Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

CIA Hired Contract Killers; Afghanistan Voting Extended; Scotland Frees Pan Am Bomber; Health Care Costs Hidden; Jackson Death Probe Continues; Loans Still A Challenge for Small Businesses

Aired August 20, 2009 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning once again. It is Thursday, it's August 20th. Welcome to AMERICAN MORNING. I'm Kiran Chetry.

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: I'm John Roberts. Thanks for joining us on the Most News in the Morning. Here are the big stories we're covering, breaking down for you in the next 15 minutes.

Instead of Navy SEALs, the Army Special Ops forces tracking down al Qaeda, did the CIA use contract killers? Brand new this morning, we have learned that in 2004, the job of attempting to kill terrorists was outsourced. Price tag said to be in the millions and the plan apparently a total failure. We're live at the Pentagon, just ahead.

CHETRY: Also just into CNN, polling centers in Afghanistan are going to be staying open for an extra hour. The Afghan election commission extended the voting. It's a good sign for turnout. We were hearing reports that Taliban threats kept people at home in some areas. We'll get a full report from Kabul just ahead.

ROBERTS: And Scotland is expected to announce the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of PanAm Flight 103 is about to go free. He's suffering from terminal prostate cancer. We're standing by for the announcement and in just a moment we will take you live to Scotland.

But we begin with new evidence that the CIA used contract killers to try to take out terrorists. In 2004, when American forces were fully engaged in Iraq, contractors from Blackwater U.S.A., now known as X.E. services were hired to hunt down and assassinate top al Qaeda operatives.

Our Barbara Starr is tracking the story this morning from the Pentagon.

Barbara, what have you learned? Did these assassins ever actually kill any terrorists?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, by all accounts, John, no, they didn't. The program was canceled by CIA Director Leon Panetta earlier this year before it became fully operational.

But a source familiar with the program does, in fact, confirm to us that Blackwater was part of it at least back in 2004. The aim of the program to conduct training, surveillance, and, yes, potentially get into the full phase of targeted killing of top al Qaeda leaders that the U.S. wanted to get.

Now, this is all very interesting because Blackwater, of course, is one of the best known and most controversial private security contractor firms in the country. They have worked in Iraq for many years, in Afghanistan, around the world. They have hired previous CIA top officials to work for Blackwater. They have a very tight relationship with the intelligence community.

By all accounts, Mr. Panetta canceled the program in no small part because it had been going on for several years, moving through various phases, but Congress had never been notified about the program as would have been required under law. So, Panetta went ahead and canceled it. It never went into full operational play - John.

ROBERTS: If the CIA, Barbara, was going to get in the business of assassinating top terrorist leaders, why not just to use the military to do it? Why hire an outside contractor?

STARR: Yes, why outsource the job when you have a United States military that is actually trained and equipped to do just that? Well, the source familiar with the program told us the aim here was to put some distance between the official entities of the U.S. government -- that means the U.S. military and the CIA, make this an unofficial program with no public face on it, no ties to the U.S. government. This would have been as covert and secret as it gets.

If these operatives, if these contractors had been on a mission to kill and had been captured or something had gone wrong, it would have been much easier for there to be no U.S. face on it -- John?

ROBERTS: Barbara Starr for us at the Pentagon with the latest on all of that -- Barbara, thanks so much.

CHETRY: And again, just into CNN this morning, confirming that voting in Afghanistan has been extended by an hour. The Afghan election commission is doing its best to accommodate voters who are risking their lives and defying Taliban threats to cast their vote for president.

Atia Abawi is live in Kabul with more for us on what's going on today.

Now, so, they're going to extend the voting for one hour. What does that mean when there were questions about turnout?

ATIA ABAWI, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kiran, to be honest with you, it doesn't mean much. The polling station here did not get that message, and this is in capital city of Kabul. So, there will be polling stations throughout the country that do not know that it has been extended from an hour. They have already started counting ballots. In fact, they're finished with some of the rooms because there was a very low turnout here. We saw people trickling and we did some civilians, but primarily, government officials and candidates themselves for the provincial seats as well as the presidency.

But this goes to show you that the Taliban threats were made good this past week leading up to the elections here in Kabul with two suicide car bombings in a span of four days. The Afghan people thinking, "Is it really worth me coming out to vote if my vote won't count? Should I risk my life?" And many of them decided not to -- Kiran?

