Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

International Summit to Discuss Nuclear Arms Control; Adopted Boy, 7, Sent Back to Russia; Senate to Vote on Extending Jobless Benefits; Dennis Quaid Lobbies for New Regs to Prevent Medical Mistakes

Aired April 12, 2010 - 13:00   ET

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

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with Tom Foreman in for Ali Velshi.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Tony, thank you.

I'm Tom Foreman. I am in for Ali Velshi. And over the next two hours, we'll go over a tremendous amount of news that's cutting loose out there. And there is a lot of it. We're going to break it down, give you all the details to help you figure out what's important for you about your security, your job, your money, all of that. Let's get started.

Here's what we've got in the rundown. It's one of the most terrifying scenarios you can imagine: terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. Making sure they don't is the focus of a massive meeting getting under way in Washington. The big and troubling question: can we ever ensure the security of nuclear materials anywhere in the world? We'll address that.

Plus, a little boy sent back to his native Russia alone. His adoptive U.S. family calls him psychotic. Russia's president calls what they did monstrous. The State Department is now stepping in. We'll have the details and ask that troubling question: who is to blame here, if anyone?

Also, some Connecticut lawmakers want to get rid of the statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases. But they're running into some fervent opposition, and it's coming from the Roman Catholic Church. It was a very hot issue that is heating up by the day.

If you need help staying up at nights, though, as we turn to our first story, contemplate this. Thousands of nuclear warheads or components stored in hundreds of depots or bunkers in dozens of countries all around the world. And contemplate the catastrophe that could follow if just one of those warheads or a few pounds of highly- enriched uranium end up in the hands of al Qaeda or some other terrorist group.

That terrifying prospect is bringing the leaders of 46 nations to Washington, D.C., for the biggest such gathering hosted by a U.S. president since the 1945 meeting that gave rise to the United Nations. Imagine that. Just days after signing a new arms reduction treaty with Russia, President Obama is aiming to lock down the world's supply of nuclear- weapons-grade materials. But this is a tough, tough job, no matter how you look at it.

Check out this map of participating countries: Algeria to Vietnam, including China and Russia. Iran, however, which claims not to be developing nuclear weapons, is not attending; nor is North Korea, which claims to already have nukes. India and Pakistan are taking part in this meeting, but each is making weapons-grade plutonium as fast as it can as a deterrent against the other. But that's another story. And that one is not on the agenda for this week in Washington.

Now it's not all gloom and doom, though. A group called the Nuclear Threat Initiative points out that 19 countries have eliminated weapons-grade nuclear materials within their borders. Not reduce, not secured, but they have actually eliminated it.

On the other hand, the same group reports more than 18 known cases of loss or theft of weapons-grade nukes around the world. With all of that in mind, I want to bring in Jim Walsh. He's an international security analyst, a researcher with the security studies program at MIT. He joins me today from back in my hometown of Washington right now.

And Jim, let me start off with a very basic question here. There really are two different levels of concern when we talk about nukes right now, right? We're concerned about the notion that we have countries out there that have nuclear powers, that they might become the victims of a rogue government. And the question of terrorists getting it.

Let's start with the first part, the question of countries. Can you reasonably assess the nuclear threat in the world without talking about Pakistan and India?

JIM WALSH, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, MIT'S SECURITY STUDIES PROGRAM: No, Tom, you're absolutely right. A nuclear weapon anywhere is a danger to everyone. And we have nuclear weapons not only in India and Pakistan, but in Israel, United States, others, as well.

And as long as those nuclear weapons are out there, and the material is being produced to make those nuclear weapons, not only are the weapons a danger, but the material is a danger, because it may fall into the hands of terrorists. So it really combines two different things together at the same time.

Henry Kissinger and some former dignitaries have argued that in the Cold War, nuclear weapons kept us safe. You know, it kept the Soviet Union from attacking us. But in the post-Cold-War era, these nuclear weapons may actually be more of a danger than they are a help. And that's part of what these discussions will be about in the next two days.

FOREMAN: And it seems like the argument is that they have fallen more and more, as technology has advanced, into the hands of countries like Pakistan, where the government is not that stable, and you have really troubling questions.

