Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Americans Killed In Mexico; Runaway Prius Investigation; President Obama Campaigning for Health Care

Aired March 15, 2010 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

T.J. HOLMES, CNN HOST: The suspected drug gang attack on Americans in Juarez, Mexico. We mentioned this just before the break. Two Americans and a Mexican with ties to the U.S. Consulate were gunned down over the weekend. Want to turn to our studio now in Mexico City and turn to Professor John Ackerman of the National Autonomous University.

Mr. Ackerman, it's always good to have you with us. First of all, are we --I guess, we naive to believe this could be a coincidence?

PROF. JOHN ACKERMAN, NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIV. OF MEXICO: I don't know. This is -- interesting occurrence that happened here in Juarez. I don't think it's a coincidence. These guys seemed like they were targeted. We don't know why. We'll find out.

What is becoming clear every day is that the idea that somehow 90 percent of those people who have been killed in this so-called drug war are somehow directly implicated with the Narkos. I think this is false.

This is a story that has been told to us for a long time and recent incidents are demonstrating to us there are lots of people falling prey to this drug war.

HOLMES: Yes, and I guess I should have been a little more clear there, the coincidence being the folks who happened to be targeted actually worked for the U.S. Consulate.

ACKERMAN: Right.

HOLMES: You want to jump to the clear conclusion, some would say, of course they're targeting folks who work for this consulate, but maybe not.

ACKERMAN: Maybe not. We'll see. There is this other link in terms of the spouses working in police agency, both in the United States and Mexico, which has also been a target of the drug gangs. This is definitely the case, we'll have to see what actually happens.

But I think this case is just showing to the United States what's been happening in Mexico. We have been seeing in Mexico for the last few months that there has been a real failure of the strategy to combat organized crime in Mexico. And it's really necessary for President Obama and for President Calderon to rethink their strategies. The way in which it's been approached for the last three years has been through militarization of police forces, militarization of Mexico, and this is not having results. They told us the last three years things have to get worse before better, and they're getting worse.

HOLMES: So here we are now, what impact do you think this is going to happen? Are you're saying the Obama administration needs to be more engaged, more involved, and change policy. What will this do to policy now that we're talking about it here?

People are getting killed down there every day, but we're talking about Americans now, that puts you on the front page here in the U.S. How is this going to impact policy?

ACKERMAN: Well, I hope it impacts policy. This is a case study of what not to do, I think. We have had two years now in which the military has taken over the police force of Ciudad Juarez with the intention of supposedly resolving the situation.

But things have just gotten worst. For the last two years, the amount of homicides have gone up. Last year, there were almost 3,000 homicides and that's when the military is supposed to be in charge of the police forces. We need institutional reform, transparency and oversight of Mexico's institutions.

One of the major problems, I would say, would be the major cause of the failure of this so-called war on organized crime is corruption. I think the Mexican state apparatus is still very corrupt. Mexico comes in way down around 80 or 90 in the global rankings of corruption and this is specifically the case in law enforcement agencies, and there this has not been addressed either by Obama or by Calderon in a serious fashion.

HOLMES: Well, you know what? This has gotten a lot of people's attention who are not paying enough attention and maybe something will come out of this. John Ackerman, please don't go too far, because we appreciate your expertise on all things Mexico. Thank you so much and we'll talk soon.

ACKERMAN: Of course, TJ. Thank you. We'll be in touch.

HOLMES: All right, thank you so much.

Now a lot of our viewers out there, you will remember the guy who said his Toyota Prius went out of control, terrain down the highway, 94 miles an hour, you know, the gas pedal got stuck, he couldn't stop it.

Well, there are some new questions now because there have been some new tests. Raising questions about the voracity of his story. Few answers right now though we have a mechanic coming in.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

All right, the run-away Toyota story. Still a run-away. It's out of control still. A week ago today, a California man by the name of James Sikes, he called 911 saying his Prius sped up by itself. It's going 90 plus miles an hour on the freeway.

You see the picture here, this is how the police officer got in front and helped slow this car and helped stop that car. Federal investigators now have been examining that car. Toyota technicians has been looking at it, too.

And according to a draft Congressional memo, the feds couldn't find the reason for any unintended acceleration. They couldn't make it happen themselves. Meantime, Toyota has got a pretty big news conference coming up in about 90 minutes where it is going to address the testing. I told you we would have a car mechanic coming on to talk about this.

