Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama Pushes Credit Card Reform; Pelosi on Interrogation Techniques; Chrysler Makes Dealership Decisions: Automaker to Shutter 789 of 3,200 Showrooms; Stand Tall Charity Making a Difference to China Earthquake Victims
Aired May 14, 2009 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. It is Thursday, the 14th of May. And here are the top stories we're following for you in the CNN NEWSROOM.
The perils of plastic. President Obama pushes credit card reform. His town hall live from New Mexico.
The public won't see more pictures of prisoner abuse like this. The president blocks their release. He says lives may be in jeopardy.
The search for the next justice. President Obama narrows his choices for the Supreme Court bench. Our guests debate the short list.
Good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris, and you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For many of you, these challenges are also felt in more personal terms. Perhaps you're still looking for a job, you're struggling to figure out what career path makes sense in this disrupted economy. Maybe you've got student loans. No, you definitely have student loans or credit card debts, and you're wondering how you'll ever pay them off. Maybe you've got a family to raise and you're wondering how you'll ensure that your children have the same opportunities you've had to get an education and pursue their dreams.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: President Obama speaking to the graduating class at Arizona State University. We will hear from the president next hour. He holds a town hall meeting with consumers who say they have been abused by their credit card companies. Live coverage of the president from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
So your interest rate on your credit card suddenly goes up. You're hit with added fees and penalties. Those are the kinds of practices the president wants Congress to rein in.
White House Correspondent -- there she is -- Suzanne Malveaux, live from Albuquerque. And Suzanne, the president obviously is going to detail how the legislation working its way through Congress and eventually to his desk will help consumers.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Tony, I know you can relate to this problem. All of us really have credit card debt, and trying to figure this all out. And obviously the president's trying to push forward what he's calling a Bill of Rights for credit card consumers. By Memorial Day, he wants to go ahead and have that accomplished, so this is really about putting public pressure on members of Congress.
They have invited about 50 people or so from this area who have either written to the president, who have sent e-mails saying, look, I'm having a hard time paying my bills, my debt has increased here. Can you help us out? So we expect that we're going to hear from some of those people in the audience asking the kinds of questions that the president essential wants to hear.
Now, what is the situation here? Obviously, he's going to be talking about it.
We have an increase when it comes to credit card debt of 25 percent over the last 10 years. That is a whopping total, Tony, of $963 billion of credit card debt that our country -- consumers are carrying. How this breaks down in terms of families, about 78 percent of families actually have credit cards, 44 percent are carrying debt. And that debt is getting bigger and bigger.
So the president is going to talk about the fact that yes, you've got legislation that's going through the House, it is also moving through the Senate. But he wants to push forward.
You also have the Federal Reserve that has regulations. He wants to expedite those regulations so that you don't have these kind of increased fees that they're talking about, these big, big penalties. It's something that he actually talked about a couple of weeks ago when he brought the CEOs of those credit card companies to the White House and said, look, do this voluntarily. If you don't do it voluntarily, we are going to move swiftly with Congress to make sure that we can toughen these laws -- Tony.
HARRIS: Suzanne, do you think the president will touch on the area of personal responsibility in this speech?
MALVEAUX: Well, yes, he's going to talk about personal responsibility. He is also -- one of the things that they think is going to work in their favor is really kind of the mood of the country right now.
We are talking about these companies like Discover, Bank of America. These are companies that are receiving billions and billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, when it comes to bailout money.
HARRIS: Good point. MALVEAUX: They expect that they're going to be held accountable, that it's the taxpayers and consumers that are going to say, look, we want some changes because we're invested in this. This is our money that's going to bail you guys out.
HARRIS: Looks like you're going to have a packed House, judging by the pictures behind you there.
All right. Suzanne Malveaux for us in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Suzanne, appreciate it. Thank you.
So we will be hearing the big statements. But what about the nitty-gritty in this new credit card legislation? What exactly would it do for you and me?
For that, let's turn to Josh Levs.
Josh, what are you learning here?
JOSH LEVS, CNN.COM CORRESPONDENT: Yes. You know, I'll tell you, a lot of heavy lifting on this was done by the great team at CNN Money that kind of dug into these bills. And what I want to do is give you some really key points about these bills and how they could actually, as you said, affect you and me, affect anyone's credit card.
Let's go to the first graphic.
No matter whether you're talking House or Senate, this is something that would happen. This new legislation would do these things.
It would stop fee hikes if you're late on other kinds of bills, not your credit cards. You know, now there's ways that they can raise your credit card bills if you're late paying one of your utility bills. It would also drop fees for paying by phone that some companies have been using or implementing.
