Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Police Officer Challenges Arizona Immigration Law; Testing to Begin Soon on New Oil Leak Cap; Weekly Jobless Claims Drop; Catholic Church Updates Policy on Abusive Priests

Aired July 15, 2010 - 13:00   ET

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

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: Strap in. Makes it sound like it's going to be a bumpy ride. Going to be smooth sailing.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: There you go.

HOLMES: Appreciate it, as always.

And hello to you all. I'm T.J. Holmes in today for Ali Velshi. Let me tell you what we've got on the rundown today.

A judge is getting set at this moment to hear the case of a Phoenix police officer who is challenging Arizona's new controversial immigration law. This is a big deal today, because this is the first of several lawsuits to actually go to court.

Also today, the Vatican toughening its stance against priests who abuse children. But do the new rules go far enough? We're going to be talking live with a Vatican expert.

But up first here, this lawsuit we're telling you about. It's about Arizona's controversial immigration law. You have been hearing about this for quite some time. There has been impassioned debate on both sides of this issue. People saying and really just getting fired up in this country about this law.

Some say it's going to be discriminatory. Others say, "Hey, this is just upholding the law and doing what the federal government will not do."

Well, all that passionate debate now moves to another place. We're going to court now. This is the first of these challenges that are going to be going to be heard in front of a judge. Now this one involves a Phoenix police officer who is suing over this particular law.

Our Casey Wian is joining us live now from Los Angeles with details about this case.

Casey, hello to you. Tell us, what is the basis? We know so many lawsuits out there. But what's the basis of this one, the first we're seeing go to court, which is starting right now?

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this one is very interesting and very complicated, T.J. The plaintiff in this case, the first one is a Phoenix police officer whose name is David Salgado. He's a native-born U.S. citizen of Mexican ancestry.

His opposition to SB-1070 is based on several broad constitutional arguments. One is that the law violates the 14th amendment, which guarantees minorities full rights as U.S. citizens.

The other claim is that the law conflicts with what's known as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. He argues that it gives the federal government, not state and local police forces, authority over immigration laws. He also says that the law is having a chilling effect on his First Amendment rights to speak out against it -- T.J.

HOLMES: Well, Casey, what does -- I guess this also has to be kind of torn. Because this is an officer of the law who wants to uphold the law, of course, but he's been asked to uphold a law that he, quite frankly, doesn't really believe in.

WIAN: Right, and Officer Salgado says he's in a dilemma, and he comes right out and says he plans not to enforce the law because he believes that it is unconstitutional.

But here's the dilemma. He says that can subject him to discipline from his employer, the Phoenix Police Department. And he also claims that under SB-1070, he could be sued personally by state residents for not following the law.

On the other hand, if he does enforce the law, he's concerned that it will be ruled unconstitutional, and he'll be vulnerable to civil rights violations under federal law. So that's the dilemma, T.J.

HOLMES: All right. And the Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, of course, she's the one that's come under fire from so many people about the law. How does she plan on defending herself on this particular suit? But several other suits she has coming down the road?

WIAN: Yes, Governor Jan Brewer says that this suit and a complementary suit filed by a Latino civil rights group that has joined the officer's suit, basically saying that they're worried about exposing Latino children to arrest and interrogation because they cooperate with police often.

Governor Brewer says these suits should be thrown out. She says they're premature, that both of these plaintiffs have not proven any actual harm. They're alleging that harm could come to them at some future date over something that the courts haven't even ruled on.

She also makes the argument that state and local police departments all over the country are already helping the federal government enforce immigration laws. She says that the clause of the Constitution that the plaintiffs are referring to only involves regulation of immigration, not enforcement. So that is her basic argument. She wants these suits thrown out.

HOLMES: And last thing to you here, Casey, wants them thrown out. When could we expect some kind of word? Could a judge today say, "Hey, I'll throw it out?" This could be the end of this one? What's the next step?

WIAN: It's possible. But that's not what the attorneys expect. Because there are so many other lawsuits pending. There are six other lawsuits pending in this kiss, including the big one that was filed last week by the Obama administration. That suit and a couple of others are scheduled to be heard next week.

All of these lawsuits are seeking at least a temporary injunction against the enforcement of this law before it takes effect on July 29. But these legal wranglings are going to continue for months, T.J.

HOLMES: All right. Casey Wian, who has been following this for us every step of the way. Casey, we appreciate you. Thanks so much.