Let me bring in the mechanic, Lauren is her name. Lauren Fix is here to help sort out some of this stuff. OK, we've got the testing going on. Just because the testing couldn't duplicate what happened out there on the highway, does it mean that the man is lying?

LAUREN FIX, AUTOMOTIVE ANALYST: No, it doesn't because it can be easily a ghost the in the machine, which could either be electro magnetic interference, which they called EMIs, you probably read about them in the newspaper or I know you discussed them, or it could be a software glitch.

So we don't know that -- if we set that aside and we look at the big picture, though, there are some doubts to be cast on either side of the situation. And I think after the balloon boy, we all kind want to know the facts.

HOLMES: Where are the doubts, then, as you see them in this case?

FIX: OK, when it comes to doubts, I go first thing, you know, we're talking about a guy when 911 operator who was right on the money said, "Listen, you need to put the -- make sure the cruise control is off." There was no response. She said, "Sir, can you put this car in neutral." He said he couldn't. I don't see why not.

I do know that on some of the transmissions, they pop back out of neutral into drive, depending on which model you have, but any time you have a vehicle and hold it in neutral for about five seconds, and as soon as you do, you'll hear a click and it will go into neutral.

It's just the transmission protecting you. If there is a software glitch, that wouldn't work, obviously. The last thing the operator suggested is shutting the car off. Again, he wouldn't respond. Those are the doubts. You just hold the on/off button for five seconds, just like Toyota has online in their videos and on their web site, it shuts the car off.

So if that's not occurring, those are the doubts I have in my mind, as well as the fact they were unable to replicate it both by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Toyota themselves.

HOLMES: So it sounds like so much of the doubts come from behavioral, rather than mechanical issues. It just seemed like some things he did people find odd. Maybe the car -- if it was screwed up, I mean, just some of the things he did a lot of people found odd.

We do want to play, his attorney, John Gomez, did have this to say in particular. Let's listen to it. I'll talk to you about it on the other side.

OK, Lauren, forgive me for my little fib there. We don't have that sound from the attorney, but they are saying, they don't want to sue. They say, it doesn't leave a footprint, and you can't make it happen upon the man.

Now, again, like you say that stuff may be so, but some of his behavior, certainly, leaves people to question. But you talked about a ghost in the machine. How in the world are you supposed to fix a ghost? How in the world are you supposed to fix a ghost, is there any fix for that? Sometimes things just happen on a fluke.

FIX: Well, that's not a technical term, by the way. That just means that sometimes there is a fluke. But let's just -- let's play the devils advocate and play the attorney's side. He is not looking for any money out of Toyota, even though he had been bankrupt in the past.

He seems to be paying his bills according to what we've been able to read and find, number one. Two, the car was in for service. We assume that when they brought it in for service that someone checked the brakes. We still don't know that, because we have not seen that service report.

And then on the other hand, if these were to happen and he wasn't looking to be an instant celebrity, he wasn't looking to sell a TV show or be on Oprah, and wasn't looking for money, what was the gain in falsifying this story?

So you have both sides and before we instantly accuse him of doing wrong, I am sure his life has been turned upside down and inside out and I don't think anyone would want that. But he did take the risk of putting one hand on the steering wheel to try to lift up on the pedal and that was certainly more risky than putting the car in neutral or shutting it off.

HOLMES: Well, we will learn more, Toyota like we said, having a press conference here in about 90 minutes, I think we might learn more about this testing. Lauren Fix, our resident mechanic. Good to see you. Thank you so much. I'll be calling you for some more advice about my Chevy. Thanks so much. All right, thanks so much.

FIX: OK, take care, T.J.

HOLMES: Coming up next, we have talked about this being a make or break week. Please don't turn away when we say that. For real this time on ealth care. This really could be it this week. Coming up next, our David Gergen to discuss what the end of this week might look like. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HOLMES: Well, last hour you had what many people would say is a closing argument from the president on health care reform. He was in Strongsville, Ohio, right outside Cleveland again, kicking off a week that we could see, by the end of this week, a vote up on Capitol Hill that could send health care reform to the president's desk.

Let's bring in our senior political analyst, David Gergen. He is with us from Cleveland.

David, hello. Always good to have you.

Is this what the president should have been doing all along, instead of giving people the Xs and Os and the details and the numbers, focusing on people like Natoma Canfield?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, T.J., it's good to be with you. And he gave a very effective speech out here today. I must tell you, he came into a climate that has been wary of his health care reform. Ohio seems to be split, like much of the country does. But he made a good speech.

