Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Work Goes Ahead on New Containment Cap; Challenging Arizona's Immigration Law; Foreclosures 2010
Aired July 15, 2010 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: A brand new hour, so we've got a new rundown. And a court showdown this hour over Arizona's new immigration law. It's happening right now.
A Phoenix police officer is the one who is taking his case before a judge.
Also, a new push by American business leaders for the U.S. to end its embargo and travel ban to Cuba.
Also, getting food to those who need it in the Gulf. We'll talk live to a group who's developing thousands of pounds of food to that region. They are delivering that down there, trying to help out.
But, still, we are on oil disaster day number 87. Integrity tests, we are told, are back on today. We had a problem, had that leaky pipe you've been hearing about, but we're told that is fixed and things are now about to get back on schedule.
And those things, most importantly, is the testing of pressure in the well, these so-called integrity tests you have been hearing so much about. They're trying to see if the well can handle this new cap.
This new cap is a big deal because this could lead to all of the oil being collected, for the most part, and none of it leaking out into the Gulf for the first time since April 20th, some 80-plus days ago.
Our Ed Lavandera is our guy. He's in New Orleans for us right now.
Ed, hello to you once again. Are we back on schedule?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are. Admiral Thad Allen told us a little while ago that the leak that had slowed things down overnight has been fixed, and they've been told to keep on moving forward. So now we're really just basically waiting on the official word to come from BP to tell us that that test is officially under way. But the preparations have been going on for the last 24 hours, so we're moving forward now, it looks like.
HOLMES: But, still, they haven't been so clear about a timeline, but they keep telling us about how they're going to test it in intervals. So, we could know between six and 48 hours. Walk us through that process or how they're going to go about this. And they're going to be quite careful in how they do this. They know what's on the line and they do not want to mess this up.
LAVANDERA: Right. I mean, it's a 48-hour test in all. They're going to stop and take measurements and analyze the data that they get every six hours . So, if things go completely haywire, for example, right out of the gate, I mean, they could shut this down after six hours if they need to.
But those pressure readings is what they'll be looking at closely to make sure they're not doing any more damage to that wellbore that goes into the earth's surface and deep, some almost three miles deep into the earth. So that's what they're concerned about. And that's what they'll be monitoring closely.
HOLMES: And again, we've been hearing so much about integrity tests and pressure, but once again, explain, low pressure, bad. High pressure, good.
LAVANDERA: Right. I think the admiral used an analogy this morning if you have a garden hose, and you put your finger on the top of it, that pressure should still be in. If all of a sudden you kind of feel that the pressure in the hose is going out, that means there's holes along the garden hose there and oil would be leaking out through that well casing. So, that is not something they want to see.
They want to be able to control that flow, because if the cap doesn't work by itself, the other option that they have, and I think the one they think is probably most likely at this point, just kind of reading the tea leaves on what the admiral is saying, is that they have the capacity, they say, to collect all of the oil if the government's flow rate is accurate, which is up to 60,000 barrels a day. They say they have the capacity on the surface of the water to capture about 80,000 barrels a day.
So they would much rather have that oil come up and be brought up to the surface through the various riser pipes and all the other tubes that they have and collect it. They don't want it going and disappearing into the earth, creating other kind of crevices that might come back and cause problems later on.
HOLMES: All right. So the next coup of days could be critical, could get big news out of the Gulf. And again, the big news would be that maybe for the first time, oil is not gushing into the Gulf.
Ed Lavandera, who's been on this story for us.
Ed, we appreciate you, as always. We'll talk to you again here soon.
Meanwhile, the other big story we're keeping an eye on today happening out in Arizona. There have been a number of lawsuits filed against Arizona's new controversial immigration law that has yet to go into effect. It's supposed to go into effect a little later this month, on the 29th. But, still, the first court proceeding, the first time one of these lawsuits being heard in court, is happening today.
This one is from a police officer in Phoenix, David Salgado. Well, exactly how is this going to go down?
Attorney Bruce Fein joins us now, coming to us live from Akron, Ohio.
Bruce, we appreciate you being with us. Thanks so much.
So many of these lawsuits are challenging the law on different merits. So, this officer, this suit is challenging the Arizona law on what merits?
BRUCE FEIN, ATTORNEY: This one is based upon due process. I think it's the sense that the officer may be forced to violate the United States Constitution, which he is sworn to uphold and defend if he engages in some kind of racial profiling, trying to report anyone to the federal authorities that he suspects may be an illegal alien. And that, in fact, enforcement pattern may result in probably a preponderance of Hispanics who may be legal citizens.