And Tony, this last one there, it would make it tougher for young people to get cards. And you were talking about personality responsibility. In a way, that gets at that, this thinking about how old should someone be to really get a credit card, or even for companies to go after them. The bills would definitely tackle that -- Tony.
HARRIS: Hey, Josh, you know, there are some important differences between the Senate and House versions that have to be worked out. And there's not a lot of time between where we are today and when the president wants to signs this.
LEVS: It's true, there's not a lot of time. And there are differences that they need to work out. And, you know, there's a whole process that goes on, on Capitol Hill.
Let me show you some key differences. We have some -- a few we're going to talk you through here. Let's go to this first graphic here.
This is one of the big ones. Now, under the Senate bill, it's tougher in this way. It would allow for fee hikes if you're 60 days late in paying your minimum balance. But in the House bill, more in keeping of what's already in place, only 30 days.
HARRIS: Hey, Josh, let me interrupt for just a second. Need to get to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We'll explain what this is all about in just a moment.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: ... take the time to read this to you.
Throughout my career, I have been proud to work on human rights and against torture around the world. I say this with great pride because it has been a great focus of my time, both even before I came to Congress and here.
As ranking member of the Foreign Operation Subcommittee for Appropriations, I helped secure the first funding for the Torture Victims Release Act to assist those suffering from the physical and psychological effects of torture. I unequivocally oppose the use of torture by our government because it is contrary to our national values.
Like all members of Congress who are briefed on classified information, I have signed oaths pledging not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I have taken very seriously, and I've always abided by it.
The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had conclude that had the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed. Those conducting the briefing promised to inform the appropriate members of Congress if that technique were to be used in the future.
Congress and the American people now know that contrary opinions within the executive branch concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. However, those opinions were not shared with Congress. We also now know that techniques including waterboarding had already been employed, and that those briefing in me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information.
At the same time, the Bush administration -- this is exactly the same time, September of 2002, in the fall of 2002. At the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Five months later, in February 2003, a number of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions. Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns who sent to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller by the new Democratic ranking member of committee, the appropriate person to register a protest. But no letter could change the policy.
It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part.
When Democrats assumed control of the Congress in 2007, Congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all government agencies to abide by the Army field manual. President Bush vetoed this bill barring the use of torture. An effort to overturn his veto failed because of the votes of Republican members.
We need it to elect a new president. We did. And he has banned torture.
Congress administration must review -- I've always believed that Congress and the administration must review the National Security Act of 1947. Now we have a chance to do that with the new president to determine if a larger number of members of Congress should receive classified briefings so that the information can be utilized by proper oversight -- for proper oversight and legislative activity without violating oaths of secrecy.
I have long supported creation of an independent truth commission to determine how intelligence was misused and how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the Executive Branch. Until a truth commission comes into being, I encourage the appropriate committees of the House to conduct vigorous oversight of these issues.
I'm pleased to take any questions.
Mike?
QUESTION: Regardless of the individual who told you that these techniques were being used, and regardless of the venue in which you learned of this fact, does not the foreknowledge of the use of these techniques make you complicit in their use?
PELOSI: No, this a policy that was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration. They notified Congress that they had legal opinion saying that this was legal, but they would let us know if they were planning to use them is what they briefed us on.
I think you can see by what Mr. Panetta has sent out that it's really hard to confirm what did happen, and the committees of jurisdiction may have to look into that. But it does not make me complicit, no.
QUESTION: But you say that Mr. Sheehy did tell you, your staff did tell you.
PELOSI: He informed me that the briefing had taken place. We were not in a place where he could -- that was all that he was required to do.
We're not in a setting -- we weren't -- I'm no longer the ranking member on Intelligence. He just informed me, and that the letter was sent. That is the proper person to send the letter, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
So my statement is clear, and let me read it again. Let me read it again.
I'm sorry. I have to find the page.
I was informed that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was -- in the briefing -- was that it was not being employed.
When my staff person -- I'm sorry, the page is out of order.
Five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing -- informed me that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing, I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.
So let's get this straight.
The Bush administration has conceived a policy. The CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us they were not being used.
This is a tactic, a diversionary tactic, to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed, and implemented these policies, which all of us long opposed. My action on it was further to say we have to change the majority in Congress. We have to win the White House so that we can change it.
QUESTION: But Mr. Sheehy did not tell you that he was informed that they were actually using the techniques?
PELOSI: No, he did say that. He said that the committee chair and ranking member and appropriate staff had been briefed that these techniques were now being used. That's all I was informed, that they were being used and that a letter was sent.