CHETRY: All right. Atia for us this morning in Kabul, Afghanistan -- very interesting perspective, as you said, the one you're standing outside of apparently didn't get the message because they're closed and they're counting their ballots now. Thank you.

ROBERTS: We want to get to some breaking news out of Scotland. More than 20 years after Pan Am Flight 103 was blown out of the sky, it now looks as though the bomber is going to be released. Let's go to live a press conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, and listen in for a few minutes.

KENNY MACASKILL, SCOTTISH JUSTICE SECRETARY: In considering these applications, I have strictly followed due process. Including the procedures laid down in the prisoner transfer agreement and in the Scottish prison service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.

Let me be quite clear on matters which I'm certain, the Scottish police and prosecution service under detail and comprehensive conversation with the assistance of the U.S. and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a worldwide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill.

When Mr. al Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our judges who presided and acted justly. Mr. al Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed.

When such an appalling crime is perpetrated, it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed. Mr. al Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision.

My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed, and a life sentence imposed. I realize that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who are served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed.

However, there remains concern to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity. This is a global issue and international in its nature. The questions to be asked...

ROBERTS: That's Kenny MacAskill who is the Scottish minister of justice, laying out the background of the Abdel al Megrahi case, convicted in 2001 of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, was sentenced to 27 years in jail, ostensibly, a life sentence. He has since developed terminal prostate cancer and MacAskill is about to announce, we hope, whether or not he is going to be released. That's why we're staying with this.

Diana Magnay is on the ground for us in Greenock, Scotland.

And what are we expecting here, Diana, out of all of this?

DIANA MAGNAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, John.

Well, the expectation is that he will be released on compassionate grounds to spend the last few weeks of his life in Libya with his family as a free man. His legal team says that he is very close to dying with terminal prostate cancer. And that is the expectation as we listen to Kenny MacAskill go through the facts of the case - John.

ROBERTS: All right. So, as we said, he is just -- he is laying out the history of the case here, Diana, and we're expecting to hear from him in the next minute or so whether or not Megrahi will be released. The expectation probably is that he will be. But there is a lot of opposition to this not only there in Scotland, but here in the United States as well, Diana.

MAGNAY: Absolutely. This is an incredibly controversial decision, which is possibly why Kenny MacAskill has taken really quite such a long try to make that decision. We know that he went to visit al Megrahi in prison to see for himself his condition about three weeks ago. And over that period of time, he's been trying to make up his mind.

The U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, demanding at the beginning of this week that al Megrahi spends the rest of his term in Scottish jail as sentenced.

But the question of compassionate grounds really must depend slightly upon the elements of doubt that still linger in this case, the fact that a Scottish criminal cases review board did re-examine the evidence of a three-year period and say that there were, perhaps, grounds to believe there had been a miscarriage of justice in this case, which was why al Megrahi was granted the right to a second appeal, which he has now dropped, John.

ROBERTS: Right. Let's go back and listen to more of the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

MACASKILL: I received numerous letters and representations and recognized that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.

I met with the families of victims, those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight; as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie. A lady from Spain, her sister was a member of the cabinetry, and I held a video conference with families from the United States.

I'm grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.

I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General Eric Holder. I met Minister Alabidi (ph) and his delegation from the Libyan government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application. I have noted and considered all the points presented and also relevant, written representations I received.

Prior to ratification of the prisoner transfer agreement, it was scrutinized by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights to which Jack Straw, U.K. secretary of state for justice, gave a commitment that in cases with applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr. al Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations and he chose to do so in person. Therefore, I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.

It was clear that both the United States government and the American families objected to the prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made prior to trial regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.

The United States Attorney General Eric Holder was, in fact, deputy attorney general to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland.

Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they had placed upon these assurances over the past 10 years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me by the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I sought the views of the United Kingdom government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the U.S. government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time or to provide any information to substantiate their view.

I find that highly regrettable. I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor of what may have been agreed between governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American government. Therefore, it appears to me that the American families and government either had an expectation or were led to believe that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.

It is for that reason that the Libyan government's application for Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi I accordingly reject.

I now turn to the issue of compassionate release. Sections three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Scotland Act 1993 gives the Scottish ministers the power to release prisoners on license on compassionate grounds. The act requires that ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment.

Although the act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service who assess applications suggests that it may be considered when a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits, but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.