Again, to our viewers here, it's happening right now, this suit. The judge is expected at this moment, top of the hour, was supposed to start hearing from both sides in this particular case.

Again, this is just one of several that are coming down the pike. Seven altogether, but this is just the first to go to court. Our Thelma Gutierrez is in Phoenix right now where the hearing is supposed to be getting under way. She is monitoring what's happening in the courtroom. But earlier, she met with Martin Escobar. That's a police officer in Tucson who is someone else who has filed suit against this illegal immigration law there in Arizona. Here is his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN ESCOBAR, POLICE OFFICER: I have to do my job. I have to serve and protect.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's not often a police officer speaks out publicly against the laws he's sworn to uphold. But Officer Martin Escobar, a naturalized citizen and a 15- year veteran of the Tucson Police Department, says he can no longer remain silent.

(on camera) Hi, Officer.

(voice-over) We met to talk about the new Arizona law that Escobar calls unconstitutional. And as a police officer, he says he doesn't want to have to enforce it. As a private citizen, he's challenging it in federal court.

ESCOBAR: I said, "OK, you know what? It's got to be done. It's the right thing for me to do." Sometimes you've got to stand up for what you believe.

GUTIERREZ: Officer Escobar took us to the area he patrols on Tucson's South Side. It's where he grew up.

(on camera) What is this neighborhood like?

ESCOBAR: This is a predominantly Hispanic community, predominantly Mexican community here.

GUTIERREZ: Lots of new immigrants?

ESCOBAR: Lots of new immigrants coming to there. A lot of people that don't know how to speak English.

GUTIERREZ (voice-over): He says he and other officers work hard to gain trust in their communities. It's how crime gets involved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't want to stay here by myself, because I have no family here.

GUTIERREZ: But now even the children are running, scared he will deport them.

(on camera) They're afraid of you.

ESCOBAR: Of course, of course. I don't want them to be afraid of me. Officers, police officers are supposed to be the good guys. We're not the bad guys.

GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Under the law, Escobar would have to investigate the immigration status of anyone he stopped, detained or arrested if he suspected they were in the country illegally.

(on camera) Under this law, you can be sued if you don't investigate. Does that worry you?

ESCOBAR: Yes, that's correct. Yes, of course it does.

GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Within a week of passing the new law, Arizona lawmakers amended it, tightening provisions that critics claimed would lead to racial profiling. The state's governor says racial profiling will not be tolerated in Arizona, but Escobar knows how things work on the streets.

(on camera) Are you saying that, in Arizona, if you come upon a person with an Irish accent and a person with a Spanish accent, you'll investigate the person with the Spanish accent?

ESCOBAR: It's most likely that the person with the Spanish accent is going to get investigated.

GUTIERREZ (voice-over): It's that assumption that bothers him most.

(on camera) It sounds like you can relate to what some of the people are feeling right now.

ESCOBAR: That's exactly what I'm saying, and that's why some people are not going to understand what the feeling is, unless they've been through it. I've been through it.

That's a school picture of me in elementary school. I didn't have one -- one word of English.

I remember then at that time being called a wetback. You know, that used to sting so bad. GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Officer Escobar remembers being questioned by Border Patrol agents as a child. And he says he knows exactly what some of these children are feeling.

He argues in his lawsuit that determining who is in Arizona illegally should not be his responsibility. He says under federal law, that job is reserved for trained federal immigration agents.

Thelma Gutierrez, CNN, Tucson, Arizona.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: All right. So what's next? This is just the first case we're seeing. Again the hearings set to start at the top of the hour. So it should be under way right now there in Phoenix.

But again, this is one of seven lawsuits that are pending out there. Two of the particular lawsuits are from officers. The one today, David Salgado, and the other from the Tucson officer you also just heard from, Martin Escobar.

Three other lawsuits are from various advocacy groups. One also is from a Washington, D.C., man. He's a Latino man. Yes, he lives in D.C., but he says his rights could be violated if he visits Arizona.

And then, of course, the Obama administration. The first hearing in that case, where the Obama administration is suing the state of Arizona, that hearing is expected next week. And again the law expected to go into effect on July the 29th.