And that is a complete -- my responsibility -- it's different. I'm no longer the ranking member. Appropriately, the ranking member sent the letter.
So let me say this -- of all of the briefings that I had received, at this same time they were misinforming me earlier. Now in September, the same time as the briefing, they were telling the American people there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it was an imminent threat to the United States.
I, to the limit of what I could say to my caucus, told them the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that this administration is contending. So it's on the subject of what's happening in Iraq, whether it's talking about the techniques used by the Intelligence Community on those they're interrogating, at every step of the way the administration was misleading the Congress. And that is the issue. And that is why we need a truth commission to look into that.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Madame Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of...
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States. Misleading the Congress of the United States.
QUESTION: And doing it again now, as they've released this list of briefings that says you were briefed on the interrogation tactics that were used.
PELOSI: I'm quoting what the head of the CIA said. This is -- we don't know if this information is accurate that he's talking about.
What they briefed us on -- and perhaps they should release the briefings. I would be very happy if they would release the briefings. And then you will see what they briefed in one time and another, House and the Senate and the rest. And perhaps with the intense interest that this has generated because of the distraction that the Republicans want to cause with this, then you can make a judgment yourself about what you think these briefings were.
But I'm telling you that they talked about interrogations that they had done, and said we want to use enhanced techniques, and we have legal opinions that say that they are OK. We are not using waterboarding. That's the only mention that they were not using it, and we now know that earlier they were.
So, yes, I am saying that they are misleading -- the CIA was misleading the Congress. And at the same time, the administration was misleading the Congress on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said, this intelligence does not support the imminent threat, to which the press asked the same question you just did now -- are you accusing them of lying? I said I'm just stating a fact.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: I'm sorry. No, no. This -- because I promised -- In the back there.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: Do you wish now that you had done more?
PELOSI: No.
QUESTION: Do you wish you had written your own letter?
PELOSI: No. No, no, no, no, no.
I mean, the point is, is that we had the conversation. They told us they had legal opinions.
As I say in my statement, we now know what they didn't inform us then, that there were other opinions within the Executive Branch that concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. So, no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do.
My job was to change the majority in Congress and to change to fight to have a new president, because what was happening was not consistent with our values, certainly not true, and something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture.
When we won in '06 and passed legislation in that Congress, President Bush vetoed that bill. I think we're in a whole different stage.
QUESTION: When you hear all this (INAUDIBLE) over the past few weeks, regardless of your desire to have a truth commission, doesn't this make it harder to go forward in that regard because so many on the other side have sort of ginned this issue up?
PELOSI: Well, I have always been for a truth commission, as you probably know. Others in the Legislative Branch have thought maybe the committees of jurisdiction should do that job. And until we have a truth commission, and unless we have a truth commission, they must do that. But it isn't -- and I don't think it would -- I think a truth commission would be a good idea.
I think the American people want it. I think they want to know how we got to this place. And that's why I say in this, until we have a truth commission, the committees of jurisdiction, whether it's the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee, are the appropriate places for that to go.
But understand -- and I don't know how you can fall prey to this -- this is their policy. All of them. This is their policy, this is what they conceived, this is what they developed, this is what they implemented, this is what they denied was happening. And now they're trying to say don't put the spotlight on us, we told the Congress.
Well, they didn't tell us everything that they were doing. And the fact is that anything we would say doesn't matter anyway.
We had to change the majority in Congress, we had to get a new president in order to change the policy. And that is what we have done.
And I, as I say, have taken special interest in this issue over time, take pride in it, and the work that we have done on the issue of torture. So I was pretty sensitive to what they would be briefing us and what they said they were doing and what they didn't. But they did not represent the facts in that regard.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Madame Speaker, on health care...
PELOSI: Yes?
QUESTION: ... do House Democrats have the -- sorry. Do House Democrats...
PELOSI: Did you get booed? Did any of you get booed?
QUESTION: It's not the first time.
Do House Democrats have the political will to raise taxes to reform health care?
PELOSI: We're putting everything on the table. We believe that the health care reform that the president is advocating for quality, affordable, accessible health care can be achieved with about much of the money that is being spent now, but spent more wisely in terms of prevention, in terms of early intervention, in terms of information technology to make health care more affordable, fewer errors, better quality.
But when we do these -- when we're doing the health care issue, you have Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate. I don't think we should -- I hope that we could find the savings within the system. But in the interest of listening to everyone put everything on the table and see what it's worth is and whether it is necessary.
QUESTION: So you don't think you need a tax increase to cover 46 million more people?