On 24th July, 2009, I received an application from Mr. al Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008.

I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports, including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness and, indeed, that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.

In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the governor of Greenock prison, the doctors, and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I've consulted the parole board.

This is a normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release. And my decision is in accordance with all of the advice given to me.

It is the opinion of the Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during, and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, hormone resistant. That is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus and prognosis, therefore, has moved to the lower end of expectations.

Mr. al Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3rd August. A reported dated 10th August from the director of health and care from the Scottish Prison Service indicates that the three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The device they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination, but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner, he may live longer.

I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.

It has been suggested that Mr. al Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.

Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr. Al Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply-held feelings and many will disagree whatever my decision. However, a decision has to be made.

Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal, some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep, and the wounds remain.

However, Mr. al Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court in any jurisdiction, in any land could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final, and irrevocable, he is going to die.

In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

Mr. al Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them. But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed, but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people no matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

For these reasons and these reasons alone, it is my decision that Mr. Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, convicted for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with terminal cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and therefore allowed to return to Libya to die.

I will now take questions.

(INAUDIBLE)

ROBERTS: So, after a rather detailed, shall we say, explanation of his decision, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish minister of justice, saying that he will release Abdelbasset al Megrahi on compassionate grounds because, upon examinations by doctors there in Scotland, they assume that he has about three months to live from terminal prostate cancer.

What you saw earlier was he rejected a petition from the Libyan government for a prisoner transfer, but then he also did say that he would release him on compassionate grounds. So, this bound to provoke a lot of discussion over the next few hours.

CHETRY: As he said in the moments before announcing that he showed no compassion to his victims but that's not, you know, the criteria for which we decide this. And he also mentioned he believes he only has less than three months to live.

ROBERTS: Right. So, you know, just keeping in mind that Abdel al Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of killing 270 people on board Pan Am Flight 103, sentenced to live imprisonment, 27 years. So, again, expect a lot of discussion about this over the course of the next few hours.

CHETRY: All right. Well, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we're going to be speaking about health care costs with Paul Keckley. He's an economist who studies this. What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of universal health care? We're going to get some answers.

It's 27 minutes past the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHETRY: Welcome back. Twenty-nine minutes past the hour.

Right now, we check our top stories.

We're still tracking Hurricane Bill churning through the open waters of the Atlantic -- actually, moving closer to Bermuda now. Bill did weaken slightly, but still a strong category three storm and expected to regain strength sometime today. Right now, maximum sustained winds near 125-miles-per-hour. And Rob Marciano is saying that Bill is expected to affect the eastern U.S. coast, at least with large swells as early as tomorrow.

ROBERTS: Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy is asking state leaders to change a law so that the state is covered should his Senate seat become vacant. In a letter, Kennedy asks that the governor be granted the power to temporarily appoint someone before a new senator is elected in a special election.

CHETRY: And the "cash for clunkers" program is going to run out of gas. The administration is now saying it will wind down the popular car-buying incentives, perhaps as early as next month. Many dealerships say they've had trouble getting reimbursements from the federal government and they're worried the $3 billion will run out before they even see a dime. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood did ensure dealers they will get paid, and as we said a couple of days ago, they also tripled the number of people who are dealing with getting the dealers reimbursed.

All right. Well, it is a critical issue in the make or break debate over health care reform. How to make sure that Americans can afford health care? Something the president addressed during his state of the union address.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHETRY: Paul Keckley is a health care economist with the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. We've had him on before, a non- partisan research center. Thanks for being with us this morning and to have you with us in person.

PAUL KECKLEY, HEALTH CARE ECONOMIST: Thank you.

CHETRY: Now, it's interesting the health care reform debate started out as being about universal health care, insuring the uninsured. Making sure people falling through the cracks get the health care they need.

It's now also turned, at least people making the case for reform, into a financial necessity. Explain that.

KECKLEY: Well, in the speech you referenced there, the president said we have to reduce costs and cover everyone. That was the challenge laid down for a bill this year.

Maybe the part of reducing costs didn't catch on at that point. And it really doesn't resonate with Joe public, because we're sheltered from cost. We really don't know what things cost, because there's so many ways it's disguised from what we really understand.

So now we're talking about cost because it affects everyone. So that's going to be more topical in the weeks ahead.