The difficulty with that argument is that the law hasn't gone into effect yet, and these kinds of suits ordinarily are based on a track record where you can identify what proportion of those who were detained, who were reported to ICE, the Immigration Customs Enforcement, were Hispanic, which ones were not. So, that is a problem, what lawyers call standing.
The other theory here is federal -- the lawyers call it federal preemption. But, anyway, the idea is that only the national government can fashion an immigration policy.
For example, we have got thorny relationship with Mexico with regard to the drug cartels, not only with regard to guns, but violence in the United States. And the way in which the United States chooses to enforce the immigration laws as applied to that Mexican-American boarder is a very, very delicate one because it involves reciprocity that Mexico would show towards U.S. citizens visiting there.
The idea is that there must be a single uniform voice in deciding how vigorously, how exacting to enforce our immigration laws. And the Arizona law undermines that uniformity by creating the opportunity for 50 separate states to have their own immigration laws and confound the ability of the president to negotiate with foreign countries.
HOLMES: All right, Bruce. You are clearly smarter than the rest of us. Let's take these one by one here.
Now, on the merits of this case, we have several lawsuits challenging for different reasons. Now, this lawsuit, like you just said, I believe a supremacy clause it kind of goes after, and all this police officer being forced to enforce this law. Now, based on the merits of this case, versus the merits of the government's case, or based on the merits of some of the other cases out there, which one of these lawsuits would you say has a better chance? FEIN: Well, I think what you would call the supremacy case, the idea we've got one national government to speak with one voice does, we've got a precedent that's reasonably close here concerning the Cold War years when states were passing little sedition acts to complement a federal sedition law aimed at the communist party trying to overthrow the federal government. In a case called Nelson versus Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court said you can't have two different enforcement policies at the same time.
J. Edgar Hoover, so to speak, was the one who was running how vigorous you're going to prosecute these kinds of cases. They didn't want to have states second-guessing that because our prosecution policy had international ramifications to it.
So, that's the strongest case. I think that there is a strong case on the due process or 14th Amendment -- that's the racial profiling element here -- but only once the law goes into effect. It's speculative now, how it in fact will be enforced, because the law does say on its face that you're not supposed to use simply someone's race, religion, ethnicity or nationality as a foundation for detention in making an inquiry.
HOLMES: Well, Bruce, on that point there, could the judge, like you said -- I mean, usually you can't bring this case until something goes into effect and you see how it's being used or abused. So, on that theory, could the judge just throw this case out?
FEIN: Well, yes. The lawyers call it rightness. The judge would say we're not saying that, necessarily, this law passes constitutional muster, but you brought the lawsuit prematurely. Wait until there's an enforcement pattern, then come into my court, and then I will examine that.
That may well happen in this case. I don't think that's an argument that will succeed in the preemption. The federal government is going to be heard the first day this goes into effect, because it will immediately undermine this ability to speak with one voice abroad. And that would give its authority to challenge the law before it has a long track record.
HOLMES: And again, before it has a long track record. And this is my last question here. You would have to see a pattern of enforcement, like you just said. But could someone, once it goes into effect -- you can't challenge the law based on just one incident where someone thinks they were discriminated against. You would really have to show a pattern.
So, this law would have to be enforced and on the books for a while before any suit, it sounds like, would even be able to be challenged.
FEIN: Well, that's probably the case, but you never know what could actually be said. I mean, if an officer openly concedes that he picked out, in violation of the statute which says you're not supposed to rely solely on ethnicity, et cetera for detention, then you would have a confession here. But that's unlikely to be the case, but it can happen.
You could have Mark Fuhrman, so to speak, on the witness stand, those who remember the O.J. Simpson trial. But it's more likely. And if you were a plaintiff, and a lawyer advising how to go about the case, that you would want to have some kind of track record there, because that would then be a convincing showing to the judge that this is being uneven-handedly enforced. If you brought it too early and you lost, it would create a momentum that wouldn't be helpful to you down the road.
HOLMES: All right, Bruce. We're trying to get our heads around these lawsuits. Don't take us back to the O.J. trial. All right?
Bruce Fein.
We appreciate you coming in and we appreciate you as always. Thanks so much.
FEIN: All right. Thank you.
HOLMES: Well, troubling new reports released today on foreclosures. We could end 2010 with a record number of them. The details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right. Foreclosure pain just gets more painful.
Josh Levs here with me now.
We've got at new report out with some new numbers. Now, we've been hearing bad news about foreclosures, but now we're hearing, even on top of the bad news, this could end up being a record year now.
JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, at this rate it will be. And it's horrendous.