One, would they be pushed enough, or feel pushed enough by a conventional war with India, their longtime rival, to pop off a nuke as a response? Or that their government would simply topple such -- I mean, you've got the Taliban operating there, al Qaeda operating there. They keep telling us that their nuke supplies are secure. And I think it's six different locations around the country and dismantled. And yet, I think there's a lot of hesitation in this country about how much we should trust that.

WALSH: I agree, Tom. And I think it's right to say, first of all, the first danger is whether they would be used on purpose. That is to say, if India were to attack Pakistan with overwhelming conventional force, would Pakistan respond with a nuclear weapon?

And we have had occurrences where they have gone on nuclear alert. We had in our own country, with the U.S. and Soviet Union, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, at other times, situations where we came to the brink of using nuclear weapons.

So you can only roll the dice so many times and not have it come up disastrous. So I think that is very much a danger, particularly that rivalry between India and Pakistan.

FOREMAN: Jim, the president said once again this weekend that one of the biggest concerns out there to the stability of the United States is the idea that a terrorist group would get a hold of a nuclear weapon. That said, the technology of nuclear weapons has advanced a lot. But the idea of a suitcase carrying a nuclear weapon still is a bit of mythology, isn't it?

WALSH: I think you're absolutely right, Tom. There was a lot of reporting about this many years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Union. And when you peel away the onion, it doesn't really hold up as a story.

I think the focus is not suitcase bombs falling into the hands of terrorists, or even the weapons themselves. Because the weapons, at least they're countable.

The thing that isn't countable in parts of the world is the material. You only need -- well, you need two materials, one of two materials to make a nuclear weapon: highly-enriched uranium or plutonium. If you don't have those materials, you cannot make a nuclear weapon. And terrorists do not have the technical wherewithal to make those, and they don't exist in nature.

So this is where defense matters; not offense but defense. If we get that material, shrink it, lock it down, and secure it, then we can stop a terrorist from acquiring a usable nuclear weapon.

FOREMAN: And then hopefully, we're just dealing with governments and hopefully we can keep them stable enough to have not a problem with that. Jim, thanks so much for joining us with those insights. We'll check in with you again.

An adoption gone very wrong. A little boy returned to Russia from Tennessee. And now the State Department is getting involved. You may have heard about this case, but you haven't heard the latest. We'll get that in a moment and break down what this could mean for other adoptive families here. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Two words that say it all, and they don't say nearly enough. Adoption controversy. A little boy, a one-way flight and a global uproar. You may have heard about this story already: a 7-year- old returned to Russia by his adoptive family in Tennessee. But now we're bringing you up to date with the latest details as we start the week off.

The State Department is now getting involved. They're planning to send high-level officials to Russia to urge that nation not to do what it is threatening to do, which is to put all U.S. adoptions on hold.

Let's get some of the background here, so you can follow this all. The boy was escorted from Shelbyville, Tennessee, to Washington, D.C., where he was put on a transatlantic flight all by himself. He was reportedly picked up in Moscow by a pre-arranged driver. And with him was a note from his adoptive mother, Torry Hansen, addressed to the Russian Department of Education.

That says -- and let's take a look at it here -- "I no longer wish to parent this child. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues and behaviors. I was lied to and misled by the Russian orphanage workers and director regarding his mental stability and other issues."

In a phone call with CNN, Torry Hansen's mother said the boy had a list of people he wanted to hurt, including his American mom. But now Russian authorities are saying this is just not true. They see no signs of that behavior. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAVEL ASTAKHOV, CHILD RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN (through translator): All the examinations show the boy to be completely healthy, physically and mentally. So nobody withheld anything from them. It's a lie. When I asked how the mother treated him, he burst into tears and said she used to pull his hair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: So you can see how this whole story is just unraveling and unraveling. Torry and her mother have not yet been charged with anything.

In the meantime, Russian officials are outraged, and they're threatening to freeze all adoptions to the U.S. That's why high-level State Department officials are heading to Moscow sometime this week in hopes of keeping that avenue of adoptions open.