PELOSI: You know what? We have -- what the president has said is, you like the insurance that you have, you can keep that.
What we have done already from the beginning of this year was a recovery package with the omnibus bill, with the budget, with the children's health. What we have done already has done more for health care than anything since the establishment of Medicare in the '50s, 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago. So we're down the path.
We have momentum on this, and we'll listen to see what the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee and the rest have to say. We'll have our listening sessions with our members.
This is very important. And I hope that it can be done in a bipartisan way. I really do.
I know we have the reconciliation mechanism there, but I would hope that we would not have to use that. But we will have a health care reform bill on the floor of the House by the end of July. And you will see in this very short period of time, this next week, and then when we come back in June, you will see the particulars of it emerge. And Mr. Rangel will be in charge of that piece of it, the "How do we pay for it?" piece, and listening to all kinds of views.
(CROSSTALK)
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think there's one other question that I would like to ask, if that's OK. One last question. OK?
The question is, at the end of April, you had the press conference with us and you said very clearly, "We were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
PELOSI: That's right. We in that meeting. Everything that I received, we were not told that -- in fact, we were told that waterboarding was not being used, because that's sort of one that stood out.
BASH: So in that press conference, we were all clearly trying to get at the broader question of whether you knew about waterboarding at all. And the idea that we got from you was that you were never told that waterboarding was being used. But now we know that later, in February, you were told. It wasn't in that briefing, but you were told. So...
PELOSI: No. By the time we were told, we were finding out that it's been used before. You know, in other words, that was beyond the point.
BASH: But why didn't you tell us at that press conference...
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: But I told you what my briefing was. My briefing was...
BASH: At the press conference, that you had been told, just not at that particular briefing. You were very adamant that you didn't know that waterboarding was used.
PELOSI: No. That is right. We were told -- in the briefing that I received, we were told that they had legal opinions that this was legal. We were not told that it was -- that there were other legal opinions to the contrary in the administration. And we were told specifically that waterboarding was not being used.
When my assistant told me that the committee had been briefed -- now, I'm not on that committee anymore. I'm now out of it. We have a new -- that ranking member wrote the appropriate letter to protest that. And then we find out, just slightly more subsequent to that, that perhaps they were using waterboarding long before they told us.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: No, but the point is, is that I wasn't briefed. I was informed that someone else had been briefed about it. I'm only speaking from my -- I'm only speaking from my own experience, and we were told that it was not being used. Subsequently, the other members of the committee were informed.
QUESTION: And so were you.
PELOSI: No, I wasn't informed. I was informed that a briefing had taken place.
Now, you have to look at what they briefed those members. I was not briefed that. I was only informed that they were briefed, but I did not get the briefing.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Well, we'll find out. They mislead us all the time. I was fighting a war in Iraq at that point too, you know, saying to my members, the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding.
But what's the point?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
PELOSI: Yes, they did. They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the attention on us.
And we had to win the election to make the change. We did. President Bush vetoed the bill. We have a new president who is going to do that. But the committees can look into and see the timing of who knew what and when, and what the nature of the briefing was.
I have not been briefed as to what they were briefed on in February. I was just briefed that they were informed that some of the enhanced situations were used.
Thank you.
HARRIS: Boy, oh, boy. You want to talk about a firestorm? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, first of all, reading a statement and answering questions, offering a clarification on her previous statement on waterboarding.
Now, the initial story from the speaker on what she knew of waterboarding and when she knew it was that she was never told waterboarding actually happened. Apparently, there was a second briefing where waterboarding was a part of that briefing. The speaker says she was not part of that briefing and that she was not directly informed that waterboarding was going on.
The bottom line from the speaker is that the Bush administration did not tell Congress everything it was doing with detainees, that she had been briefed on enhanced techniques that were legal, but that waterboarding was not being employed. One of the remaining questions is, at some point, she clearly knew, was informed that waterboarding was, in fact, happening. What did she do when she learned that information? We'll take that up with our Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash in just a couple of minutes.
The country's jobless rate keeps heading higher. And now there's news of nearly 800 car dealerships closing.
We will talk with one owner right here in the NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Boy, just moments ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - did you see that? - talked about what she knew and when she knew it. Really about the enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically waterboarding. Senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash was in the room.
And I believe, Dana - she's on the phone with us right now. Dana, you asked that final, let me get this straight question. Background this story a little bit. The difficulties that the speaker finds herself in right now and why she needed to offer up this clarification this morning.
BASH (via telephone): Hi, Tony, right.