You've see some of these new numbers, right, that we're looking at today?
HOLMES: Yes.
LEVS: It's awful. And I'm going to show you how it applies all over the country, where the worst areas are.
Let's take a look at the big picture, folks.
First of all, look at this. For 2010, the first six months of this year, 1.65 million foreclosures. And what that tells us is that if it continues at this rate, you've got more than three million for the whole year. That would be a record. We've never had anything like that. And this is, again, the first six months now.
If you want to think about how it plays out across the country, that number works out to one out of every 78 homes being at risk for foreclosure. That's how much it is. Now, it's not even everywhere, but the fact is, overall, the whole country, one out of 78.
Now, a little bit of good news, maybe a tiny bit of a silver lining, is that foreclosures have actually gone down slightly from the last six months of last year. They're down five percent from the final six months of last year. So, while it's still a ton, you have the rate decreasing.
But there's something else that's happening at the same time, and that is that banks are actually repossessing more homes than they did before. April, May and June this year had five percent more repossession from banks than the last three months of last year.
Let's go to some video and I'll talk to you about what's going on. This is what the problem is.
Basically, you do have banks working with more people, working -- lenders in general working with more borrowers to modify mortgages, and also allowing more people to sell their homes for less than they and the banks thought those homes were worth. So that's why it's gone down a little bit.
At the same time, there's been this big backlog. And, T.J., you know this. We talked about this a lot throughout the year last year and earlier this year, that there were all of these homes in foreclosure, but a lot of them were just sitting there. Right? And nothing was happening to them.
Some people were just hanging out in these houses. Some strangers were moving into foreclosed homes that people thought they had to move out of. What you have now is, banks have increased the rate at which they're taking these back, so people have a little bit less leeway now when it comes to avoiding repossession.
HOLMES: And it's a long process sometimes. People sometimes just stop paying. And they know the home is going to be foreclosed, and they know they have so much time to still live in that home. Maybe the banks are increasing the rate at which they're going after these things.
LEVS: Right. And they need to.
And I'll tell you this, because this scares a lot of people. A lot of people get concerned, what do they do? And there are a lot of people who are afraid that they might at some point be one of the people facing this.
Let's look at some interactives that might help you all out there.
First of all, if you want to know where the worst areas are, this is from CNNMoney.com. The biggest red bubbles are the worst areas. And this is what we've heard throughout all this: Nevada, California, Florida. These have been, throughout this whole crisis, the areas with the worst foreclosure rates. You just click on one of these bubbles and it gives you some statistics. Now, I want you to know what to do if you're interested in getting some help here. This is from the government. This is from Hud.gov, and they're talking to you about things you can do to avoid foreclosure.
And this is actually one site that's helping a lot of people. They're hooking you up to people that can help you.
I have posted links for all of this stuff for you up on my Facebook at JoshLevsCNN. So, if you're concerned that you might be one of these people, if you're trying to avoid it, try these sites and get help before you fall that low.
HOLMES: All right, Josh. Disturbing numbers on top of more disturbing numbers we seem to get every day.
LEVS: Yes, I'm always the Grim Reaper here.
HOLMES: No, no. We need the reality check. So we appreciate it, Josh.
LEVS: All right. You got it.
HOLMES: Thanks so much.
LEVS: Thank you.
HOLMES: Well, imagine out there having to move from your home because there's not enough clean water to drink. A real problem in some parts of the world. Now maybe a solution.
Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: In India, clean water is scarce, but a practical solution is now in sight. And that is today's "One Simple Thing."
Here now, CNN's Sara Sidner.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Day and night they come, an unending stream of people desperate for water. In this district of India, people are fleeing to the cities because they can no longer survive off their parched land.
(on camera): They're moving away because they can't handle --
SANTOSH GUPTA, DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES: Yes. Yes. And because the only problem is water. They do not have the water to drink and grow their agricultural products.
SIDNER (voice-over): But this device is beginning to change that in small villages across India.
GUPTA: It's a big filter. Dirt (ph), sand, pebbles and stones.
SIDNER (on camera): The simple of ingredients.
GUPTA: Yes, very simple.
SIDNER (voice-over): The joltara (ph) filter doesn't need any chemicals. A layer of fabric, followed by sand, pebbles and stones, act as a kind of strainer sifting out contaminants.
The main ingredients of the water filter are available locally. The villagers are taught how to maintain it themselves. It was installed two years ago by a group called Development Alternatives.
(on camera): About 350 people live in this village. The water purifier allows each of them to get the equivalent of about 10 of these bottles of clean drinking water every day. The mothers especially are noticing that the health in the village has improved, particularly for the children.