A big reason why: UNICEF says there are some 730,000 orphans in Russia. That's close to three-quarters of a million. Americans adopted over 1,500 Russian children last year. That places Russia third on the list of the most popular places to adopt from.

But it's certainly not an easy process. Americans looking to adopt from Russia must either be married or a single woman over 25. They must be citizens. They must have a clean bill of health and no criminal background. For Russian children to be eligible, they need to have been registered for adoption for at least six months before potential American parents are considered. And most agencies say adopting infants younger than 9 months old is impossible.

Meeting the requirements is only part of the battle, of course. The adoption process can be very long and expensive, as any couple who's gone through it can tell you.

First, there is a mountain of paperwork to be filled out before Russian authorities match potential parents with children. Then they must travel to Russia to adopt that child. And after that, it's back to the U.S. to apply for adoption eligibility.

Here you can see all these steps. It's very complex.

And even after you clear all of those hurdles, it's back to Russia again to bring the child home here. The cost -- look at this -- anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000, on top of months, sometimes years of work with no guarantee of the outcome you're after.

CNN, of course, is continuing to cover this story from all the angles. And as you can tell, what we're seeing here, it's evolving by the hour. We'll have much more tonight on "AC 360" starting at 10 p.m. Eastern Time. Make sure you join Anderson and the gang there, and they'll bring you up to date on all the latest.

Turning to more that's happening at this late hour. The Senate votes next hour on extending jobless benefits after letting them expire for thousands of Americans. And you can bet those Americans, of course, will be watching very closely. Our Christine Romans joins us straight ahead with all the details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: With unemployment still hovering around 10 percent, I don't have to tell any of you how important jobless benefits can be to people. The Senate is heading toward a vote on extending jobless benefits again. Christine Romans is joining us with the latest on that.

Christine, tell me what's going on?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Tom, as you know, in Washington, it's never simple or a straight line, right? So there are some procedural votes that have to happen first, and maybe by the end of the week there could be some action on this.

But the Senate went home for the Easter recess without extending unemployment benefits, as many consumer advocates wanted. And that means some 212,000 people rolled off their benefits last week, and if nothing -- if nothing is settled, it will be a million people this month in April, Tom, who will lose their benefits.

At issue here is the cost of another extension, some $9 billion. And there are some Republicans who are concerned that this so-called emergency spending, first begun underneath the stimulus act, they'd like to see some, as they say in Washington parlance, budget offsets. They'd like to say, "Is there going to be a way that we're going to start to pay for this longer term?" So you're having a big philosophical discussion still how this is going to work, how long we're going to extend these benefits.

Tom, there are 5.7 million people who are getting unemployment benefits extensions. That means their first 26 weeks of jobless benefits, which are funded by employers and administered by the states, that ran out. And now there are these federal extensions. Some people can get up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. It just shows you how deep and severe the long-term unemployment problem is in this country, Tom.

Forty-four percent of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or longer. These -- these checks are incredibly important for -- for filling the gaps for hundreds of thousands of families, Tom.

FOREMAN: Are these people going to automatically face a delay, even if it's voted on now that the deadline has passed? Will their check automatically be delayed a week or two or something?

ROMANS: Well, this has already started for 212,000 people. But what they're hoping to do, the Democrats are hoping to do, senior Democrats say they're hoping to find a way to go back and retroactively fill that gap for people. But there are people who are losing their benefits now because they've rolled off, because there hasn't been an extension.

Now, what's happening today is a first vote needed to push back the deadline until early May. And then what some Democrats are talking about is trying to solve the problem until the end of the year. An extension of the COBRA subsidy that's helping people pay for their COBRA health insurance, which is still very expensive. The stimulus act helps pay for some of the co-insurance from the people who are getting COBRA and also these unemployment benefit extensions, trying to push it back to the end of the year. So we're not every six weeks talking about this. Doesn't it feel like we've been talking about this all year?

FOREMAN: Yes, absolutely.

ROMANS: We have been. I mean, we've been trying to patch it, you know, patch it and patch it and patch it. There will have to be, Tom, I think, a longer-term discussion of what we're going to do if we're going to have unemployment hanging near 9 and 10 percent for this year and next. You're going to have a lot of people who are going to start rolling off these benefits extensions.