We're going to turn now to the BP disaster. Keeping an eye there. And it's been a very testy couple of days here. But the testing now on the integrity of the broken well, it is moving forward. You know we told you about that leaky line the other day? Well, that has been fixed, we're told, and operations are moving forward. We're going to break this down for you when we come back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: We're now on day 87 of this oil disaster, and over the past couple of days, we had a couple of problems with this new method to try to stop the oil from flowing. We're told now the problem has been fixed, and we can move forward with what you've been hearing so much about in the past couple of days: these integrity tests. And then we can put this new containment cap in place to collect all this oil.

We're going to break this down as simple as possible. You've been hearing a whole lot of terms out there. But we're going to simplify it for you here right now.

There was one of these leaky lines; you know the problem. That was the problem. That has been fixed so we can move forward.

Let's tell you what we're moving forward with. Let's tell you what this thing looks like when there's no cap. Now, this is a live picture we're showing to you, actually, here now. This is what's happening presently, 5,000 feet, folks, below the surface of the water.

Now for 44 days, though, let's show you what the thing looked like. It was just flowing. Everything was just flowing. There was no cap in place at all.

Now we're told now 35 to 60,000 barrels have been going out every single day. Now, that's when no cap is on top. Then we got to day 45 of this disaster. And for the first time we had a cap that was in place. This was on June 3. This was the first cap we had. We started to collect some of this oil, up to 5 percent of it. Began to increase over time but initially only 5 percent. That was on June 3.

Move now to June the 16th. Added a second production vessel, and that upped collection to some 28,000 barrel a day. So we're starting to move in the right direction.

Now here we are, almost a month later, and we're close to having a new cap up and running. This new cap can capture, we're told -- it can help us get to the point where we're collecting just about all of the oil. Now, with this new cap, they'll be able to have four vessels up top that they can actually produce this oil.

Now all of this sounds quite complicated. There have been so many steps along the way, and top-kill and top hat and bottom this and up that. So look at this. It's not just us who has a tough time with this. This was a picture from yesterday. That is the incident commander, Thad Allen. He didn't have anything technical or any equipment to help him explain. So you know what? Just had a drawing board there, and that was the breakdown. Again, that's the incident commander trying to break this down, as well.

Now let me show you what he said just a couple of hours ago, giving us another update about where we are in this whole process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN, NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER: I don't want to reverse the priorities here, because the priority was to contain and stop the flow of oil. But the design of the cap itself, if we can withstand the pressures and the well bore stays intact, presents the actual to shut the well in, which will give us the ability to abandon the site in the event of a hurricane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: All right. Let's break the numbers here down for you that we're getting from him.

Again, once the four vessels are up to speed -- we've got about three out there now. We could over the next several days get four vessels collecting. So they could start collecting 60 to 80,000 barrels a day. The estimated flow rate is 35 to 60,000 barrels. So you do the math there, and they could be collecting all of the oil. Allen says this still leaves room for some unforeseen glitches. He was talking about this, of course, and you heard him there just a moment ago explaining it, as well.

But again, no matter what we're able to collect, no matter how much of it, this is not the permanent solution. Those relief wells, that work is still under way and we're told still have to wait some time until August before the permanent solution is taken care of.

Now also, hundreds of thousands of Americans still finding themselves days out of a work, without a job, I should say. A lot of people out of a job. Some good news we saw today in some economic numbers. Some say it depends on how you interpret it. Quick break. We're right back to break it down.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Now, 429,000 people filed for jobless benefits for the first time last week. That is a big drop and the lowest level in nearly two years. But is it good news? Poppy Harlow with CNNmoney.com.

We see it over your shoulder there, jobless claims sink to a near two-year low. That sounds like we're moving in the right direction. But please, give us perspective here, Poppy.

POPPY HARLOW, CNNMONEY.COM: Yes. I mean, look, the headline on this is it's a better report than last week. These claims are down nearly 30,000 from the prior week.

But overall, the bottom line on this report is it's not good at all. More than 400,000 Americans have been lining up for these unemployment benefits every week since July 2008 for two years.

And that -- that graphic right there paints the picture for you. More than 14.5 million Americans right now completely out of work. Almost half of them have been unemployed for six months or longer.

So the debate, as you know, T.J., is raging in Washington over whether or not more and more money can be spent to add more and more extensions on to unemployment benefits.

Right now in this country, the maximum amount of benefits you can get for unemployment is 99 weeks, almost two years. At the end of this year, about a million Americans will have exhausted those benefits without much other hope, without another lifeline.