(voice-over): "When the filter wasn't there, we would get sick," this mother of four says. "We had diarrhea, colds, fevers, and throat infections all the time."
Those symptoms can be a death sentence. Across the world, UNICEF estimates more than 3,000 children die every day due to diarrheal diseases. And India has more of those cases than any other country in the world.
But in this village of farmers, livestock and little ones, this one simple thing is helping solve one of India's biggest problems one water-starved village at a time.
Sara Sidner, CNN, India.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOLMES: All right. It is day 87 of the Gulf oil disaster, and we are now finally getting word from BP that, in fact, officially, yes, the integrity tests you have been hearing so much about now under way. These integrity tests are essentially testing how strong that well is.
It's important here because this could be the step that leads us to finally capping that well and collecting all of the oil. No, this is not the permanent solution of the relief wells that are still being drilled. That's the only permanent way to cut this thing off. But this method they're using now, they have put another seal on top, and this is going to allow them now to test just how strong that well is.
This will happen over the next six to 48 hours. They're doing this in intervals of six hours that they're going to be testing the pressure in this well.
Again, if you haven't been keeping up, I can simplify this for you. You put a cap on top of the well, it's a pretty good seal. If it's able to hold and the pressure builds up and you know no oil is leaking, that means you are able to collect most of the oil. That's it in a nutshell.
But you see the live picture behind me. The integrity test is now under way.
So we are keeping an eye on this, day 87 of the oil disaster. Again, there it is in full, the live picture that's happening at least 5,000 feet below the surface of the oil -- of the water right now. But, again, this is so important, again, folks, because this could lead us to capturing all of the oil.
Our Ed Lavendera is getting ready for me now in New Orleans. He's been keeping an eye on this thing for us. He was in the briefing earlier with Admiral Thad Allen as well.
We heard you in there asking that first question to the admiral once again. But this is relevant. It has begun now, these integrity tests.
And what could this -- and I've been explaining here in rudimentary fashion here, Ed, but you reiterate for our viewers here. This could lead to us finally not having oil leaking into the Gulf.
LAVANDERA: It could. I mean, and considering that for the last three months, we have seen these video images of oil leaking, you can imagine the anxiety and just how desperately people want this to work in some sort of fashion.
So I don't think we can overstate this enough of what this could potentially mean for this cleanup process and for these efforts to get this runaway well under control. So, you can imagine just how potentially excited people could be to kind of see a real breakthrough here.
So, I'll kind of give you a sense, T.J., of what to look for here in the coming hours.
So let's say around 2:00 Eastern Time this test started. So, we suspect if everything goes the way we've been told, about 8:00 tonight, they will get those first pressure readings and kind of start comparing notes.
So, remember, this is a 48-hour test. At 8:00 -- it doesn't mean it will last 48 hours. They have said that if they get some really bad readings, they can shut this down at any point, if those pressure readings are not where they want them to be.
Remember, this all has to do with that well casing that goes deep, deep into the earth. You need to make sure that that is structurally sound. If those pressure readings drop, that tells them that there is a problem somewhere along that line and they don't need to see that. They're worried about what that could mean.
So, they're hopeful that they've got two good -- potentially good options to see here, that either this cap works by itself, or that there's enough flow to be able to come out and they've got enough ways of capturing all of it. Either way, if one of those two scenario works, this would be great news in what has been a terrible three- month-long disaster.
HOLMES: And do something for me again which I thought was very helpful. I didn't want to take your analogy, but I guess you took it from Thad Allen earlier, but the very simple analogy of the garden hose. This is what they're doing down there.
Explain that once again, how that really helps people get in their minds exactly what they're trying to do down there in the Gulf.
LAVANDERA: All right, well, we'll steal it from Thad Allen. I don't think he'll mind, because I think it kind of really gives people a good understanding.
Now, you take that garden hose, you turn it on, water starts shooting out of the top. If you put your thumb on top, essentially that's what this cap does. No more water flows out.
But if you've got a bunch of holes along the way, or cracks in the garden hose, obviously you'll feel the water pressure drop because water is shooting out the side. That's the exact same situation, basically. Very rudimentary here, but I think that kind of gets visually people to understand what exactly is going on.
And remember, that's three miles down into the earth's surface that this line is going. So they wouldn't know exactly where that oil is leaking into. That's why they're doing these -- part of leading up to this process was the seismic testing and all sorts of different tests to kind of get a picture before this test was done of what the earth's surface looks like below it. What it all looks like.