FOREMAN: And there are a lot of predictions of that happening.

ROMANS: And they'll have -- and so they're going to have to figure out what they're going to do, longer term. Is it going to be an emergency, or are they going to start to -- are they going to start budgeting for this to take care of people who are unemployed.

FOREMAN: Sure. And the people who are waiting for a check right now, that's a tough, tough thing.

ROMANS: Yes.

FOREMAN: They're going to be living paycheck to paycheck.

Thanks so much, Christine.

You can see Christine and, of course, Ali Velshi every weekend on "YOUR $$$$$." It really is a terrific show. Saturdays at 1 p.m. Eastern, an encore presentation on Sundays at 3 p.m. Eastern. If you're worried about your money, and I think we all are these days, make sure you check it out.

Checking out some top stories. Searchers have gone back into a West Virginia coal mine where 29 people were killed in an explosion last week. They hope to pull out nine bodies still in the Upper Big Branch Mine. Efforts to recover the bodies yesterday were stalled due to high levels of methane gas. Federal investigators are expected to arrive today to try to figure out what caused that explosion.

In Poland, a nation is mourning the death of President Lech Kaczynski, his wife and several top military and civilian leaders, killed in a plane crash in Russia over the weekend. The Polish government says the president and first lady will be buried on Saturday. Russian investigators say human error may have been to blame in the crash, when the plane tried to land in heavy fog. They're looking at some past incidents to try to get some guidance on that.

And federal law enforcement sources tell us the alleged ringleader of a plot to blow up the New York subway system planned to stage his attack in mid-September of last year. They say Najibullah Zazi and his two alleged co-conspirators planned to board stations at Grand Central and Times Square stations during rush hour and blow themselves up after the trains had departed. Zazi has pleaded guilty to his charges. His co-defendants have pled not guilty.

And finally, if you are missing Conan O'Brien, I've got a surprise for you. O'Brien is heading to cable channel TBS to host a late-night talk show. It's expected to debut in November. The show will air Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. Eastern, shifting "Lopez Tonight" back to midnight. TBS, of course, one of our sister stations here at Turner. In 2007, you may recall actor Dennis Quaid's newborn twins received an overdose of a blood thinner, heparin, and it almost killed them. It's terrible news. Now, three years later, has anything been done to prevent this from happening to you? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Preventing medical mistakes, that's what actor Dennis Quaid is talking about at this hour at the National Press Club in D.C., and he has a personal connection to all of this.

You might remember in 2007, Quaid's newborn twins received a near-fatal hospital overdoes of the blood thinner heparin. Since then, Quaid has testified before Congress and started his own foundation to prevent medical mistakes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DENNIS QUAID, ACTOR/ACTIVIST: They recall automobiles; they recall toasters; they even recall dog food. But Baxter failed to recall a medication that, due to its labeling, had already killed three infants and severely injured three others just a year earlier. And then a year after that, the Indianapolis incident. The very same incident happened to our 12-day-old infants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: You heard him mention the maker of heparin there, Baxter. Before that incident they changed their labels to help doctors identify the right drug and dose. But Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where the Quaid twins were being treated, wasn't using the newer labels at that time. The Quaids later settled out of court with the hospital.

A year later, a nonprofit commission put forth a national patient safety goal regarding blood thinners. Pay attention to this, because it might affect you. The guidelines include standardizing how the drugs are administered, screening patients beforehand and taking into account any other drug interactions. And one more simple one, but one that matters: not using the letter "u" for units, because that can easily be mistaken at a glance by a pharmacist as a zero.

In 2009 the Food and Drug Administration set a new standard for how the amount of heparin is determined in U.S. products.

So turning now to a look at what's going on with the weather, Chad. Are you missing D.C., sir?

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: I'm always missing D.C.

Are you missing the magic wall?

FOREMAN: I'm missing the magic wall. I don't know if I'm missing D.C. that much. It's nice down here in Atlanta.