We talked to some of those people here in New York. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Every time I go in an interview, it's always the same old story. Don't call us; we'll call you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've had unemployment insurance to help me so far and pretty much exhausted two extensions. My benefits ended like about almost a month ago. I've been living off my savings. That scares me a lot. You know, that I won't have anything in the next couple of months, you know, in my savings. You know, that really has me worried.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: I would have anyone worried. And the big question that they're asking, that a lot of lawmakers are asking is where are the jobs?

Well, the White House, T.J., responded to this yesterday. Look at the numbers that the White House put out most recently. They said, look, three million Americans, from their reading, had their jobs saved or new jobs created because of stimulus spending. They said by the end of the year, they project 3.5 million jobs will be saved or created as a result of stimulus.

But as you know, stimulus has a lot of critics who say it has not lowered the unemployment rate. To do that, what we need to see, T.J., is 100,000 more jobs added every month just to level off unemployment. Many, many more thousand than that added if you want to bring that number down, T.J.

So top line of this report this morning, good. The reality of it, not good at all.

HOLMES: The reality, as well. You said people are about to run out...

HARLOW: Right.

HOLMES: ... a lot of these benefits. Any help for them on the way? I know Congress, a lot of people looking at Congress for not extending some of the unemployment benefits. Any hope that they will?

HARLOW: Beyond the 99 weeks, they really aren't talking about that in either party in Washington right now. They don't have the argument to do that right now. The money certainly not there. The argument about our deficit, where does the spending come from? How do you pay for it?

What they do have is this program I want to tell you about. It's called temporary assistance for needy families or TANF. You may not have heard of this, but it's very important for families that are struggling, maybe both parents out of work. This got $5 billion from stimulus as part of that recovery act.

But at the end of September, not far off, September 30, that money all runs out. The debate in Washington: will they extend TANF or not? They're going to have a congressional hearing on this in the next few weeks. I talked to someone last week who was testifying at that hearing. The hearing will be about whether more money should go in, and if so, how that money should be used, should they change the program. So there are other lifelines out there for families in need. But if you're an unemployed person, a single person, after 99 weeks of benefits, you still can't find work right now, there is not more help, T.J.

HOLMES: All right. Poppy Harlow, we appreciate the breakdown. And we're going to be talking to you again here shortly in the next hour; going to be breaking down something else for us. Poppy is going to be talking to us about some of the products you should always buy generic. That's next hour with Poppy Harlow. But also, be sure to watch "YOUR $$$$$" this weekend, every weekend, Saturdays at 1 p.m. Eastern, Sundays at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

Want to give you a look now at some of the other stories that are making headlines.

It took them quite a while to sort this out, but sweeping Wall Street reforms about to become law. Talking about the biggest packet of financial reform since Roosevelt's new deal. The Senate voted a little while ago to end debate on that measure. A full final vote is expected next hour.

The Consumer Products Safety Commission has approved standards that would ban drop-side cribs. The new rules expected to go into effect next year after a final vote by the federal commission.

And the government's point man in the Gulf says BP is ready to resume a critical well test that could put an end to the 12-week-long oil disaster, at least the part of the oil leaking out. These are the integrity tests you've been hearing about, going to help determine the well's pressure and whether that new cap that's on will be able to contain the oil.

Well, coming up, the Vatican laying down some new rules out there and giving the pope increased power over priests. We're talking about some rules having to do with sexual abuse in the church. We're looking at these new rules, the impact, as well. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Well, there are new rules at the Vatican. New rules in terms of how to deal with sexual abuse cases. Let me give you just some of the highlights, if you will.

The pope, under these new rules, can now defrock priests without a Vatican trial. Also, victims have an extra ten years to come forward. A different statute of limitations here. Also for the first time, viewing child pornography, a church crime. That's just a couple of the things.

Let's break this down and the relevance of it with our John Allen, joining us live now from Denver. He's a CNN senior Vatican analyst and a senior correspondent of the "National Catholic Reporter," the largest independent news source in America that covers the Roman Catholic Church. John, you've got a heck of a title there, buddy. But good to see you, as always. Good to have you on all things related to the Vatican. You've been covering the Vatican for quite some time. Tell us, first of all, before we get into some of the details, I guess how momentous is this now that we have these new rules? How big of a deal is this?

JOHN ALLEN, CNN VATICAN ANALYST: Well, you know, T.J., the truth is that momentousness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I mean, what the Vatican will say is that this is a big deal. They will say that what this does is codify and make binding for the universal Catholic church, those 1.2 billion Catholics all over the world, a system of swift and sure justice for the victims of sex abuse and punishment for abuser priests.