And then at the end of this test, they'll go back and do another seismic test and compare it all. And that's what will give them the results in this integrity test.
HOLMES: All right. Well, we've had our fingers crossed so many times along the way that something was going to work, but a lot of optimism on this particular effort.
Ed, we appreciate you, as always. Thanks so much.
But again, officially, the news now, the integrity test is taking place. It's under way. That process has started, and that could lead us to finally having no oil leaking out into the Gulf for the first time in the 87 days of this disaster.
Another part of this whole disaster, the people who have been affected by closing down a lot of those fishing waters out there in the Gulf. A lot of people have been filing and trying to get some money, trying to get claim, trying to get money from BP for what they have lost.
Well, one of our reporters is tagging along with the man in charge of that $20 billion fund that's handing out claims to people. We're going to hear what he's saying these days about people getting their money.
Stay here with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right. Day 87 of this oil disaster. We've been talking about the cleanup and the possibility of to cap that oil well. But also need to talk about claims here for a moment as well.
A lot of people out there filing claims with BP, trying to get money for so much of their income, their livelihoods, frankly, that have been lost because of this oil disaster. The point man the government has, Ken Feinberg, he's been out and about in the Gulf today talking about that claim's process.
And our Amber Lyon joins us now. She's on the phone for us from New Orleans.
Amber, hello to you. And tell us, what are some of the updates he's giving about this whole process? Anything that, quite frankly, some of the people along the Gulf are happy to hear?
AMBER LYON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, T.J. He said things are going to be changing quite a bit down here.
Here's the Houma Civic Center, where he just got done speaking to a group of concerned fishermen, local business owners. And as of today, BP has been paying out all the claims here.
Well, Feinberg says in three weeks he's going to completely take over this process and start doling out the $20 billion escrow to individuals and private businesses harmed by the spill. And that's why Feinberg is the $20 billion man. He literally has a blank checkbook worth that much of BP's money.
Today, he reassured everyone the money is there, although none of it's been given out so far. Not to worry. He urged everybody to file a claim that thinks they deserve some money. He also made it clear that he's working independently, he and the U.S. government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN FEINBERG, WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR: This is not about politics. This is about helping people in the Gulf. That's what this is about. I'm working for you, not for BP.
If you file a claim with me, and the claim is eligible, and it is corroborated, you will be paid forthwith 24, 48 hours.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LYON: (via telephone): Feinberg also says he wants to make this process more efficient. He wants to cut the red tape. He says BP was paying everyone month by month. Now, he says when he takes over, he's going to get out emergency checks that will cover for six months of losses right up front.
We spoke with 200 fishermen, businessmen, who came out to listen to Feinberg speak. Pretty much the feeling we got from all of them is they' been confused with the claims so far.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had a shrimp business and the oyster business. And everything we got isn't enough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything is closed. I mean, what is a person supposed to do. I mean, how are people going to have to living? Are we going to have to depend on the government to send us welfare or food stamps or whatever?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LYON: And the $20 billion man is going to be making two more stops in Louisiana today. We're going to catch up with him when he meets with a group of people in (INAUDIBLE). We'll have more on that coming up this evening.
I also want to mention that Feinberg did make it a point during his speech to commend BP on the jobs done so far in doling out about $150 million of BP's money in claims -- T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Amber Lyon for us in New Orleans -- Amber, we appreciate you.
Also, there has been a lot of news coming out of Cuba, it seems, this week. Castro is speaking out. Cuban prisoners released now.
Congress could be lifting the Cuban travel ban on Americans? Details when we go "Globe Trekking" -- that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: Time for us to go "Globe Trekking" now. And something that's happening could lift the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. That ban has been in place for quite some time, but maybe there is some momentum and there's some movement in Washington to actually lift it.
Let's bring in our foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty, who is here with us from the State Department.
And, Jill, is this a real possibility?
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You know, steam definitely is building up, there's no question, T.J. In fact, some of the people who support this bill to change the trade embargo, that 50-year-old embargo, say that they actually have the votes to override a veto. But this could take a while.
But, you know, it boils down to a question: if you and I, Americans could travel freely to Cuba, which we cannot do right now, would that help to open up Cuba? Or would it just prop up a repressive regime?
So, here's the issue. Let's look at it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DOUGHERTY (voice-over): Havana, Cuba, just 90 miles from American shores, 2 1/2 million tourists from around the world flock to the island last year according to the Caribbean Tourism Organization -- but not Americans. A U.S. travel ban makes Cuba a forbidden destination.
Now, Congress is on the verge of ending that ban, and the trade embargo it's part of, in a new push by American businesses.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do we have an embargo with Cuba? We have to ask ourselves after 50 years of a failed policy.