And I thought what he added to the arguments, and as you call it, closing argument, was a very strong pitch about Medicare. Because whether he has found what the White House has found, is that seniors are the most resistant and most reluctant to go along with this health care plan. And they are worried that Medicare is going to be cut out from under them. And he made a strong pitch today that he's not going to hit or touch guaranteed benefits, that instead he's going to take it on waste, fraud and abuse.

He's got a long way to go to convince seniors, but I must tell you, I think that was what, in effect, was fresh about this speech today.

HOLMES: How political was this speech, in your opinion?

GERGEN: It's very political. But it was -- he's doing -- it's interesting. He's summarizing the benefits, and trying to convince people it's not going to cost all that much. In fact, it will save money.

And as you know, there is a sense in the country that people do want to get rid of preexisting conditions. They do want to get rid of passive insurance companies. You know, they cancel their insurance when they get sick, so-called rescissions, and they do want some of these reforms. They would like to see more universal coverage. They're just worried about the price tag, and what it's going to do to their premiums.

And whether it's extravagant at a time when -- you know, how do you add 30 million people to the rolls and say you're going to save money? I mean, it doesn't add up. You're going to spend a trillion dollars in order to save money. That doesn't add up to people.

So he's making this -- the strongest arguments I've seen him make on behalf of the program, whether they're going to be enough to convince wavering congressmen and women in Washington, not so certain. Not so certain yet. We're coming down to the wire on that.

HOLMES: Well, we could certainly tell by some of the tone, and some of the words that the president used, and as he often does, gets people riled up, kind of the end, but I want to get your reaction to the end, and what we heard from the president on courage. Let's take a listen. I'm going to ask you about it.

GERGEN: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We hear a lot of people in Washington talking about politics, talking about what this means in November, talking about the poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans. We need courage. Did you hear what somebody just said there? That's what we need. That's why I came here today. We need courage!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: We need courage. And I was asking Representative Price, Republican from Georgia, a little while ago. Who -- who is courageous in this debate, and who is the coward? Who is the president trying to talk to there when he's talking? He's really getting the crowd worked up talking about we need courage right now.

GERGEN: Well, that's very effective for him. He sounds very much like Obama, the campaigner, doesn't he --

HOLMES: Yes.

GERGEN: -- in 2008, when he really reach the hearts of so many millions of Americans.

But you know, the people he's telling to have courage are members of his own party, who think they -- yes, they're going to have courage, they're going to put their heads on a noose, and they're going to swing in November.

And, you know, it -- there is some feeling on the parts of some of the Democrats, hey, you're not up for re-election, we are. And don't ask me to do things that are going to be, you know, a -- my final vote. A career-ending vote.

So you can certainly understand why moderate Democrats in very centrist districts where opinions are running strongly on both sides. Why they're having a hard time figuring out. OK, I want to do what's right, but I would also like to preserve my job.

And the White House is telling some of them in effect, hey, you know, doing right is more important than your job. You came here to do right by the people, and if that means sacrificing your job, so be it, you ought to be willing to do that. That sounds noble. But as you know, T.J., people don't always think that way.

So this is -- I think the president is making the best arguments that he has in his arsenal, and he made them effectively here today in Ohio. But whether they're enough to convince wavering Democrats, who, after all, are also -- have some hesitation about the substance of this plan, I just think we don't know yet. I think that's why this is going to be such a dramatic finish.

HOLMES: A dramatic finish. I know you're not big on yes/no answers. But I got to let you go. Yes or no, they're going to pass this thing by the end of the week?

GERGEN: I think it's a 51-49 proposition right now in favor of doing it. Nancy Pelosi has a long record of doing heavy lifts right at the end. But it could go the other way. So that's why I say 51-49 maybe.

HOLMES: Like I said, you're not a big yes-no answer kind of guy. David Gergen --

GERGEN: Well, I think that's the reality we're facing.

HOLMES: You're absolutely right.

David Gergen, you would know better than anybody. Our senior political analyst. Sir, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

GERGEN: Thank you, sir.

HOLMES: We'll be talking to you again very soon. Quick break. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Some of the headlines we're keeping an eye on right now. The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. says relations with Washington are at a historic low. This dire assessment is a result of this Israel announcing plans to build new settlements in disputed east Jerusalem during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden.