Now what critics, including some of the advocacy groups for victims, will say, on the other hand, is that this is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That is, that this is sort of tweaking a system around the edges when what it needs is kind of radical overhaul.

And they would say, for example, that what the Vatican needs is to put -- to light a fire under bishops and other church leaders around the world, to really aggressively cooperate with police and civil authorities, that will say that what we need is much more sweeping accountability mechanisms, not just for priests who abuse, but also for bishops who cover it up.

And so, you know, those inclined to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt will say these are welcome steps forward and that they're important. Those who don't want to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt will say this is too little, too late.

HOLMES: Well, John, you used the phrase in there "swift and sure justice." The Vatican would say these are new rules that would insure swift and sure justice for the victims. So what do they point to in here in these new rules that ensures that swift and sure justice?

ALLEN: Well, I mean, bear in mind, a lot of this is simply sort of ratifying what they've already been doing.

But what they would say is, for example, the provision that allows the pope to bypass a very slow and cumbersome church trial and simply remove an abusive priest from the priesthood at the stroke of a pen, making sure that this happens much more quickly and expeditiously, without putting victims through the agony of a several- year-long process.

They would say things like extending the statute of limitations. Although in truth, the Vatican has already been setting aside the statute of limitations on a case-by-case basis. But in any event, giving people more time to bring these charges forward.

HOLMES: So John, what does this mean, then?

ALLEN: And some would say that, if you add all that up, the big picture is a commitment to taking this problem seriously.

HOLMES: A commitment. But I think I heard you right earlier, when you say they've been doing many of these things in practice. Now you make it church law. So what's different? Just symbolism?

ALLEN: Well, I mean what the Vatican will say is what's different is that these are no longer exceptions; this is now binding law for the whole church.

What the critics will say is, T.J., that you know, there is no answer to your question. In other words, they would say that this is more of the same, and the really fundamental reforms and the kind of sweeping overhaul that critics would say is necessary, beginning perhaps with imposing the American "one strike and you're out" policy on rest of the church, that that has yet to be done.

HOLMES: What might be a next step? Will there be a next step? Will they give the critics what they want, and continue to in -- to harden some of the rules they have in the Vatican?

ALLEN: Well, the Vatican has indicated that, at least in the short-term, that there's -- there are not going to be any more sweeping changes to the law. But they are committed to trying to make sure that this new set of rules is translated into practice on the ground.

So in other words, I think the next step from their point of view is follow-through around the world: making sure that local bishops and other church leaders are actually following the rules as they've been laid out.

I think the other thing that many critics would say is that, you know, the Vatican is good at tinkering with systems and policies and procedures. What they haven't been so good at yet is a kind of big, dramatic piece of symbolism that will convince the world that they really do get it.

And I think it will be interesting to see, having -- having put out this new set of rules, if they're now going to move on to try to get the PR tone consistent with what they're claiming the substance already is.

HOLMES: That was a good way to wrap it up, the PR tone. Even the Vatican has a PR department, as well, a pretty significant one. John Allen for us, our senior Vatican analyst. John, good to see you, as always. You enjoy yourself there in Denver.

ALLEN: Thanks, T.J..

All right. Now we're standing by, expecting the president shortly, he's in Michigan this hour, going to be talking about the economy. The event just getting under way and he's there to tout how the stimulus has created jobs in that state. We'll be checking in bottom of the hour. We're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HOLMES: We're coming up on the half-hour. Get you caught up now on some stories making headlines. A court hearing getting under way this hour in Arizona. Phoenix a police officer challenging the state's controversial new immigration law.

He contends it violates the constitution. And it's the first of several legal challenges we're going to see, some seven of these lawsuits out there already. Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, has asked the judge to dismiss this suit.

Also the government's point man in the Gulf said BP is ready to resume a critical well test that could put an end to the 12-week-long oil disaster. These are the integrity tests to help determine the well's pressure and whether a tighter seal will be able to contain all the oil.

And also president Obama in Holland, Michigan, this hour he's attending a ground-breaking ceremony for a new plant that's going to produce batteries for electric vehicles. Vehicles like the Chevy Volt. Also a chance for the president to see the stimulus money being put to use.

The plant received about $151 million in government grant money. You see this is happening right now, live, you can see the construction and things going on in the background. So that's the backdrop for the stimulus that the president still is touting as creating jobs.