DOUGHERTY: The U.S. imposed a trade embargo after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution. Last year, President Obama allowed Cuban- Americans with family in Cuba to travel and send money there. Now, a potential game-changer. Cuba has informed the Catholic Church that it will free 52 political prisoners.
HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We think that's a positive sign. It's something that is overdue, but nevertheless, very welcome.
DOUGHERTY: Before the revolution, the United States, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accounted for nearly 70 percent of Cuba's international trade. Now, it's a fraction of that, a paltry $400 million. The embargo, the chamber claims, has boomeranged.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's propped up a Castro regime. It hasn't achieved any of the objectives it sought to achieve. And by not having trade with Cuba, the rest of the world had said, look, America is an idiot. We're moving forward with Cuba.
DOUGHERTY: The chamber, citing a study by Texas A&M University, estimates that ending the embargo could mean more than $1 billion to the U.S. Plus, create almost 6,000 new American jobs.
It's just the opposite, claims an embargo supporter.
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D), NEW JERSEY: Sitting on the beaches of Varadero, and having a Cuba Libre, which is an oxymoron, is not going to liberate the people of Cuba. It hasn't for several million of European and Latin America and Canadian visitors. If anything, the regime has become more oppressive.
DOUGHERTY: But could more trade and American tourists on the streets of Havana help to advance democracy in Cuba? A coalition of trade and human rights groups says yes.
SARAH STEVENS, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE AMERICAS: We're watching a lot of change in Cuba in terms of human rights, in terms of political prisoners, in terms of economic reforms. And I think that we're realizing that, you know, after 50 years of being on the sidelines, that it's time to be engaged, that there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to be part of that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOUGHERTY: OK. So, that's part of the argument.
But, you know, right now, why could you say, why this push? And there is a factor. There's an economic factor, too, which is jobs and trade.
And, T.J., some of the people who support this say that amount of jobs, 6,000, it's not a huge number, but in this economy, they argue, it could help the American economy. And they argue that things will open up faster. Obviously, you got a lot of people who don't think that as well.
HOLMES: Obviously. Jill Dougherty for us -- Jill, good to see you as always. Thank you so much.
Well, feeding the families of fishermen -- tough without a job because of the oil disaster. We're going to meet some folks who are heading up an organization that's putting food on the table for those who need a little help right now. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right. In today's "Mission Possible": Angel Food Ministries delivering 80,000 pounds of food to Gulf Coast victims who have been out of work because of the oil disaster.
I want to bring in Pastor Joe Wingo who is live for us from Pensacola, ways down there, doing this work
And I was just talking to you, Pastor, in the break there. You said you actually fed 40,000 families?
PASTOR JOE WINGO, FOUNDER & CEO OF ANGEL FOOD MINISTRIES: Yes, sir.
HOLMES: That was just today?
WINGO: Yes, sir. We did that -- started this morning at about 8:00 and finished up -- oh, I guess about 12:00, 12:30, and all kinds of wonderful volunteers from Gateway Community Church, and just service agencies all around the Pensacola area here just working together to feed these families.
HOLMES: Now, where is all the food coming from? How are you collecting? How are you getting word out that you need the food?
WINGO: Well, actually, Angel Food Ministries is a program that feeds families all across the nation, in 44 states actually. And our host sites, which are generally churches, mostly churches, about 6,000 of them, we all decided we wanted to work together to get some food down here to help these people in their time of need. And we're just happy that we can be a blessing to them.
HOLMES: Now, times are tough for so many people across this country right now. It seems like everyone, so many people are in need. I wonder, even for you guys before this Gulf disaster, did you all see any kind of drop-off? Was it tougher for you all to get donation, whether that was monetary donations or good donations? You know, sometimes these supplies are down even for the nonprofit groups like yours?
WINGO: Well, T.J., actually, Angel Food Ministries operates a little bit different, and to the fact that we've been -- we're a food- feeding program that puts together a fresh box of food and we charged $30 for it. But you generally get $60 or $70 higher in value. Now, we work with 6,000 churches across 44 states to get it out.
And then what we also do is collect from these same churches that are partners of ours, we come to, you know, natural disaster situations where we can come and give this food out. So, we kind of do a little bit of both, if you will.
HOLMES: Now, what -- I guess, what kind of hit you all, I guess when did that light bulb go off, if you will? Because we have seen so many -- so much coverage of what's happening to the families down in the Gulf Coast and, you know, some of the simplest things, like a meal, maybe we don't think about helping out with. So when did that light bulb go off for you all that this was a need that needed to be served?