Well, the background here is that as soon as the Bush-era memos came out, democrats were calling for an investigation. You heard the speaker herself say she wants a truth commission. And republicans immediately said wait a minute. What did democrats know? And specifically, someone like Nancy Pelosi who at the time was the top democrat on the intelligence committee.
So, when she initially had a press conference when we asked her about this, and this is at the end of April, she very clearly said she didn't know that waterboarding was being used, only told that they had legal justification to use it in the future.
Since then, Tony, we have found out that, and you heard the speaker talk about this, that she was told that waterboarding actually was used by one of her top aides who was briefed.
So the question that really still goes unanswered is, why didn't she let us know that up front at that press conference? Why didn't she let us know that maybe she wasn't directly briefed, but she did know that waterboarding was being used?
So, you know, she made the point that republicans are using this as a distraction and trying to put the focus on her or when she and other members of Congress really didn't have a lot of power. Which, you know, she has a point there. But because of the changing story, if you will, or at least changing information that we're getting about what she knew and when she knew it, that is why this has sort of become has become an issue that she clearly felt that she had to try to clarify because she had an opening statement before we got to ask any questions. HARRIS: Yes, and also at the heart of this is what did she do once she finally knew the information? And I don't know that we have an answer to that. And part of the issue for her now is that there is all of this noise about the techniques now and about waterboarding. And once you knew, what were you saying then?
BASH: Exactly. And that is a question that was asked and she actually tried to head that off by saying that because at that point in time, her staffer was briefed, she was no longer the top democrat of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman was. And she says that Jane Harman did in fact send a letter - which we have seen, it is true - raising objections or concerns about the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques. And what the speaker said was that was the appropriate way to do it, let Jane Harman do it. And she said that she knew an objection was being raised.
So, she says, you know, basically that the protocol was there. I will tell you, though, that on other issues where she had concerns, for example, wiretapping, she was briefed on wiretapping, she did write a letter. So, you know, she's talking about protocol and, you know, she makes that argument. But there have been other instances where she was told that something highly classified, like wiretapping, where she did write a letter complaining and raised some concerns about it.
I think the other interesting thing tactically here, Tony, which we saw was the way she so aggressively went after the CIA, essentially calling them liars. Saying, you know, they came to Congress, they gave us this briefing, didn't tell us that waterboarding was being used. Which, according to the timeline that we have, it was already being used against Abu Zubaydah. The way she tried to turn the tables there, and again, in a very aggressive way, not mincing any words, was certainly interesting in terms of the tactic and in terms of tone.
HARRIS: And in blasting the CIA, she says, look, you want to get to the bottom of this, let's put together a truth commission. Now you spend your time on Capitol Hill, is there much appetite for a truth commission?
BASH: Well, I'll tell you, the interesting thing there, Tony, is that there isn't. And you know why? Her fellow democrat in the White House, President Obama, he doesn't want a truth commission. He's opposed to it. He put the kibosh on a truth commission. And so that's why that's not going to happen right now.
And so she's calling for a truth commission, but it's not going to happen because of her own fellow democrat, President Obama.
HARRIS: Hey, Dana, bottom line this for me. She's got more work - it feels to me she's got more work to do on this. This didn't clear it up this morning. This press conference, this statement. Do you agree with me on that?
BASH: I think you're probably right in part because republicans are already having a field day with this. Carl Rove wrote an op-ed in a newspaper this morning. You've heard republican leadership talk about this time and time again. You know, she does have a point. The speaker does have a point that this has become a political issue. And republicans are seizing on it at a time where, you know, they're trying to make national security an issue again, they're trying to make democrats look weak on national security and this fits right into it.
The other reason this might not end is because she also made very clear, she wants three things -- the note, the transcript I should say, of that briefing that she had in September of 2002, she wants it to be declassified. So if she is successful, that will reopen the story once again.
HARRIS: Dana, appreciate it. Our senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash. Thanks, Dana.
A Supreme Court justice is just weeks from retirement. We're hearing a few names of his possible replacement today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Some important business news to tell you about. In the last hour, we learned that Chrysler is shuttering hundreds of dealerships. Let's bring in Susan Lisovicz at the New York Stock Exchange.
And Susan, if you would, sort this out for us.
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chrysler is in bankruptcy protection, Tony. It's already laid off 27,000 workers on the heels of that filing. And now there's more details, and there's more pain.
Chrysler is closing nearly 800 dealerships nationwide, that amounts to nearly one out of four. It's a forty page list, Tony. You look at it, you see dealerships all over the country in suburbs, in cities. And you see not only the address and the name of the dealership, you see the majority owner. It's one name and then you see that person's business is going kaput, and the person is responsible for a whole lot of other people who work for him.