So you have the West Coast all lit up. MYERS: Yes, yes, the West Coast is lit up today, only because of all the severe weather. Talking about snow at 4,500 feet. So that means if you're on I-80, if you're on the grapevine, up here, you're going to see snow on your drive, because you are above the snow line. And so that's going to make some tricky driving across parts of L.A., San Francisco. Sacramento had some pictures earlier of the snow there overnight.

And L.A., a lot of rain overnight, an inch of rain. And that could cause, with more rain coming in -- you see there's more rain to the west -- that could cause some flooding. And especially mud slides. They have all those burn areas.

FOREMAN: Sure. Sure. Get that all the time.

MYERS: No roots in those areas because all the vegetation is gone, burned away. And then that water can -- and just mud can slide downhill.

FOREMAN: And then these big arrows coming across the country. That's something to see.

MYERS: Yes. Something to see here, too. I believe that this area right through here is going to have a pretty significant fire danger tomorrow. Winds are going to be 60 miles per hour. And even right now, winds are very gusty in San Francisco. So SFO is an hour delay.

FOREMAN: Wow. Early in the season for the West, too.

MYERS: Absolutely.

FOREMAN: Wow. Could be a tough summer.

MYERS: Yes.

FOREMAN: Thanks, Chad.

MYERS: I'll see you in one hour with you again.

FOREMAN: Take care.

MYERS: All right.

FOREMAN: The Tea Party Express rolling toward Washington. What is the message these ralliers want all Americans to hear? We'll take you onto their bus and inside their movement, which is gaining steam. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

FOREMAN: (LAUGHS)

Taking on Washington. The Tea Party Express is moving closer to D.C. The Tea Partiers are planning a really big rally on Thursday, which is Tax Day, in case you don't have your paperwork done, and they're rallying troops all along the way.

The Tea Party Express is wrapping up a 48-stop tour; its heading to Syracuse in a few hours. But a rally is well under way in Buffalo, New York, right now, where we find CNN political producer Shannon Travis. You've been traveling along, Shannon, visiting with these folks and blogging about the whole thing. How far is the rally going so far today?

SHANNON TRAVIS, CNN POLITCAL PRODUCER: Hey there, Tom. We're here in Buffalo right now. At the very tail end of this Tea Party, this latest Tea Party Express rally. The mood is a little bit solemn right now. Conservative candidate for governor Carl Paladino is speaking. The crowd has disbursed a little bit much.

It's solemn right now. It was more celebratory a little bit earlier as a lot of the activists basically claiming victory - what they say is yet another victory for their moment. Which is Congressman Bart Stupak deciding to step aside and not seek re- election. Obviously, of course, he said he's not running because he wants to spend more time with family, and his vote for health care was a crowning achievement in his career.

But the Tea Party activists are racking that up as a yet another win for their cause. They count New Jersey, they count Massachusetts, and they also count what happened - the governor's race in Virginia. And the latest Stupak announcement as a win for them.

FOREMAN: Is there a sense of what they're counting on next, Shannon? What other legislators they may have in their sights? Because as I understand it, it's not all about going after Democrats or just Republicans, it's about mixing it up.

TRAVIS: That's right, tom. We actually interviewed mark williams. He's the chairman of the Tea Party Express III tour. I want you to take a listen at some sights that he's putting in the crosshairs of politicians.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN, TEA PARTY EXPRESS 3 TOUR: We need to purge both parties. We need to purge the Democrats of the Marxists, we need to purge the Republicans of the weak ones. And we're on a rhino hunt. We're going to drive them to political extinction of the Republican party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: So, Shannon, let me ask you about this. One of the questions we have about the Tea Party is the ability of the party to coalesce about what they're for, as opposed to just what they're against. It's easy to push people out by saying what they're against or for. How much are you seeing this movement focus itself about what it stands for, so that if it starts recruiting its own candidates in a big way, we know what that's all about? TRAVIS: Tom, it's a little hard to hear you, so I'll try to answer that question the best way I can.

Basically, the Tea Party says that they're for fiscal restraint. They don't like the deficit. They're a against a lot of the Democrats and President Obama's policies; they view it as being too liberal. As you heard from Mark Williams in that sound bite, they also say they're against Republicans that they call RINOs, Republicans In Name Only, that they feel are a little bit too liberal, not quite conservative.