WINGO: Well, you folks in the media are doing a wonderful job of reporting what's going on in these areas -- these devastated areas. And I think what happened in our churches and our groups and families came together and said, you know, we need to reach out and touch these displaced families. This is like a Katrina, or whatever, this is a natural disaster and we need to come and help folks.
And I just think it's gratifying to see our country come together when we see another parts of the country in need. It's almost like one big family. Let's come together and help. And I know if we all work together, we can make it happen.
HOLMES: Now, how many locations -- you're in Pensacola now, but do you have efforts or plans under way to try to hit different cities and serve different communities along the Gulf Coast?
WINGO: Well, actually, we do. We have a number of just hundreds of sites across the Gulf Coast. And if you will, if you just look on our web, at AngelFoodMinistries.com, you can see about ordering the food and helping out in these disasters. But again, I just think it's neat that when different parts of the country see different -- other parts of the country in need, and we just pull all the folks together and say, hey, let's go help. And that's what we did today.
We've done the same thing in natural disasters like Katrina and other storms, in ravaged parts, tornadoes, et cetera. And we just love reaching out and trying to help.
HOLMES: Well, Pastor Joe Wingo, in Pensacola -- I know you're heading back up to Georgia where it's home for you. But you're down there doing the work. Sir, we appreciate you taking the time. And the good work you're doing.
And you're right, good words of encouragement for a lot of people out there, having people come together and help each other out in this time of need. Pastor, we appreciate you being here. Thank so much. Good luck with your efforts down there.
WINGO: Thank you, sir.
HOLMES: All right. And you can find out. He said it there. I'll say it to you again -- you can find out more about the organization, go to their Web site, AngelFoodMinistries.com.
Well, as we showed you a little early, the president is in Michigan today. But the president left a little something behind in D.C. -- that guy, Ed Henry. He couldn't catch a ride today. Poor guy.
We're going to get to lowdown on exactly why Ed was left behind.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: Now, time for the stakeout with my man, Ed Henry, who is staking out things at the White House right now.
Ed, why didn't you get to go to Michigan? The president took off. And I see a lot of activity behind you, a couple of security guards. There's security there always.
But there's construction going on next to you as well. I know it's kind of loud. You're having a tough time hearing us a second ago. Explain to us what is going on next to you there.
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, they're doing all kinds of construction here. It's not part of the Recovery Act, I can tell you that. But Peter Morris (ph) can probably show you here. There's a kind of stuff going on.
They're digging this up because a lot of the telecommunications and everything is so old. But a lot of people have conspiracy theories, maybe they're building another tunnel under there, maybe there's something interesting going on because this is going to last, we're told, for about two years. So you never quite know -- you never quite know what the White House is up to.
HOLMES: OK. So, we got to look forward to this noise during our live shots for two years. That's all right.
Ed, so, tell us, the president -- you got left behind -- but still, the president on a pretty important mission today to Michigan.
HENRY: Yes, the president was there, trying to promote the fact that the Recovery Act stimulus has given millions upon millions of dollars to these batteries. And he's trying to point out that these batteries sort of going into like G.M.-Chevy Volts, for example, are now being manufactured in Michigan right here in the United States. They're not being manufactured overseas.
He's trying to make a point and sort of build this narrative that because of the Recovery Act and some of these other policies, long-term, he's rebuilding what is obviously a battered economy. The problem in the short-term, of course, is that the president, it seems in some ways is having a hard time breaking through. Because when you read a lot of these public polls across the board, people may say, look, that's great long term, but right now, if you don't have a job, it's really hard to see how this sort of long-term change is going to help you. He knows that's the challenge and that's why he continues to -- you know, to hitting the road and try to make that case.
HOLMES: All right, he's trying to make that case. But meanwhile, back in Washington we've got the midterms coming up. And right now, Democrats certainly need to be a solid unit here, but you've got even Democrats going at each other.
And, Ed, at this point, a lot of people are upset about is what Robert Gibbs said on a Sunday morning talk show. And you help me understand this here because he didn't say Democrats are going to lose the House. He just didn't say confidently that yes, we're going to keep the House. Is that a big no-no?
HENRY: Well, what he said, what Robert Gibbs said on NBC's "Meet the Press" is interesting. And here we are, days later still talking about this.
HOLMES: Yes.
HENRY: It gives you an idea of just how much of a flare up this was for Democrats is Robert Gibbs said Democrats could lose the House. He didn't say they were going to lose the House. It's really not a lot different than you and I and many others and the best political teams have been talking about for weeks, maybe months now.