So no surprise then that representatives from the National Auto Dealership Association are meeting on Capitol Hill right now with House and Senate representatives. They're urging the president's auto task force to slow down the closings. They say it will have more adverse effects on the economy. Not only in terms of boosting the unemployment rate, but in terms of all of those sales taxes that come with sales of cars.
And one more thing, Tony, minority-owned showrooms are expected to be hit particularly hard. The "Wall Street Journal" says one of the reasons why is that many of these dealerships operate in downtown locations. So they're smaller, they're more cramped, they have less inventory, they have less business, and it would undo years of efforts by Detroit to bring more diversity in the car business.
It's a tough situation all around. HARRIS: Absolutely. I know that "Black Enterprise" magazine has been tracking that side of the story very closely. We're going to reach out to our friends there.
Susan, appreciate it, thank you.
You know, we actually have a Chrysler dealership owner on the phone with us right now. One of those names on that document, on that list right now. Gerard Broshart is in Valley Stream, New York, on Long Island.
And Gerard, thanks for your time.
First of all, what's your reaction to this news?
GERARD BROSHART, CHRYSLER DEALERSHIP OWNER: It's so sad. It's so sad. We've been here since '66. You know, we sell between 400 and 500 Chryslers every year. There's no one left on the south shore. Why they got rid of me, I have no idea. From Wantor (ph) to Staten Island on the south shore, there are no Chrysler dealers. I am inundated with service. It's just a big surprise, but it's such a disappointment.
You know, we're a small store. We owe nobody anything. We have no debt. Why close me? You know, they're the ones that went bankrupt. I didn't go bankrupt.
HARRIS: So Gerald, who do you get that answer from? Where do you go?
BROSHART: You know what they say to me, we're antiquated. They wanted me to build a big showroom. With rates the way they are, why would I build a big showroom? The showroom that I have is nice, I put the air-conditioning on, people are comfortable. We try to save money where we can. We could never go out of business. The only way to go out of business is by them putting us out of business.
It is a disgrace. You know, we're not a dealer that was, you know, just being drained of all of our resources. This is a disgrace.
HARRIS: Gerald, what do you do now?
BROSHART: What do I do? I fight. I fight. Yes, I have to -- they have to show justification. I would think so, anyway. And I want some help.
HARRIS: Two points here. You want to fight. Where do you go to start waging the battle? Where do you go?
BROSHART: I don't know. You know, I've never been in court. You know, through the years, I don't have a staff of lawyers. Like I said, I'm a little guy who just got punched. I've got to find what would be best for me. But I've been with Chrysler for -- this dealership's been here since '66.
HARRIS: How many people do you employ? BROSHART: Twenty-five; 25 people. And how about all the vendors that, you know, make money from us, the tire guy down the road, the fellow who fixes the upholstery? How about the people for service. Where are people going to go 40 miles to go to get their car serviced? That's what I don't understand. I mean, we're in a very heavily populated area.
HARRIS: How much time do you have?
BROSHART: June 9th.
HARRIS: June 9th?
BROSHART: Yes.
HARRIS: What are you going to do with the cars?
BROSHART: Well, the cars. You know, I've sold cars, I'm not in trouble, like I said. I'm down to a few cars. They wouldn't ship me any cars after October. They tried to get me out of here a long time ago. You know, but being I was able to withstand it, I guess, they just said, OK, we'll get you this way.
I don't understand it. I really don't. It's a terrible moment.
HARRIS: Are they offering you anything? Any kind of compensation? Any kind of a package?
BROSHART: Nothing. No, nothing.
HARRIS: To transition you and your employees?
BROSHART: No. The only thing I would worry if they would open up another dealership in this area, maybe they have some, because you've got to remember, it's 40 miles in a New York area. That's a long way. And there's no one on the south shore. So my only -- the only idea I have is that they have somebody a big guy that's going to come in here. Because they can't be without a dealership in this area. It's impossible.
HARRIS: So no new shipments of vehicles since October. So you had an idea this was coming, didn't you?
BROSHART: Oh, of course. Well, they told me two years ago they didn't want me. But they couldn't get rid of me because, you know, and there was no reason to do it. But they just said that we were antiquated and they wanted these big showrooms and, you know, and it's not viable for Long Island.
HARRIS: OK. Gerald, last question. You've got the news now, action plan, what do you do? You get off the phone with me, who do you call? What do you do?