Let's turn now to Juarez, Mexico. Two Americans and a Mexican all with ties to the U.S. Consulate were shot dead by a suspected drug gang. The Juarez mayor says the American citizens were targeted. President Obama calling the attacks an outrage.

Also, sentencing today in a few hours for a man convicted of stalking and taping nude videos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews. Michael Barrett is his name. He took the videos through Andrews' hotel room peep hole. He has pleaded guilty to interstate stalking and agreed to a 27-month prison term.

Hundreds of thousands of people without power, several dead, all due to another massive storm hitting the northeast.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: All right. Over here hanging with Chad Myers here now.

We're talking about the northeast can't get a break. Snow and now the rain. But the snow is the problem more so than rain right now. Explain that.

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: The rain and the snow in the northeast, one thing. But it's the wind today is still blowing around. All of the airports are now behind. Boston, LaGuardia, JFK. But the big story, I think, is probably the Minnesota, Fargo, North Dakota kind of thing here.

This is a map here -- this would be Omaha down here. The Red River runs the wrong way. Most people think that all of the rivers run to the Gulf of Mexico.

HOLMES: Yes.

MYERS: There they go. This thing goes up into Canada, right? So the farther you go to the north, the colder it gets. When you get a 60- degree day in Minneapolis like we had yesterday, the snow wants to melt rather quickly. And so it can't soak in, because there is a skating rink under there. The ground is frozen. You've got this catch- 22 where you've got water that wants to go into the ground, and the ground says I'm still frozen, I'm not -- you're not going anywhere, and then it just goes up. And there will be record flooding there.

They're already sandbagging in some spots. Some of the storm chasing video we have, please send them into iReports, as well. We would love to show them. But please stay safe. This happens every year, but this year is going to be another year like last year for some of these cities.

And then we'll take your attention to the northeast. How about that? You know, you think about some Toyota owners have problems with their cars. How about that one? That is a 200-year-old tree on top of that car right there. And as the wind has been blowing things down, wind gust of 70, 80 miles per hour across the northeast over the weekend, and that's what things look like now. It's still raining a little bit today, but that's just about done.

HOLMES: That's category 1 hurricane wind.

MYERS: It is a category 1.

HOLMES: Would this be a non-event if the snow wasn't up in the first place. Would this be a flooding event up in the northeast or in Minnesota?

MYERS: Minnesota, no. It would not be an event because the snow pack is what's melting. And that's what's going to be the problem.

HOLMES: All right. Chad, appreciate you as always, my man.

MYERS: Sure.

HOLMES: Well, a lot of people out there, maybe you're not up for tea, maybe you need some coffee. And there is a new movement out there percolating. Yes, we'll give you an alternative. We're going to be talking to the head of a new movement, the coffee party. She joins us -- next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Oh man, our producer, Valerie. Oh, boy. Showing just how old she is.

All right. Let's move on here. Coffee or tea, folks? That's why we're playing that song. No longer a simple question of what you want to drink. About a year after the tea party erupted onto the national scene, an alternative now is gaining some steam. The coffee party is what we're talking about. Some 350 coffee shops in 44 states. Members gathered this weekend to vent about government gridlock and the party's online presence is huge now. Over 160,000 Facebook fans at last check. They say they want to fix the system, not change it, necessarily or abandon it and they want to do this all nicely. Let's bring in the nice lady, Annabel Park. She's the founder of the coffee party. Ana, I know you can't believe you are even sitting here right now. Is it fair to say this all got started because of -- and correct me if I am wrong, but somewhat of a rant on your part on Facebook?

ANNABEL PARK, FOUNDER, COFFEE PARTY USA: Yes, that's how it started, right.

HOLMES: Now, what were you ranting about? What were you so upset about?

PARK: Well, you know, at that moment, my immediate kind of catalyst for the rant was the intense new coverage of the tea party. So this was right after the Massachusetts election, leading up to the tea party convention in Nashville. It seemed like, you know, just we were dominated by this story about how the tea party was representing real America.

HOLMES: Now --

PARK: I just didn't agree with that.

HOLMES: Well, is it fair to say, then that, without a tea party, the coffee party never would have been born?

PARK: Maybe not the name, but probably in spirit, there would have been some reaction to the sheer kind of dysfunction in our government right now. So I don't know what the name would have been, but coffee party is a pretty good one for now.