CHETRY: The other interesting thing, though, was to get to the bottom or explain to all of us, and myself included, how we end up paying for health care regardless of whether we have insurance or we don't, whether we have a good plan or not. Explain how those costs are passed on to us in our daily lives.

KECKLEY: Well, there are a lot of hidden taxes. So you pay indirectly for health care every time you pay a hospital or doctor bill, you pay for it in the goods that you buy, and you pay for it through taxes.

So we're paying for it. It's not as direct as people might find more easy to understand. So that's what complicates it. If you have employer-sponsored insurance, for instance, you only see one out of $7 that are paid for your insurance.

So we've not done a good job of being transparent about prices in health care.

CHETRY: All right, so as we talk about ways that we end up paying for health care, what about ways to reduce health care costs in the long-term, but also insure everyone?

As you said, it was a challenge laid down by the president, and we've been hearing words about "rationing health care," we've been hearing there has to be decisions on who deserves what treatments and why. How does all of that factor in from an economic perspective?

KECKLEY: Well, it's tough because the reason we have high health costs that are basically double the rate of wage increases is, one, we live unhealthy lifestyles. We don't do things that we should do.

But most people don't attribute that to anything they can control, interestingly. So 31 percent of us are obese and a lot of people show up with problems.

Second, we use technology and services more than we should. It's called supply sensitive care. We do more, sometimes, instead of doing right things.

And third, our incentives reward volume, not outcomes. So that's how we got here.

CHETRY: You're talking about fee for services and doctors get paid by the service...

KECKLEY: We do more.

CHETRY: ... not by a salary.

KECKLEY: And sometimes that's because we fear being sued. And sometimes it's because there's more money to be made. I thought what Sanjay said earlier was intriguing, that one out of four doctors are going into primary care. Primary care doctors are at the bottom of the income chain.

CHETRY: Actually, even less. Out of the doctors graduating from medical school, 75 percent of them will go into a specialty. It's more lucrative and they make more money.

KECKLEY: Absolutely.

CHETRY: And the danger in that, as we've been discussing, as Sanjay pointed out, is that it's the primary care physicians that are going to be needed most as we try to expand health care. But secondly, they're on the front lines of preventive care. You talked about leading unhealthy lifestyles. If we're not meeting with a primary care physician and finding out ways to prevent disease, then we're going to be down the road to paying more.

KECKLEY: Absolutely. We know nine of the 15 reasons people are admitted to the hospital are the result of a disease not treated appropriately at a chronic stage.

CHETRY: Right. So how do we get more primary care doctors? And do we as consumers of health care figure out a way to keep costs down ourselves?

KECKLEY: Our studies say people don't understand our system. And that in other countries, developed systems are taught from grade school up. So we've got to begin educating people about how or system works, first.

Second, personal accountability has to be part of any reform effort. We can't simply say government or private insurance doctors or hospitals are the solution. We have to look at ourselves.

Third, we have to shift the incentives. The incentives are not aligned to get the best result, to retain cost at a level that's appropriate and improve quality.

And I think lastly, we've got to quit demonizing the players. This is not about bad people. This is about a flawed system. So we have to change the system instead of picking this part of the system and saying it's wrong, I'm right.

CHETRY: And quickly, because we're almost out of time here, but do you see this getting done? You talk about all of the challenges ahead of us. Do you see us being able to pass something that's workable?

KECKLEY: We'll pass something. What that might be, we don't know. But I think we will.

CHETRY: All right, Paul Keckley with the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Thanks for being with s this morning.

KECKLEY: It's good to see you.

CHETRY: And we know that you have a lot of questions, as well, about health care reform. We've been sorting fact from fiction as best as we can, trying to get answers from you. And it's online, healthCNN.com/health care.

ROBERTS: Well, the Michael Jackson investigation takes another interesting turn after the coroner saying that its report was done, its investigation was over. They know the cause of death.

They sent an investigator out to see Michael Jackson's dermatologist. What's up with that? Paul Callan joining us with his legal opinions coming up next. It's 36 minutes after the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROBERTS: Well, you want to create jobs? One North Carolina restaurant owner says send some stimulus money his way. He'd create 50 jobs within three months, he says. All he needs is a loan.

CHETRY: Yes. It's a tough new world out there, as we know, entrepreneurs wanting to expand their businesses. They're running in the walls trying to get credit.

