGRIM: You know, Barack Obama has also talked about his religious views, but he says Republicans aren't the only candidates with a lock on the topic, yet it seems to come up with certain candidates -- it's a natural for certain candidates, Diana?
DIANA WEST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Well, that's true. And I think getting back to what Errol was saying, I think that actually the timing of the speech does make sense because this has become an issue. I think that the way Mike Huckabee has been kind of straddling the whole issue whether -- he did not answer directly whether he thought Mormonism was a cult. He has run some commercials where he calls himself "a Christian candidate."
I think that this made the declaration of what Mitt Romney believes his faith to be very key for this moment, especially for those evangelical voters in Iowa who are obviously key to the Republican caucuses.
That said, I found it actually an excellent speech and found it also refreshing just to be talking about some of these lofty ideals and ideas that do define us as a people. So I thought it was a very successful speech.
PILGRIM: It's clearly something that is discussed quite a bit in this country, and Romney talking about nativity scenes and menorahs in public places, these are all issues that have been widely discussed in other contexts besides the campaign. So it certainly is on Americans' minds.
Let's take a look at some polls while we're talking about the polls. This one, among the Republicans, choice for president in 2008. And let's put this up. We have Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. And you're seeing some movement here. Rudy Giuliani now at 25 percent, Huckabee at 16. Huckabee is up 10 in this poll. He is gaining. What do you think about this horse race?
HALPERIN: There's a true five-way race for the nomination. Probably Giuliani and Romney are still the most likely nominees, but McCain, Huckabee, and even Thompson, who has done probably the least well of late, all of them are in this race. We've never seen a Republican race this wide open, this close to the voting.
So anyone who tells you they know who the Republican nominee is going to is wrong. But clearly there is one candidate right now of the five with momentum, that is Huckabee and maybe McCain.
PILGRIM: You know, the Democrats got all the ink in the beginning of this, and now it seems that the real focus is on the Republican race, Errol?
LOUIS: Yes. And frankly, I think all the candidates benefit from this turmoil from this horse race, because again, as we have said on this show, the Iowa Caucuses are not just slipping behind a curtain and pulling a lever and being gone in 30 seconds, you have got to stay in some cases for hours. You've got to do it publicly. Your neighbors and co-workers have got to see where you stand, literally.
And it is going to be a real interesting race to see not only who has the most support but who has the most deep support. And that's how a lot of us in the media get fooled. You can see people -- you can tell a pollster one thing, but is that going to translate into five hours in the bitter cold in January? We'll see.
PILGRIM: Yes. Diana, quick, we're going to wrap up this one quick.
WEST: Well, I think that we haven't talked about the Democrats at this point...
(CROSSTALK)
PILGRIM: We'll do that after the break.
WEST: Oh, OK.
PILGRIM: Anything to say about the Republicans at this point?
WEST: It's a great horse race.
PILGRIM: All right. Diana, thanks for being so brief, we'll be right back and then we'll get to the Democrats in just a minute. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: We're back with Errol Louis, Mark Halperin and Diana West. Let's go straight to the Democrats, as we promised, and take a look. Now this is -- among Democrats, a national poll, choice of president 2008. And we see Clinton now at 39 and Obama at 24. Obama seems to be moving up and Clinton has lost her edge. What's going on here, Mark?
HALPERIN: Well, Clinton has had a bad month, she's still doing well nationally, though. She has still got a pretty big lead. Iowa is where all the focus is for the Democrats. And there, Obama has the momentum and Iowa is so big for the Democrats.
PILGRIM: Yes, it really is. Diana, I'm going to go to you, because you got shortchanged last time.
WEST: Oh, well, I think -- I don't know, the polls aren't necessarily reflecting this, but I've heard some very interesting anecdotal things about John Edwards. He seems to be off in our shadows at this point. But I heard the most fascinating thing on the radio, a member of the UAW in Waterloo, Iowa, reported that out of some 300 ballots cast in a straw poll, Hillary did not get one and Edwards ran away with it. And I thought that was quite fascinating, something you need to watch, yes.
PILGRIM: We'll see how that...
LOUIS: That tracks with the amount of time he has put in, especially among union households. So it would be surprising if he didn't have some strength in those kinds of settings. So we will see if he can turn it into a general victory.
PILGRIM: He has been campaigning in every county in Iowa, right? It has been...
HALPERIN: Don't count him out. He can win these caucuses and that would shake things up.
WEST: He could. PILGRIM: That's an interesting point. Let's move on to Iran, a big topic of the week, and very critical. Let's listen to what National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had to say about it. I think it kind of sums up the Bush take on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: On balance, the estimate is good news. On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: So, good news/bad news, half full, half empty, it's really both sides of the track on that comment.
HALPERIN: That's right. But I think the bottom line for a lot of observers in the United States and internationally is, credibility is so important in foreign policy. The way this was handled over time and at the moment it was revealed, I don't think enhanced, to say the least, the credibility of the Bush administration.
PILGRIM: Still, the argument now is we can't take your eyes away from Iran. This doesn't give them a free pass, right, Diana?
WEST: Well, the NIE estimate doesn't give them a free pass, either. I mean, if you take away that first sentence where it declares that the nuclear weapons program halted in 2003, the rest of it still gives us great deals of many things to worry about, including the non-military nuclear weapons -- or not weapon program, but non- nuclear -- non-weapons -- non-military program, which, of course, can be converted very easily and handily to a military program.
So the hysteria or the euphoria, I'm not sure which it is, seems to me extremely premature.
PILGRIM: The Russians not going along, saying, there is no military threat here, and they are, of course, helping with the civilian program.
LOUIS: Yes. The White House will take a political hit on it. On the other hand, as a citizen and from the standpoint of the safety of the United States, it is good news. Whoever wants to take credit for it, isn't really of much concern, I think to most of the 300 million people who live here.
What's important is that we remain safe and however we get there, we'll see.
PILGRIM: I think we can all agree with that. Thanks very much, Errol Louis, Diana West, Mark Halperin, thank you.
And thank you for joining us, please join tomorrow. For all of us here, thanks for watching. Good night from New York. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