Now this plant expected to employ more than 300 workers, once it's completed we have our eyes on the event there in Holland, Michigan, in the western part of the state. We'll keep an eye on it for you.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, D.C., the president will have something else to tout here shortly. Financial reform. Wall Street reform form as you've heard it called. Already one House Republican is calling for its repeal before it's even officially made law.

Brianna Keilar, things just continue to be wacky up there sometimes. Already talking about repealing something that's not quite law. So you tell us this Democrats saying this is historic legislation?

BRIANA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And it's historic, whoever you talk to. Because this is the most sweeping reform of Wall Street since the Great Depression, T.J. And I was here almost a couple of years ago, covering the economy when it was really on the brink of collapse.

And this is what has come out of it. Democrats saying this is what's going to stop a really bone-chilling financial crisis like we saw from happening again. But talk to Republicans, T.J. and they say its historically bad and overreaching and over-regulating, T.J.

HOLMES: Hey it's historic one way or another, just historic, or historically bad, depending on who you talk to. So again tell the Americans, our viewing audience out there what exactly it is-is in this big as always thee are huge bills, but a big complicated bill. What's in it for us?

KEILAR: A couple thousand pages, but some main points to hit on one is a consumer protection agency. If you get a loan, use a credit card, this is supposed to stop unfair practices. Another thing it would do is regulate derivatives, those really complicated financial products that when they flopped, took down Lehman brothers, could have taken down AIG had the U.S. government not stepped in. It regulates those.

And also it gives the government the ability to wind down these huge financial firms, if they flounder. The way they do with basically banks right now, T.J.. They didn't have that ability before and they're supposed to have it. They will have it after this.

HOLMES: Brianna Keilar on Capitol Hill. They're expecting this I do believe next hour? The final vote. We'll be checking in with you again, Briana thanks so much.

Well have you been hearing about this Iranian nuclear scientist that made his way back to Iran from the U.S.?

Well it turns out, he left with a pretty nice check from the U.S. paid some $5 million. Why? And yes, he has returned home to Iran, to a hero's welcome. All the details, coming up. When we go "Globe Trekking"

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Well time for us now to go "Globe-Trekking", and we are going to begin with this story of this Iranian nuclear scientist who was in the U.S. and now has made his way home to Iran. Got a hero's welcome back in Iran. But depending on who you're talking to, you're going to get different stories about why he was in the U.S. in the first place.

And also we're also getting word that in fact the U.S. government paid this man some $5 million. Let's get the back-story on this. From our Reza Sayah who joins us now, live from Islamabad, Pakistan. But Reza you've got to help us with this story .

Let's start with this $5 million first of all, what's the story out there about why the U.S. government would give him $5 million. And also tell me how this is playing out in the U.S. and also in Iran. How the story is playing in the news media.

REZA SAYAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, T.J. just when you thought you heard all the strange twists and turns about this story, there comes another one about this $5 million a U.S. official a few hours ago, confirming to CNN that Amiri received $5 million to provide valuable and original information about Iran's nuclear program about to the U.S. this official calling this $5 million a long-term benefits package for Amiri.

Of course, Amiri denies this. There's been so many contradictions to the story. So many things that don't add up. But you have to think that someone, maybe everyone involved in the story is not being completely truthful. Let's tell you what happened today.

This morning, in Tehran Amiri came back home, received a hero's welcome at Tehran airport. Greeted by his wife his seven year old son, Iranian officials who covered him with flowers. Right after he arrived he held another news conference where once again he repeated claims where last year in Saudi Arabia he was kidnapped by U.S. agents who took him back to America, psychologically tortured him in order to extract Iranian nuclear secrets from him. Here's Amiri at his press conference early Thursday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHAHRAM AMIRI (through translator): I was abducted in Medina in front of the U.S. and Soviet intelligence agents. They I was transferred to an unknown location in Saudi Arabia. They injected anesthetic drugs into me. They took me to the U.S. on a military plane. During my stay the first two months, I was subjected to heavy psychological and mental tortures by CIA agents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAYAH Now, indeed Amiri did disappear while on a trip to Saudi Arabia last year. But here's where things don't add up. A short time later he surfaced in America, where he posted a video message on Youtube saying he was in the U.S. voluntarily, studying for his Ph.D.