HOLMES: Now, tell me who you have a problem with right now. Is it the president? Is it Congress? Is it Democrats? Is it Republicans? Is it all of the above?

PARK: I would say it's the political system.

HOLMES: The whole system.

PARK: Including Congress, including the way we talk about politics, the way we engage in politics. Just the entire sort of framework that we use to think about it and talk about it, I think is the problem. So I would say what our movement is, is really a kind of democracy movement. We want to be better represented by the government. And we feel that we need to have a way to directly participate, because we're just not feeling represented by really anyone.

HOLMES: Now, is it fair to say that you kind of want a lot of the same things that the tea party folks do want? Is it a chance you all could come together? I guess where does your movement go that the tea party isn't going?

PARK; Right. Well, I think the essential difference is probably our relationship to the Federal government. We see the Federal government as kind of an apparatus for solving many of the challenges that we face collectively. And it seems to me that with the tea party, and I'm not an expert on the tea party, but it seems like they really have a lot of hostility toward just the sheer existence of the Federal government, kind of, in abstract. And so I guess that's where we kind of part ways. But I think what we have in common is a kind of generalized discontent with our government, sort of the broken process.

HOLMES: Would you really characterize the tea party as a hold, as a -- an angry movement in some ways? I've heard -- I've talked to some people from your party, coffee party, we had the representative from the Atlanta office or facilitator here with us, and we seem to hear that word, that you're going for civility, and you find the tea party just to be a little, quite frankly, angry at times. Do you characterize the whole movement that way or it's always a couple bad apples no matter where you go.

PARK: Right, what's important is for us to sit down and directly with people in the tea party, so we would like to invite them over for coffee or tea and get past this. Because I don't really know the answer. I mean, the good news is some of the tea party members did come to our meetings on Saturday and from what I heard, they were very productive discussions. So I'm very encouraged that we could sort of find common ground, so to speak. So we'll see what happens. What we're focused on right now is just really organizing ourselves and we're not thinking that much about the tea party, to be honest with you.

HOLMES: OK. And last thing, and I know you've gotten this question. You have to address this. And some people have made hay about the fact that you volunteered for the Obama campaign and also back in the day, a little before that, was for Senator Jim Web, two Democrats, of course. So would you find or call yourself a left-leaning party, more so of a liberal alternative to the tea party? And also, is it still fair to call you grass roots if you have been involved in Democratic party politics?

PARK: I don't really understand why volunteering for a campaign disqualifies the entire movement as grass roots. That just doesn't make sense to me. I think volunteering for a candidate is just responsible citizenship. We're encouraging everyone to be involved in the electoral process and to organize their communities. Those are all grass roots efforts. So I don't understand that criticism. But I can tell you that there are over 160,000 people who identify themselves with the coffee party. And I don't really know what their politics are. And to be -- to tell you the truth, we kind of object to this sort of two-party framework. You know, it encourages people to think about our politics as a kind of football game, a zero sum game situation, where there are two teams going at it and it's always about winning and losing, and you know what, that's really not a democracy. Democracy should be about a community, working together, towards common good. Right? So this has nothing to do with a two-party system.

HOLMES: But, again w he shouldn't call you liberal or left-leaning, you wouldn't characterize yourself and you would say that's wrong to characterize coffee party as a left-leaning or more so of a liberal movement.

PARK: Yeah, we object to that kind of binary way of looking at things.

HOLMES: Wanted to make sure we got that clear. Annabel Park, I know we are going to see you plenty. You have started something now maybe you didn't expect to. But thank you so much for taking the time and we look forward to following your movement down the way.

PARK: Thank you.

HOLMES: All right. Coming up next, no child left behind is going to get a rewrite from President Obama, possibly. He has a new lesson plan for the nation's schools, what it could mean for your kids and their teachers. It's coming up right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Well, the course of your kids' education could be changing, drastically, if the White House has its way. President Obama sending a new blueprint for the future of the nation's public schools to Congress today. And first up, Education Secretary Arne Duncan says the name, no child left behind, is going to be left behind. So with the focus of the education plan that became a signature of George W. Bush's presidency, instead of aiming for grade level proficiency by 2014, the White House looking at a 2020 benchmark for all students to be, quote, college or career-ready. And all that testing that focused on English and math only, well, that's out. Schools could use a range of subjects to determine their annual ratings. And no longer would a school be graded as a pass or fail. There would be three levels for schools. One, high-performing, another, needs improvement, and the last category, chronically low-performing. Let's bring in Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy joining us from DC to weigh in on this blueprint. Let's try to break a couple of these things down, because there is so much in there in the first place. There is, often people say, good, bad and ugly. Tell me what you think is good, what you think is bad and what you think just is ugly.