Christine Romans joins us for this "Money in Main Street" report. It's been tough.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: It's been tough, and it's not very simple, really, the idea of getting the money to the people who can create the jobs. Some -- you know, small businesses create the majority of new jobs in this country.

We met this entrepreneur passionate that stimulus money should flow to small business. With a modest loan he said he's ready to expand, hire right now. But it's not just as simple as that.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: Dinner time in Lumberton, North Carolina.

ROB REDFEARN, BLACK WATER GRILLE: Everything's good.

ROMANS: Restaurant owner Rob Redfearn.

REDFEARN: We did $1.2 million in 2007. It's not bad for a small town, small restaurant.

ROMANS: He's got 35 employees, a crowded bar on weekends, a dependable banquet business. Five years ago he turned a century old mule stable into this.

He's confident he's got the ingredients to open another restaurant here, 35 miles north on I-95 in Fayetteville.

REDFEARN: I'll hire 50 people in three months if I get the money I'm looking for.

ROMANS: $150,000 to be exact.

REDFEARN: My issue is that stimulus money that everybody's talking about needs to flow through to small businesses like this one. I don't want a bailout. I just want -- open the door. I'll walk through it myself.

ROMANS: But so far, that door is shut. We called BB&T Bank, the area's biggest small business lender, and asked them why. Turns out Redfearn's credit score doesn't match his confidence. A spokeswoman for BB&T, who recently paid back its own $3 billion bailout, said "We would've turned him down based on his credit history." Redfearn admits to bumps in the road that have dinged his credit. This is the new world of lending.

LEE CORNELISON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SBA, NORTH CAROLINA: A return to the old-fashioned lending standards, you know. They're making loans with the expectation that all of them are going to be repaid.

ROMANS: That means making fewer loans to only the best applicants. Even small business owners like Redfearn who have had no trouble borrowing in the past are being turned away.

STACY COWLEY, CNNMONEY.COM: We've sort of ended up in the chicken and egg situation here where the banks don't want to make the loans because the small business sector as a whole has been having such trouble, but then small business owners can't get the financing they need to run their business normally, to expand.

ROMANS: The number of new small business loans is less than half what it was before the recession. But the stimulus has helped. The amount of money loaned through the SBA's programs has risen 50 percent since February.

Ever the entrepreneur, Redfearn doesn't have the loan, but he still has the vision.

ROMANS (on camera): And you look at this parking lot and you see cars?

REDFEARN: I see it full.

ROMANS: And you see a successful restaurant.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: He wants to use the recession to expand. Many others in the small business trenches are simply trying to survive, and, for them, getting money right now is critical.

Banks are tightening standards. That makes credit, collateral, cash flow, every number that much more critical.

And we've got some important tips for entrepreneurs and small business owners who are looking for cash to stay in business, to expand in the recession. Go to CNN.com/moneyinmainstreet, an important checklist on what you need, how to improve your credit, make sure you know where to look for the loan that's right for you. That's CNN.com/moneyinmainstreet.

And we want to hear your small business struggles and success. Keep sending us your stories. That's how we found Rob Redfearn, watching "American Morning" and was telling us his story.

ROBERTS: You surprised me. You said that -- he's an ex-patriot Canadian and has the optimism of one, as well. ROMANS: That's right.

ROBERTS: You said he's sold me a pair of sunglasses 20 years ago?

ROMANS: He's been a businessman for years and years -- 20 years ago, and he was -- he had a sunglasses business. And he said yes, a long time ago John Roberts wore them on the air when you were in Canada, a V.J. or something.

ROBERTS: Back in the before time.

ROMANS: Small world, that's right.

ROBERTS: Be nice to people whenever you meet them, because you never know where you're going to run into them again.

ROMANS: You never know when they're going to pop up again.

ROBERTS: Christine, thanks so much.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

CHETRY: You should be nice to be for the heck of it.

ROMANS: That's true. I agree.

CHETRY: For more stories of people thriving in a tough economy, watch more "Money in Main Street" reports tonight 8:00 eastern right here on CNN.

ROBERTS: Latest on the Michael Jackson investigation. What appeared to be a closed case has got some new twists and turns going with it. Why is the coroner's office looking into Michael Jackson's dermatologist? We'll find out coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROBERTS: A new twist this morning in the Michael Jackson investigation. The Los Angeles coroner's chief investigator went back yesterday to the office of Jackson's long time dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein.