So, they're going to be going after some of those people. As a matter of fact, an interesting little tidbit from today's rally. One of the speakers on state is a Tea Party activist, and he said he actually went to Massachusetts to help Scott Brown win that Senate race, him and some other activists. And he had a warning to Senator Scott Brown today. He told him, quote, basically,"he better behave himself or he might find himself in their crosshairs also."

FOREMAN: All right. Shannon Travis, thanks so much. Good travels. Have a good time. Keep us up to date with the Tea Party folks out there.

Keeping you up to date with your money. Is the recession over or not?

You can answer that question yourself if you want to. We've been going back and forth on that for quite some time in the news business. Now a group of experts have weighed in with their thoughts. The question is, will you agree with them, and does it really matter? We'll tell you in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: You may remember that saying from the old sage himself, Yogi Berra, "it ain't over til it's over."

Nobody ever accused Yogi of being an economist. But he's really nailed it when it comes to figuring out if the recession over or not. Some folks say it is, some folks say it isn't. A group of economists is now saying, not so fast.

Our Stephanie Elam is in New York with more on this sticky issue. Stephanie, tell us about what's going on with these folks. This is the National Bureau of Economic Research. And just what are they saying?

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Tom. This is the only group that can say when the recession is over. And it's really odd to hear them talking about the end, or even coming out and saying anything if they haven't made up their mind.

But the group did put out a statement today. And this is what they're sailing. They said they met at the end of last week and took a look to see if the recession is over, and they said they can't make that call. The statement says, quote, "Although most indicators have turned up, the committee decided that the determination of the trough date on the basis of current data would be premature. Many indicators are quite preliminary at this time and will be revised in coming months." End quote.

Now, of course, they can revise it higher, revised for the worst. All these factor in. The NBER needs to find out when the economy hit the bottom. Simply because once you get to the bottom point of all things, there's only one place to go, then they can say we're in recovery mode.

So, they take a look at a whole bunch of economic reports. They take a look at gross domestic product, they take a look at unemployment numbers, take a look at incomes, outputs, a whole bunch of things. The problem is, if they're going to be revised, that can change the picture here, Tom.

FOREMAN: It seems like even if they said it's over, that doesn't change the 10 percent unemployment, roughly. It doesn't change the millions of houses facing foreclosure. And that's the problem, isn't it?

ELAM: Yes, that's really the thing here. If you take a look at something like this, after you have a recession, it's almost always the situation where you have unemployment numbers rising after that.

Take a look at the last recession in 2001. We saw unemployment not peaking until 2003. That's a year and a half after the recession ended. That's because employers don't start hiring until they feel secure. Until they feel sure that the economy has turned around.

And basically demand needs to be there. So, these things all have to factor in. Remember, things get better, more folks who stop looking for work altogether previously, they started joining the hunt again. They weren't even factored into the unemployment numbers previously. Now, they're going to be counted and that will keep the numbers high as well. That's not much of a surprise to see that happening. I know some people think it's counterintuitive, but it's just one of those lagging indicators that we talk about, Tom.

FOREMAN: I know it doesn't often help working people one way or the other, but how do your pals feel on Wall Street right now? Do they think the recession's over. Because they actually had a pretty good year.

ELAM: Well, you know, a lot of people are saying they think -- you hear lot of economists say this, when I'm down at the stock exchange and I talk to traders down there. They say they think the recession did probably end some point last summer. That's when the economy started growing again. We saw numbers to support that.

But even if that is true, it's still the longest recession since the Great Depression. The current record would actually be 16 months in the 1970s, and then early in the 1980s. But it's really not surprising to see that there's really no call on this one.

It doesn't really matter to us if they make this call or not, it's just interesting to know what is going on out there, what they think and to know when it did end. But it's always a rear-view picture that we're getting from them, Tom, always.

FOREMAN: If I'm hungry, it's not going to help that everyone else is having lunch. Thanks, Stephanie.

ELAM: Right. Exactly.

The hour's top stories start now in Washington. Not since 1945 have so many world leaders gathered at the invitation of a U.S. president with the subject of nuclear weapons on the table. Specifically the need to protect the world's far-flung supplies of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. The two-day conference officially begins a little more than three hours from now. President Obama is busy hosting one-on-one sit-downs in the meantime.