SAM CHALTAIN, NATL DIR., FORUM FOR EDUCATION & DEMOCRACY: Well, I think the good news is, we're closer than we have been in the last decade to investing deeply in the three core pillars of a high-quality public education. First is challenging and engaging learning environments. Second is highly effective teaching in every classroom. And the third is an overall system committed to fairness and ensuring an equal opportunity to learn. So when I look at this blueprint, the good things -- I think the Obama administration clearly understands that measuring simply third and eighth grade reading and math scores and assuming that that figure can determine the success or failure of a school is ridiculous. So they're emphasizing a more balanced assessment system. They're recognizing the need to invest deeply in teachers. And Secretary Duncan has spoken about using the office of civil rights much more proactively to ensure equity and to finally recognize the reality that I think a high-quality public education must be treated as a civil right in this country.

HOLMES: I want to go to some graphics here, some info we have, some statistics for the National Center for Education, statistics shows a slight improvement actually for nine and 13-year-olds, achievement of 17-year-olds, somewhat static. Math scores, as well, kind of the same thing we're seeing here. So I guess we have seen some improvements. Is this going to help us continue the trend or could this help us actually skyrocket a little bit and shoot some of those graphics up a little more -- a steeper climb than they're already on?

CHALTAIN: Well, I don't think -- the information that we currently have to look at is almost equivalent to going to the doctor for your daily -- for your annual checkup and getting your blood pressure and assuming that that's an accurate reflection of your overall health. So the question can't be whether we're showing improvement or not showing improvement based on these myopic measures. The ultimate purpose of a high quality public education is to help a child learn how to use his or her mind well. So the challenge from a policy perspective is how do we create incentives so that we empower educators to actually create those types of environments, where children are not just given basic skills proficiency, but also higher order thinking skills, where they're equipped with the skills and self-confidence they need to be successful in college and the workplace and throughout life. And until we get that data set, we'll continue to be looking at the wrong ultimate goal.

HOLMES: And Sam, one more thing here and this is one for the teachers out there. There's been some criticism, at least the people not feeling too good about some of the things they're seeing in the blueprint, at least. It sounds like and I have heard the word, the term used scapegoating. It sounds like teachers are being scapegoated and so much of the emphasis and responsibility being put on them for the failures and they're not given any authority, even, in their own schools to make the improvements they think they need to make. Do you see it like that so far, at least, with what you have seen so far with the blueprint?

CHALTAIN: Well, first I should say, I'm a former teacher myself. And I should also say that right now, one of the problems that I see in my space, in the education space, is that it's always framed in language of opposition and conflict. So somebody immediately wants to know if I'm pro union or anti union, if I'm pro charter or anti charter or now in this situation, if I'm pro teacher or anti teacher, as though anybody that was serious about education reform could be anti teacher. Here's what I think we need to be focusing on more. I've worked with schools around the country. Of all the teachers that I've worked with, I would say maybe 5 to 10 percent are those teachers who are truly outstanding, the stand by me teacher that often gets a disproportionate amount of the attention. I would also say no more than 5 to 10 percent of the teaching force really is problematic and needs to move into a different profession. So the question that needs to be asked when we talk about teacher policy, how do we affect the rest of the teaching force? How do we affect that 80 percent and help devise policies and incentives that move them up the continuum and not down? Until we start focusing on that, I think we'll continue to be tinkering at the edges and distracting ourselves from what we should really be focusing on.

HOLMES: This is just the blueprint as we say. Many more details to come. Sam Chaltain, I know we'll see you, see your face and hear your voice on this debate on down the road. Thank you so much for being here, sir. We'll talk to you again.

CHALTAIN: All right, thanks TJ.

HOLMES: We'll keep an eye on the markets as well, not looking so good. Stocks been slipping, sliding, the start of the week total, opposite of what we saw Friday when we saw the NASDAQ S&P rally to 18-month highs. There's still a little time to the closing bell, so all is not lost. Just about 21 points down from the Dow there, as you see. Quick break. We're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Our building up America series takes us to the south today to Alabama. Unemployment across the state remains high, but there's an economic bright spot right in the middle of the capital. CNN's Tom Foreman takes us to Montgomery.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When the weekend is rolling, dreamland barbecue is rocking.