And what's different, though, when you talk to Democrats on the Hill, is that it's one thing for us to talk about it. It's another thing for a senior White House official, one of the president's right- hand man to mouth what pundits and reporters have been saying, which is that the Democrats could lose the House. It seems obvious, and it is obvious, frankly, in Robert Gibbs' defense, but this is the first senior White House person to say it.
And I got a little information that this morning, House Democrats were planning this big breakfast and they had (ph) with some lobbyists in town where they were going to talk about momentum and how they're going to do great, they're going to hold on to the House and raise some campaign cash which is important before those midterms as well. That's one of the reasons why they were mad about what Robert Gibbs said because it gives the perception that maybe the Democrats don't have momentum.
So, his comment was sort of ill-timed for some of the Democrats on the Hill in their fundraising efforts.
HOLMES: Ed, what was he supposed to say? How was he supposed to answer that question? Was he just supposed to give that pep rally answer that "Yes, of course, Democrats are going to retain the House"? Was that what he was supposed to say?
HENRY: This is what's -- this is what's difficult for someone like Robert Gibbs, which is the fact that if he denies the obvious and says, oh, yes, Democrats are going to keep the House, lock it down, we're all going to say, look, he's not being candid, it's just spin. Here he is trying to say something forthright which is that, look, if you look at the numbers, there are now enough seats in play that Democrats could lose the House. It's pretty darn obvious.
He could have finessed it a little bit and said, look, it's going to up to the candidates, we got strong candidates, we got the money, we got the good message and we're going to win. But the bottom line is, what he said was really not that shocking.
HOLMES: Not that shocking and it was obvious. It was common sense even. But in politics sometimes, just get rid of common sense altogether.
Ed Henry, buddy -- good to see you as always.
HENRY: Thanks, T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Well, stay here because "Wordplay" is coming up next. And today's term is straight out of the big debate on Arizona's immigration law. "Wordplay" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right. Time for today's "Wordplay."
And today's word -- or term I should say -- Supremacy Clause. What it is officially? Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. What it does, establishes that the Constitution and federal laws that spring from it are the "Supreme Law" of the land. And that supreme with a capital "S" here what is all this means basically that all state judges have to uphold federal law, even if their state laws conflict.
Now, where does it matter right now? As far as the headlines go, it's smack in the middle of the debate over Arizona's immigration law, requiring police to question anyone who they reasonably suspect is an illegal immigrant. Federal government is challenging that, suing Arizona, saying the measure conflicts with federal law and thus the Supremacy Clause.
Well, coming up, you've got to hear this one -- my "XYZ" today. One woman's dying wish could spill trouble for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the ballot box.
Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: We want to head over to Capitol Hill now. Our Brianna Keilar is standing by for us.
Brianna, we knew this was coming. It is official. It's a big deal, historic in all sides. But, in fact, they have passed this historic Wall Street -- this financial reform.
Brianna, any surprises in the vote?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not really, 60 to 39. This is about what we were -- we certainly were expecting it to pass with 60 votes. It cleared a key hurdle earlier, and this is it. This is sort of the seal of it. And now, it just goes to President Obama for a signature.
But, T.J., this is a really big deal -- the most sweeping legislation overhauling Wall Street regulation since the Great Depression. You talk to Democrats, they say this is going to make sure that that financial crisis that happened in 2008 -- that I can tell you I was here to cover and it was scary, scary times -- Democrats say it makes sure that's not going to happen again.
But Republicans, by and large -- because this was almost a party line vote -- are saying that it doesn't -- it doesn't do that or it overreaches, there's too much regulation here. But we are expecting President Obama to sign this late next week, T.J.
HOLMES: We expect him to sign it next week. And we also expect the president, Democrats, to use this as just one more thing they can campaign on. The president's got stimulus he can talk, talking about getting that historic health care reform. And this is one more we can expect to see the president out there touting around campaign time.
KEILAR: Certainly. And this has already become a huge political issue. After this key vote earlier today, we heard from the top Republican in the White House who said that -- he was asked a question, should this be repealed? And he said it should. And Democrats seized on that, T.J., saying that Republicans are basically there for Wall Street, in the pockets of Wall Street. And now, you're having this fight back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans over this legislation -- about how much it does and whether it goes too far.
HOLMES: All right. Our Brianna Keilar on this historic legislation, depending on who you asked, historic good or historic bad.
All right, Brianna. We appreciate you. Thanks so much.
That's it for me. T.J. Holmes here on "CNN NEWSROOM".
Now, time for "THE LIST" and it's Rick.