Just last week, the coroner said a thorough report into Jackson's death was complete. So why the second search? Paul Callan is a former New York City prosecutor and he has also defended anesthesiologists in medical malpractice cases as recently as last week, I believe. And he's with us this morning. Good to see you.

PAUL CALLAN, FORMER NYC HOMICIDE PROSECUTOR: Good to see you, John.

ROBERTS: So what do you may of the fact that this investigation, which appeared to be closed, might not be so closed?

CALLAN: I'm not surprised, John. They're trying to make a case out against a doctor for manslaughter, a very hard thing to do. So they really want to make sure that all of the I's have been dotted and T's have been crossed and they have all of the information.

So they're going back to this Arnold Klein, the dermatologist, to relook at his records to see what drugs Michael Jackson was taking and how those drugs maybe affected the drugs that were prescribed by Dr. Murray. They have to have a complete package, thorough put together before they proceed with a criminal case.

ROBERTS: We don't have the official toxicology report yet. It's being held at the request of the LAPD. But there has been some reporting that Jackson might have had more than Propofol in his system the day he died.

And Dr. Arnold Klein said the most dangerous drug that he ever prescribed to Michael Jackson was Demerol. It's a pain reliever. It's a narcotic, a controlled substance. Could he have a potential exposure, here?

CALLAN: Well, I think it's interesting. Klein tried to minimize the use of Demerol. He said the only thing I have ever prescribed for him is Demerol, as if Demerol not a dangerous drug.

Demerol is a highly addictive and, as you've indicated, controlled substance. It's an opiate. And you develop a tolerance for Demerol. And supposedly Michael Jackson had been taking Demerol for years. So his tolerance may have caused him to take increased amounts of the Demerol.

Now the real question is, if Klein prescribed large amounts of Demerol to a drug addict, that could be criminal conduct. But it also could affect the case against Murray because if Murray used Propofol, which is the drug that was used apparently to help him sleep, in the face of large amounts of Demerol, that could've caused and contributed to the death.

So law enforcement authorities want to know about these drugs and the dosages that were prescribed.

ROBERTS: Neither one of us are doctors here, but certainly there is possibilities to start to combine powerful drugs like this, you get into respiratory depression, which could lead to him stop breathing and then that could lead to cardiac arrest.

And it's just, I guess, it's the sequencing. Did he have Demerol in his system before the Propofol was administered, or did Demerol enter his system after Propofol. We don't know any of that just yet.

CALLAN: We don't, and that's why, I think, it makes for an interesting and somewhat difficult criminal case for prosecutors.

Of course, the defense attorneys are going to come in and say, hey, this is a medical accident. Nobody -- this is not deliberate, this was not reckless conduct.

ROBERTS: A question I had -- Dr. Klein is a dermatologist. Is he out of his area of operation, let's say, to use a military term, by prescribing him Demerol? That's a painkiller.

CALLAN: Not necessarily. Dentists even prescribe the drug sometimes after oral surgery or root canals, that sort of thing. It was a very widely prescribed drug in the past. And he's within legal authority in prescribing it.

ROBERTS: Michael Jackson did say that his chronic pain was as a result of his scalp being burned so badly during the filming of that Pepsi commercial. So could you then make the logical connection that, yes, a dermatologist might prescribe Demerol for him if he continued to have pain from that scarring?

CALLAN: Yes, you can. And dermatologists remove things from the skin. They do plastic surgery procedures. They widely use the drug Demerol. So he's OK with prescribing it, as long as he's not prescribing it to a known drug addict. And maybe he was a drug addict at the time the prescription was handed down.

ROBERTS: We spent time together over the weekend, and we were talked about building a defense as opposed to talking about facts. And obviously Dr. Murray would be building a potential defense against a possible charge of manslaughter. That's what he's being investigated for.

So this videotape he came out with the other day. What do you make of that? And is that a prudent way of helping to build the defense? If you were his attorney, would you say, good on you? Or would you say, what are you doing here?

CALLAN: I tell you John, I find the use of the YouTube video a fascinating development, because what the defense here is doing is they're doing an end run around the press.

Usually defense attorneys say, well, I'd like to produce him at a press conference to give him a better public image. But of course, they're afraid he's going to be asked difficult, pesky questions by members of the press. So they do a YouTube video...

ROBERTS: So this is a good move?