BERT MILLER, DREAMLAND BBQ: Hamburgers, French fries, chicken fingers, we do it all here, man.

FOREMAN: And you would never know a recession is in swing.

MILLER: How y'all doing?

FOREMAN: With Bert Miller working the floor.

MILLER: Business is good. We have been very blessed.

FOREMAN: Despite statewide unemployment, over 11 percent above the national rate, Montgomery's river front is building up even as the economy stays down, the result of a concerted effort to bring government, private industry and consumers together. The economy is such now that no town is an island. No state is, either.

REP. BOBBY BRIGHT (D) ALABAMA: That's exactly, right, Tom.

FOREMAN: Congressman Bobby Bright was mayor when the city launched the plan, convinced that growth, even on the outskirts, would suffer if the city's center continued to struggle. BRIGHT: The suburbs tend to be driven by private developers.

FOREMAN: But if that center isn't solid --

BRIGHT: If the center is not solid, then the services of that core, of that city, they weaken, they thin, and sometimes they thin to the point of being ineffective.

FOREMAN: So the local governments, the Chamber of Commerce and developers started building around a riverfront stadium and the popular minor league baseball team, refurbishing old warehouses, luring new businesses with opportunity and tax incentives. For developers like Jerry Kyser, it was a breakthrough. How much has this area changed?

JERRY KYSER, JERRY KYSER BUILDER, INC: Up until about two years ago, this was just two railroad tracks, dilapidated building and nothing going on down here.

FOREMAN: But now --

KYSER: This is going to be a restaurant.

FOREMAN: The spaces are filling in with meeting rooms, luxury apartments, restaurants, a Hank Williams museum, all drawing tourists, locals and dollars. The economy of this country is not good right now.

KYSER: That's correct. I cannot imagine if we had not had this downturn in the economy what we would have down here right now. We have got a great, great start. We've created a lot of jobs in here. So if we can make this happen now, we're going to be on easy street when this thing is over.

FOREMAN: And for a lucky few -- that already feels like their address.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: And our thanks to our Tom Foreman. Coming up next here, a new plan to try to prevent another financial meltdown. Does it have a chance of passing? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Well, pocketful of sunshine usually shouldn't be followed by a story about economic collapse. Right now, though, there is a major push under way to reform our financial system. The ultimate goal is to keep us from plunging into another financial crisis and the Senate Banking Committee chief, Chris Dodd, announcing a sweeping new bill on Capitol Hill. Let's bring in cnn money.com's Poppy Harlow with this breakdown. People should know, he's not running for re-election here, so this could be his swan song.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And that probably has a lot to do with why, TJ, this was such an aggressive push, the Democrats going forward on this Wall Street reform bill without Republican support. Let's go through what he said. He started out his announcement that just took place a few moments ago, you see him right there, saying the crisis on Wall Street, the collapse of big banks was not the beginning of the crisis, but rather has been going on for decades because of the lack of strong regulation that he says we have in this country. We don't have strong enough regulation. Talking about the American middle class, saying they're the ones that have really borne the brunt of this entire crisis and it's just not right and they need new rules regulating our financial system. He says the structure as it stands now, quote, remains hopelessly inadequate, saying we haven't had any real restructuring of our financial system since the 1930s, following the stock market crash of 1929, saying now is the time to act. Take a quick lesson listen to Senator Dodd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D) CONNECTICUT: Let me be clear, we are still vulnerable from other crisis and neither I nor anyone else can tell you with any degree of certainty that the American economy could survive another crisis of this magnitude. It is certainly time to act. Some have suggested that we should wait a little longer to take up financial reform. To them, I say, how much longer do you want to leave your economy and our middle class as vulnerable as they are?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: So there you see Senator Dodd taking a hit at Republicans, saying we need to act now. Quickly want to show you the four big parts of this legislation and why they matter to you. First of all, end too big to fail, don't make the American public come in and bail out big institutions. Create a consumer protection agency, looking out for you. Also, early warning system in terms of banks and potential failures and create more accountability, TJ, something we have heard quite a lot about. TJ?

HOLMES: We have. See if this one works. Poppy Harlow, thank you so much. Don't go anywhere. We're right back. Actually, you know you're not going to go anywhere. Because you know what's next? Sanchez.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Thank you for joining me today. Now it's time for "Rick's List" with Rick Sanchez.