In southern Afghanistan, angry protesters blocked roads and called for death to America after U.S. troops fired on a bus, killing at least four civilians. Military officials say it was still dark this morning when troops tried to get the driver of that bus to stop. When he didn't, they started shooting, fearing that that bus was a threat. We'll follow up on that later on.

A big move for the Vatican. In the midst of the wave of sex abuse scandals, for the first time ever, the Catholic Church is making it clear that bishops and other clergy should go to the police if they suspect abuse. The Vatican insists this has long been part of the church's policy. Many people have had doubts about that. But it posted a new guide on its Web site which is available to everyone, spelling it out specifically.

Most states have a limit on the amount of time you have to report sex abuse among children. Now, however, Connecticut lawmakers are fighting to take the statute of limitations off of the books there. But they are running into opposition. We'll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: The Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut is coming out and coming out strong against new legislation to get rid of the statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases. Over the weekend, Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops issued a letter to parishioners against House Bill 5473.

Here's part of that letter. Quote: "The nature of bankruptcy litigation puts all assets at risk, even if your parish has had no past incidents, reports or allegations of child abuse. And this is not simply about bankruptcy or the loss of property. Ultimately, the legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic charities."

Let's talk a little bit about these claims of child abuse. More than 13,000 molestation claims have been filed against clergy since 1950. Bishops say these claims have cost the church more than $1.5 billion. From what we could find online, only two states have no statutes of limitation on child sex abuse, Alaska and Maine. Those with statutes of limitation vary a great deal. The statutes range from two to 30 years; some statutes start when the child reaches 18 or 21. It's confusing depending on where you live. Some start when the victim realizes or remembers that the child abuse occurred.

So, Connecticut, which is the one we're talking about today, has the longest statute of limitations. Thirty years. That's 30 years beginning at the age of 18. So, basically if you live in Connecticut and you were sexually abused, you have until your 48th birthday to file suit.

Right now, we have one of the supporters of getting rid of even that limitation. Connecticut state representative Beth Bye joins us from Hartford.

Let me start with this, if I can. The basic -- you have an awful lot of years involved here. People can be fairly old before they pursue these charges. Why do you think that's not enough? They're almost 50 years old. Is that not enough time?

BETH BYE (D), CONNECTICUT STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, I think that's a great question. In Connecticut, I represent a district where numerous of my constituents were abused by a doctor at a hospital. And they had made claims there earlier. But they had no evidence.

And then all of a sudden, while someone was reconstructing a home, 50,000 slides of child pornography fell out of the walls, and these victims finally had the evidence they needed to bring a claim forward. And so they approached me and said, please help us. Because in some cases, one brother can make a claim, but the other brother cannot. Simply because of their birth date.

FOREMAN: So, this is a little bit specific to your area. You're saying that you had a specific concern there. As a general principle, do you think it's a good idea for other states? Should other places be considering this?

BYE: Well, I think in the case of child sexual abuse, it's such a heinous crime that it deserves extra time because of some of the aspects of the crime. My co-sponsor had two sisters who had been abused by a parent. And so, if this case was brought to me by constituents who were abused by Little League coaches, I'd be moving to have this changed in that case. It's just the evidence that came out was unusual.

And we did hear the concerns of the church and the public hearing, and have in fact, limited it severely after the age of 48, where we changed the bill to say only if you can get to a hearing that shows you have evidence. And then only if you can join an open claim filed by someone under the statute of limitations.

I didn't feel like over the weekend the church acknowledged those changes that we made in the bills to avoid frivolous lawsuits. It's not about the church. It could be a church, it could be a nonprofit, it could be a business, it could be the state -- FOREMAN: So, let me interrupt you. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. If somebody, for example, who's 62 years old comes forward and on their own says, I want to report the case of abuse, and I want to file a lawsuit from back in when I was nine, under your law, they're still told no, the statute of limitations has run out. If they came forward at 65 and said, there are 15 people who have a case and they're under the age of 48, and I also was abused by that priest, they can join that lawsuit?