CALLAN: ... and it gets aired -- well, if it's well done and he makes a good witness, it can create a good public image. I'm not so sure I had a lot of confidence in him when I saw him on the YouTube video. He didn't give me that...

ROBERTS: So give me your expertise here then. Was it a good move or a bad move?

CALLAN: I think it's a good idea. I don't think it was a good move in this case because I don't think he came that sympathetically in the YouTube video.

ROBERTS: Paul Callan, it's always great to see. Thanks for coming by this morning.

CALLAN: Good seeing you, John. ROBERTS: Appreciate it - Kiran.

CHETRY: All right, still ahead, we'll be talking to Sanjay. He's answering your questions, separating fact from fiction on the health care debate, still ahead.

It's 51 minutes past the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROBERTS: All this month during the push on health care, we're getting real answers to your questions about the reform proposals. Today we're pulling a couple of questions out of Dr. Gupta's mail bag.

CHETRY: Yes. And Sanjay joins us live right now.

Here's the first question, Sanjay. Lilibeth from Washington State asks, "If the bill is passed, will I be able to see any doctor I want in any specialty? And will I be able to keep my current doctor?"

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell you, this is a question that comes up over and over again at town halls, Lilibeth's question. And a short answer is, yes. Based on everything that we've seen within the bill, Lilibeth would be able to keep her own doctor and not be required to see a new one. It sounds like she already has insurance.

A couple of caveats though. One thing is if you're trying to go out of network, for example, it's still probably be more expensive than if you see an in-network doctor. That's the way it is now. That probably won't change.

I think the other part of this that's important to point out is that people for Medicare, for example, or people who might go to the public option, if there is one, not all doctors would necessarily accept that insurance.

So it's -- while they say you have greater choice, it doesn't mean that every doctor will have to accept the various insurance plans out there. So that's something Lilibeth and everyone else is thinking about that we'll have to sort of negotiate a little bit.

ROBERTS: Sanjay, we have another question. It comes from one of our a.m. fix viewers. Jane asks quote, "My husband lost his job in May. He's 56 and I'm 47. We have a three-year-old daughter, no health care, and we both take prescription medication. Will anything be done about the high cost of medication?" In a tough spot there.

GUPTA: Yes, and a lot going on, it sounds like, with this particular family. So they're not quite able to qualify for Medicare yet. And they have a three-year-old daughter who probably would qualify for children's health care proposal. So the daughter would probably be covered.

This idea of having no health insurance and prescription meds, though, is a tough problem. That's where a lot of people sort of are falling through the cracks.

A couple of things to point out. There has been negotiating that's gone on between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry. About $80 billion over ten years, that money won't be drawn down out of the budget. That helps seniors, primarily. That helps seniors defray their prescription drug costs.

It probably won't help Jane and her husband in this case, and it's unclear how the reform bill will help them.

One thing that's worth pointing -- they say they have no health insurance. They may qualify for subsidized health care insurance and the associated prescription drug plans.

One thing, you know, and John, you and I have talked about this in this past, but this idea of these brand name drugs being able to go to generic drugs faster is also something the White House has talked quite a bit about.

They're trying to create these anti-competitive agreements. So a brand name drug maker can go to a generic drug maker and say don't make the generic drug. We'll pay you some money, don't make that that. The generic drug company benefits, but we the public do not. And that's something that is going to be addressed.

CHETRY: Another thing, just quickly, as she said, her husband lost her job in May and we've seen the COBRA benefits extended, right? That was part of the stimulus.

GUPTA: That's right.

CHETRY: And so people need to check into that because they have -- many people have been taking advantage of being able to have that happen and also get a subsidy.

ROBERTS: They're so expensive.

GUPTA: Good point. They are expensive.

CHETRY: They're partly subsidized, as well. Not exactly sure for how long, but it's a possibility to look into, any avenue right now.

GUPTA: Absolutely. COBRA's a very good point as well, Kiran, for people to look into, absolutely.

CHETRY: All right, Sanjay, thanks so much for being with us.

As always, a lot of people wanting to get answers to their questions, CNN.com/amfix is our blog and on there is a link to ask Sanjay a question if you want.

Right now it's 58 minutes after the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROBERTS: Continue the conversation on today's stories. Go to our blog at CNN.com/amfix.

CHETRY: That will do it for us today. We hope to see you back here tomorrow. Right now here's "CNN Newsroom" with Don Lemon.