BROSHART: Well, I'm going to just speak to a -- there's a couple lawyers that have contacted me. And I guess there's a number of dealers. Maybe we'll get together and see if we can, you know, change their minds. I'm going to call Chrysler and see if there's anything I can do that will change their mind.
HARRIS: Here's what we want to do, track your process here. You're talking about the first week or so in June that you actually have to shutter?
BROSHART: Yes.
HARRIS: All right, we want to track your process. Allow us to do that?
BROSHART: Sure. That'd be great.
HARRIS: We'll stay in touch with you and we'll do more that I won't mention on the air right now.
BROSHART: Well, thank you, Tony.
HARRIS: Gerard, I appreciate it.
Boy, Gerard Broshart receiving the word that he had anticipated that Chrysler was going to shut him down. It's happening. He has just a couple weeks to actually close the doors. Twenty-five, I believe, he mentioned employees will have to find other work.
We're going to track his story and see how this plays out over the next couple of weeks.
You know, people are losing their jobs, watching their homes fall into foreclosure and seeing their savings disappear. But some Americans are fighting back by starting a new business because the old ones simply shut down. Tonight join Anderson Cooper, Ali Velshi for real solutions of people surviving these difficult times. Watch the "CNN MONEY SUMMIT: MONEY & MAIN STREET" primetime special tonight 8:00 Eastern.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: All right. The stars, the glitz, the glamour and, yes, the movies. Yes, the movies. The world's most famous film festival kicks off along the French Rivera in Cannes.
CNN's Natasha Curry is in the middle of all of it.
The 62cd Annual Cannes Film Festival is officially underway in the south of France. Celebrities from Brad Pitt to former President Bill Clinton are heading to the event known for film and a touch of frivolity.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CURRY (voice-over): As glamorous as the Oscars, as carefree as the Golden Globes, the Cannes Festival may be the only place you find stars in black tie or yellow stripes.
KIRK HONEYCUTT, FILM CRITIC, "THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER": It's a three-ring circus. No question about it. CURRY: But when all is said and done, it's about cinema. Brad Pitt returns to Cannes this year with "Inglourious Basterds" the latest film from Quentin Tarantino.
(VIDEO CLIP, "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS")
BRAD PITT, ACTOR, PORTRAYING "LT. ALDO RAINE": My name is Lieutenant Aldo Raine.
HONEYCUTT: This is an action piece and it's a war piece where the violence may be more acceptable than in some of his other films.
CURRY: Tarantino's not the only big name director at Cannes. Joining him are Jane Campion, Pedro Almodovar, Oscar winner Ang Lee and Oscar nominee Terry Gilliam. He unveils "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnanssus" featuring the final performance of the late Heath Ledger.
Francis Ford Coppola hits the quazet (ph) with "Tetro"
HONEYCUTT: He spent a year in Argentina and Buenos Aries making this film. It's very beautiful to look at. Quite elegant film.
CURRY: And for the first time, the festival kicks off with an animated film. Disney's "Up."
(on camera): The main focal point of the festival is the famed red carpet where all the premiers take place. And some of the world's biggest stars will head up these steps into the Pala (ph) and its massive theater. For an actor or director, a big splash here can be life changing.
(voice-over): "Pulp Fiction" came out of nowhere to win the prize in 1994 launching Quentin Tarantino's career.
In 1982, it was Steven Spielberg who was finally recognized as a serious filmmaker after he premiered "E.T." here. The Cannes audience gave it a rapturous response.
STEVEN SPIELBERG, DIRECTOR: That was one of the most spectacular nights in my entire life and it's indelibly etched in my mind.
CURRY: What indelible memories will be made this year? The next 12 days will tell.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CURRY: We're hearing that Angelina Jolie will be heading to Cannes to support her partner, Brad Pitt, on the red carpet. So this year's festival definitely won't be lacking glamour.
CNN, Cannes.
HARRIS: And we will be bringing you more reports throughout the Cannes Film Festival, plus you can logon to CNN.com/specials for in depth coverage.
You know, we're pushing ahead to the next hour of CNN NEWSROOM. Here's what we're working on.
The pilots of that deadly commuter plane crash near Buffalo, New York, were they just too tired to fly? It is day three of the NTSB hearing on that disaster.
And the problems with plastic. President Obama is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for a town hall meeting to hear your complaints about the credit card industry. We are minutes away from his opening remarks and we are taking you there live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEVS: I'm Josh Levs.
You know, it's been a year now since China's big earthquake and there are children who are just living with scars from that catastrophe. We've got this now from Alex Zolbert. He's showing us in today's "Impact Your World" report that one man is helping kids stand tall again.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALEX ZOLBERT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than 90,000 people killed, Roughly 370,000 more injured in the Sichuan earthquake, many of those children. The images were gut wrenching. The need for urgent medical care was overwhelming. An idea was coming together hundreds of miles away in Hong Kong.