A short time later he posted another video message on Youtube, rescinding that claim, saying he was kidnapped by the U.S. and the CIA and fast-forward to this week on Monday, Washington, D.C., T.J. he hops in a taxi, drives over to the Iranian intersection at the Pakistani embassy and tells them to get me back to Iran and today, T.J, he got his wish. And he came back to Iran.

HOLMES: OK. One more thing here quickly though. What kind of trouble could he be in if Iran found out that this guy was over here in the U.S. helping the U.S.?

SAYAH: That's a good question, T.J.. Right now they're giving him a hero's welcome. But if indeed he did defect and there's some reports that he did defect, Iranian officials threatened his family and that's why you're back. If that is indeed the case, you won't see it as hero's welcome for much longer.

And who knows what happens to him behind the scene. He may have good reason to fear for his safety.

HOLMES: All right Reza Sayah for us with all of the interesting details of this story. Reza we appreciate you as always thanks so much.

Next in our "Globe-Trekking" takes us to North Korea. There is a new report out about some of the details of what's happening in North Korea. Essentially the crisis happening there. I want to put up there's a medical and there's a food crisis. This according to Amnesty International who's out with a new report. Says they're in critical need of medical aid and food aid. Just some of the details they are highlighting in their report. Saying that major surgery is often done in North Korea without anesthesia. It says that many of those who are sick, they don't go to doctors, they oftentimes treat themselves, they buy drugs from markets. Also malnutrition has triggered a tuberculosis epidemic. And also people oftentimes forced to eat wild foods such as grass and tree bark.

Now we have seen some of the things coming out of North Korea. Really over the years that's faced really serious food shortages and famines over the years. We have some pictures we can share with you. This was during back in the period of 2003. The amnesty says based on the latest figures, North Korea spent less on health care than any other country in the world.

That is under $1 per year. Amnesty's report based on interviews with international aid workers and North Koreans who have defected. And that is our "Globe-Trekking" today. We' are going to take you to our "Crime and Consequence" segments in just a moment. And to a Texas city that is in shock because its mayor and the mayor's daughter both dead. And one of them accused of pulling the trigger. The latest, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: In today's "Crime and Consequence", a really tough story we are getting out of Texas. And let me walk you through this. This is a suburb of Dallas. This is called Coppell, Texas is what it is. And the mayor didn't show up for a city council meeting. The mayor by the name of Jane Peters is the name.

She did not show up for a city council meeting. So they decide they need to do a welfare check at the mayor's home. Authorities go to the home and greeting them on the front door, taped to the front door was a key and also a note.

When they walked inside, they find the mayor dead, but also the mayor's 19-year-old daughter. Corrine Peters. Police say that the mayor was the shooter and called this a murder-suicide. Also they found inside three other notes she had typed up.

Now really no explanation of what happened here. There were, there was information in these notes kind of just taking care of her personal matters. If you will. Had instructions on how to handle the family dogs, family matters, instructions for care of the animals. Colleagues and friends, neighbors just stunned.

Nobody can really point to anything as to why this would have happened or what could have made the mayor shoot her daughter and herself. Some people point to a blow the family had a few years back when the, when the husband of the mayor actually died. He lost his battle with cancer. They say there was some friction because between the mother and the daughter after that happened.

But other than that, no one can really point to anything. The mayor here just taken office last year had served on the city council there since 1998 as well. This city again Coppell is a 39,000, about 60 miles outside of Dallas. Now the 19-year-old, Corrine, lets me tell you about her. Corrine Peters had just graduated from Coppell High School there. You see her there, she was on the drill team. She had also studied ballet for many years. Just graduated, she was a class of 2010.

She wanted to minor in dance at the University of Texas in Austin this Fall. She had decided she was going to go into the medical field. Her original goal was to be a nurse. She reconsidered that actually and decided to go into dentistry instead. She decided that because friends say she actually fainted while giving blood.

So she reconsidered that course of the medical field. But she decided she was going to go into dentistry instead. Described as goofy and sweet. 19-year-old Corrine peters, the class of 2010, dead at the hands of her mother according to authorities.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: We got a "Big Idea" today that some people out there are going to love, if you just love the sweets and you don't floss correctly and all that good stuff. This one comes to us out of Strasbourg, France, where scientists there looking into a new process known as tooth regeneration. And in some case it could eliminate the need for fillings.

Now, this is fascinating to a lot of us who have had to go through the whole process of having the drill and the cap and all the other thing it's not pleasant. But this could help you avoid that somewhere down the road.