BYE: Right. Whatever person may have abused them, if there's an open case. So, we've tried to make the bar very high once you get past the age of 48 in Connecticut.

FOREMAN: So, what do you make of the church's complaint that this is really opening up them to tremendous liability here?

BYE: Well, I was really disappointed about the announcement from the pope this weekend. Because I don't think they accurately reflected the changes we made in the bill. They obviously have concerns about this legislation and are doing their best to work against it.

But if you look at the facts and the idea that we've severely limited your access to make a claim, you have to get through a probable cause hearing. I believe we answered their concerns after we had the public hearing and listened to their concerns.

FOREMAN: All right. We're going to pick up this conversation in a minute with more of the details on this business of actually reporting sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. New developments over the weekend related to that. And how that might affect a lot of people out there who are concerned about this issue. We'll continue our conversation in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Alleged victims of sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests have long claimed a cover-up conspiracy. What they say is the church really just takes all these matters and wants to hide it from the public, hide it from law, and deal with it themselves -- or not deal with it.

Well, today the Vatican responded to those thoughts in a very big way. This is a live picture from the Vatican's Web site, a new guide that spells out their policy on reporting acts of sexual abuse. The Vatican says it's been policy for a long time to abide by civil laws. This new posting says, quote, "civil law regarding reporting of crimes to appropriate authorities should always be followed." In other words, if a priest or bishop has some suspicion of something going on, they are supposed to call the police. Pope Benedict XVI told Irish bishops last month they should cooperate with civil authorities when investigating abuse. But according to the Associated Press, this is the first time that's been spelled out publicly.

And to give perspective, the number of sex abuse claims against Roman Catholic bishops and priests has dropped over the past few years. There were 714 claims in 2006. You can see that's down from 783 in 2005. And over a thousand in 2004.

Nationally, incidents are believed to be reported -- it's a little tricky on the numbers here -- 20 percent of the time. You can see at the top here, cases are reported. That's what they believe. Twenty-five percent of those involve females reporting it; 17 percent involve males reporting it.

Now, let's bring back Connecticut state representative Beth Bye. Beth, let me ask you a big question about this. One of the real concerns has always been that very often, the allegations of abuse don't emerge for a long time. First of all, we know this is a very traumatic for children, but why does it take so, so long for some people, into their 30s, 40s, even their 50s?

BYE: I've talked to very many victims, and you realize that what it is, is that they're anxious to come forward with this sort of allegation. They think it reflects on them or somehow it's their fault that they were abused. And so, they put it away in a place and it has significant impacts on their lives, where they don't want to face up to it.

And they don't want to report it. Or they have no evidence. It's their word against an adult. In it my case, I had some victims who described the doctor who abused them as wearing a gun under his lab coat, so they had a lot of fear. People that perpetrate these crimes are very clever, and they're usually in positions of authority. So, there are lots of reasons kids don't report.

FOREMAN: But how do we deal with the back side of that also? I know the church has raised concerns about it, and others have, too. What do you do if you're someone who worked with children many years ago, and suddenly, 25, 30 years later, somebody comes up who you may not even remember, and says something happened. How does somebody defend against that if they're innocent?

BYE: Well, I think part of that is what we tried to address in our law with the probably cause hearing. You have to show evidence, and that's what we are working toward is to make it stronger so that couldn't happen. It can happen to anyone that a claim is made. But the person needs to be able to make their case in court.

I was so compelled because my victims had photographic and video evidence that wasn't available to them before they were 48 when they first tried to make noise about this happening to them. So, now they have evidence, and they can't make a case, simply because of their birth date. If you have one brother who can file suit and the other brother cannot, to me, as a legislator, that said to me, you need to think about this law. And that's why it came forward.

FOREMAN: Well, we'll see what happens up there, and we'll keep following it, of course. Thanks so much for joining us. Connecticut representative, Beth Bye.

BYE: Thank you for having me.

FOREMAN: After a couple rough months, Toyota is trying to get back on track. But new problems are popping up like potholes almost daily. So many of you drive Toyotas out there, and you want to hear the latest and meet a company whistle blower. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)