PROF. K.M. CHAN, ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON: There were a lot of patients. Very young patients. As an orthopedic surgeon, the only thing I was thinking at that time was can I do anything.
ZOLBERT: The aid group "Stand Tall" was born. Its aim: to fit some of the most severely injured with prosthetic limbs.
Including 12-yer-old Chen Ya Chow (ph) who lost his arm in the quake. He still dreams of playing table tennis for China some day.
Fourteen-year-old Gao Ying (ph) has new prosthetic legs and she's already running again.
They're just some of the 1,000 patients Stand Tall has treated so far, bringing some here to Hong Kong for checkups and rehab work. As well as a trip to Disneyland. My Yean Jong (ph) was working at a power plant when the quake hit. He was trapped for seven days. His arm crushed.
"I'm recovering well," he says. "I appreciate everyone who has helped me. I'm going to enjoy every moment of my life."
Twelve-year-old Nie Yu (ph) lost her leg. Today she says she just wants to go to the castle and meet a princess.
CHAN: With the stamina of the patient and the willpower and the team of professional working together, we could make miracle and we can achieve something that these people deserve. ZOLBERT: While also helping them regain some sense of normalcy after a very traumatic year.
Alex Zolbert, CNN, Hong Kong.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEVS: And we know, you see reports like that and you want to help in your way. You can log on, learn more about Stand Tall charity and the children it's helping just go to CNN.com/impact.
And Tony, I'll tell you, I'm getting a lot of traffic on impact these days. People reaching out seeing major stories in the world, how can they help. The impact thing catching on.
HARRIS: It really is. Josh, appreciate it. Thank you.
More intense fighting is under way between Pakistan's military and Taliban militants. Here's what we know.
Pakistan's army announcing another 54 Taliban fighters and nine troops killed in a battle in the northwestern Swat Valley. Military troops are four miles from swat's main town. Officials claim a total of 800 militants have been killed since the fighting started last month. However, civilians hardest hit. At least 800,000 Pakistanis have been driven from their homes.
Live pictures from NASA. Astronauts John Grunsfeld and Andrew Feustel began their spacewalk, we understand, three hours ago. They're going to be installing a piano-sized, replacement camera in the Hubble telescope, once far stronger than the one in there now. Before replacing the camera, however, the astronauts have been preparing their work area - installing restraints, releasing latches, that kind of stuff.
How to prevent future air disasters. That is the focus of the final day of hearings today into February's deadly plane crash near Buffalo, New York. All 49 people on board and one person on the ground were killed. Earlier testimony indicates pilot fatigue and training may have contributed to the crash.
CNN's senior correspondent Allan Chernoff reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATHY JOHNSON, WIFE OF CRASH VICTIM: It is shocking.
CHERNOFF (voice-over): Kathy Johnson is furious her husband Kevin died on a plane whose crew may had been functioning on little sleep.
JOHNSON: I wonder how many other pilots, first officers do the same thing that we're not aware. So it is very shocking to all of us. CHERNOFF: Colgan Air Captain Marvin Renslow had nearly a full day off before assuming command of Flight 3407. Yet the NTSB investigation found he slept in the Newark Airport crew lounge, against Colgan Air regulations. The airline, though, appears to have been lax in enforcing the rule.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Colgan policy is that they're not to sleep in the crew room, but it turns out that they are sleeping in the crew room.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People can come in between their flights when they're on duty and take a nap.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is napping sleeping?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a definition I'm not -- probably not prepared to answer.
CHERNOFF: First Officer Rebecca Shaw had three days off before the flight, yet she commuted through the night from Seattle catching rides on connecting FedEx flights to get to Newark.
HARRY MITCHEL, VP FLIGHT OPERATIONS, COLGAN: We hire professionals and those professionals we expect should show up fresh, ready to fly that aircraft.
MARTY AGIUS, BROTHER-IN-LAW OF CRASH VICTIM: You know, they're supposed to have their own accommodations, but we can't follow up on that. And that's totally ridiculous.
CHERNOFF: Captain Renslow hid his background from Colgan by not revealing two pilot exam failures in his job application. And the crew violated another rule that requires cockpit conversation to be focused on the flight.
MARK ROSENKER, NTSB ACTING CHAIRMAN: I am concerned about the winking and nodding that I have seen in some of the policies of the company -- your company -- and crew members and I don't believe it is only within your company.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