Now let me explain this. Tooth regeneration. It uses actually a gel or a thin film that contains a chemical called MSH. This is a chemical compound that's been shown to regenerate bone. Now instead of getting out the drill there at the dentist office. The dentist puts this compound on that infected tooth. The tooth then heals itself from inside and repairs the cavity.

Now in tests with the mice teeth, poor mice they always use the mice don't they? The cavities disappeared in about a month. The process reduces the likelihood that a crown will be need to protect the tooth. OK, word of caution here. Scientists say the process will only work in a few cases. Or limited cases, I should say.

Most cavities for the most part are still going to have to be filled. And yes, you will have to go under that drill, and it could take years of clinical trials before the treatment is actually available to the general public.

Still, some people like myself who's been to the dentist a time or two would love the opportunity to not have to go under that drill. So that is today's "Big Idea"

Got another idea coming up. You like to save money right? Sometimes you save money by just buying not the name brand but something generic. We've got 10 things you should always, always buy generic. You got to see these. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: OK, let me explain, folks, why I have all this stuff here. All this stuff are examples of things you should always buy generic. Don't ever buy the name brand we're told. We got cereal up here, produce, batteries, some makeup in there. Just some cola, as it says. Gasoline one of them as well. But these are things you should always, always Poppy, buy generic. Now, why just these items? And when I say Poppy Poppy Harlow I'm referring to at cnnmoney.com.. But why these particular items? Are you telling me you should never buy the name brand stuff?

HARLOW: No. Not unless you want to spend more money. All the things you have up there and I learned a lot preparing for this segment too because I knew the makeup thing and the cereal thing. I didn't know about gasoline.

So let's start off with that. That big gas tank you have right there. We go Amoco those gas stations, the retail gas stations. But guess what? The experts say T.J. you can save about 20 cents a gallon if you go to sort of one of the non-name brand gas stations in your neighborhood.

And folks, they even say that sometimes this gasoline literally comes off the same tanker truck that delivers it to Amoco than goes to the sort of not brand name gas station and delivers it there. So why would in the heck would you pay more? That's a big one where you're going to save. You know people drive around looking for one or two cent savings on gas. Why do that if you can save 20 cents a gallon, going to one of those other stations.

HOLMES: OK and Poppy you're telling me there's no incentive there is no advantage just because I might buy some name brand. There's nothing a little extra special they throw in there besides their name that I'm paying for?

HARLOW: Not usually. I mean let's take, you've got baby formula up there and you've got over-the-counter drugs. Right those are things are really, really expensive and families always need them. And they can really sort of break on your monthly budget.

I want to give you some examples. We went online. We went to cvs.com and looked at two of the exact same size and ingredients when you look at a 24 pack of cold and allergy pills. The generic was $4.99. The name brand was $6.99.

And even bigger savings than that. Baby formula. Went online to babies r us. 23.4 ounce can of generic baby formula. $12.99. A name size can with the exact same amount, $24.99.

It's 50 percent higher. And those have to be according to the FDA, over-the-counter drugs and baby formula all have to be approved by the FDA and they have to have the exact same ingredients. The only time when you shouldn't do it, the experts say is prescription drugs because they may have the same ingredients as a generic but they may not absorb in the same way. You have to ask your doctors about that ones.

HOLMES: What about produce?

HARLOW: Produce. It's funny I was reading a report today and it said I know a banana is going to taste like a banana. Why do I have by a Chiquita just for the little sticker so same deal there with produce, soda, flower, sugar, same story.

HOLMES: I love that little sticker back in the day.

HARLOW: I know you do.

HOLMES: Poppy Harlow, there's-OK. But some people just feel better buying the flame brands. It's a comfort thing.

HARLOW: It's also a status thing. You know one of the items you have on the table there is makeup. And people want to spend $24 on Chanel lipstick, go for it. I have one but I have six Loreal lipsticks from the drugstore across the street.

So they're really pretty much the same thing when it comes to makeup. Some if the makeup folks is even made, the one you get at the drug store in the same exact factory where they make that extensive stuff they sell at the department store.

HOLMES: We apparently went with Maybelline up here.

HARLOW: Maybe it's Maybelline

HOLMES: All right. Poppy we appreciate you as always. Really some stuff people can use there could save them a little money right now good to see you as always Poppy Thank you so much. (