Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Women Workers Versus Walmart; Activist Erin Brockovich On Capitol Hill; Hillary Clinton Met With Opposition Leader; Secretary of State Clinton Holds Press Conference; Gadhafi Drives Back Rebels

Aired March 29, 2011 - 13:00   ET

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

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Hi there, Suzanne. Thank you. It is 1:00 p.m. Eastern time right now.

You are looking at live pictures right now from London where it is 6:00 p.m. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had her first face-to-face meeting with the leader of the opposition from Libya. They and ministers from dozens of other countries and organizations are meeting in London. Clinton says they must deepen the isolation of the Gadhafi regime, and she's expected to speak on today's meeting momentarily and we will, of course, bring that to you live.

First, another big story. Remember too big to fail, the rationale for bailing out Wall Street at the start of the great recession? Of course you do. Well, now comes the hotly debated legal premise, too big to sue. That's at the heart of a case that was argued today at the highest court in the land, a case that by any standard is huge. It dates back a decade.

Six women who worked for Walmart claimed they didn't get the same pay and opportunities that the men did. The issue now is whether other women employees, past and present, can join what would then become the largest class action employment suit in U.S. history.

Walmart, America's largest private employer, says, no, the class would be too big, the plaintiffs too dissimilar, the issues too many to litigate. The plaintiffs say Walmart wants a big company exception to civil rights laws.

Two lower federal courts have ruled the class and the case can go forward, and that brings us to the supreme court where we now have three women justices, the most ever.

CNN's Kate Bolduan has been following the case for us and joins us to recap the arguments. Kate, good to see you. Any signs that the women justices were at all receptive to the plaintiffs?

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's very interesting. I would say, first off, that it did seem in the courtroom with the aggressive question that you did hear from the female justices, this is the first time we've had three female justices on the court, that they were receptive to the women's claims to the sides of the plaintiffs. But, as I just said, there are three women on this court. So, what it is looking like -- and we just give it a huge caveat here because we, of course, never know until the justices rule. It look like from the commentary and from the questioning that the justice -- what the justices are talking about in the court today suggests that the women plaintiffs here have an uphill battle to face as they are in this court case. It looks like it's suggesting it's not likely that they're going to get the relief they want at the supreme court, that it could be an even split along ideological lines, conservative liberals which also falls along gender lines, man and women. The conservatives on the court seeming more reception to the argument of Walmart.

You heard Chief Justice John Roberts say, at one point -- really kind of questioning if there are a couple of bad apples, meaning if there are a couple bad supervisors or a couple bad bosses, does that mean the entire company is at fault? And we could get into the legalese, as I always say, really deep, Randi, but brief -- very, very briefly and generally, what really seemed to puzzle the justices, a majority of the justices, was the fact that Walmart has an anti- discrimination policy in place, a companywide policy, and it's had it in place since the company began.

And with that in place, it seems that they were struggling with, it would be hard for these plaintiffs to claim there is a kind of, quote unquote, "corporate culture" of failing to follow that policy, companywide, this being such a big company. And that's what they seem to be struggling with.

KAYE: Kate, let me quickly get to some sound because both sides talked to reporters after the arguments ended. We want to hear from one of the lead plaintiffs and then also someone from Walmart, and we'll get back to you in a second.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BETTY DUKES, LEAD PLAINTIFF, WALMART SUIT: I brought this case because I believe that there was a pattern of discrimination at Walmart, not just in my store but I believe it's across the country. Since we had filed all the lawsuits since 2001, I have heard from numerous women telling me basically the same story as mine, of disparity treatment in lack of promotion as well in lack of pay.

GISEL RUIZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WALMAR: What's wrong with this case is that three plaintiffs are trying to represent more than 1.5 million associates. I've had a very positive experience at Walmart, like thousands of other women, and not being able to opt out of the case is wrong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: So, Kate, if the class of women employees is actually certified, as they say, then what? Would that just simply mean that more women, even more, could join the class action suit?

BOLDUAN: If the plaintiffs would win here, if they'd continue with their class action lawsuit and - we always have to warn the viewers this isn't even at the point of deciding if they've actually been discriminated against or not. We're just talking about this designation of a class -- this would be a big win for the plaintiffs and, yes, some 1.5 million women could join this case because this would affect women, female Walmart employees past and present.

But the way the court seemed to be going, Randi, and the way it sounded in oral arguments, it seems more like Walmart may be the one that might feel more of a victory in this case. And if they would win, it wouldn't necessarily, of course, stop any discrimination claims or stop any class action down the road per se, but it would really limit the power these plaintiffs are looking for, the bargaining power that comes with a class designation. And that's what the plaintiffs' attorney say would be so horrible, that this would be kind of David taking on Goliath and they have to do it as a big group rather than one person individually if they want to have any chance of winning against a company like Walmart.

KAYE: All right. Kate Bolduan, thank you, appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: Thanks, Randi.

KAYE: Activist Erin Brockovich testified on Capitol Hill this morning. Brockovich spoke at a senate committee hearing on disease clusters and environmental health. She told senators that she's hoping to investigate groundwater contaminations in multiple states and she has witnessed the devastating and cancerous effects of pollution on small communities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN BROCKOVICH, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: These communities, both large and small, and in every corner of the United States are sending out an S.O.S., from small farming towns like Cameron, Missouri, to small desert towns like Midland, Texas, to the forgotten town of Fort Wood (ph), Missouri, where the lead tales (ph) are so large the children think that they are hills and they play on them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: We want to take you now to London where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is speaking. She had her first face-to-face meeting with a leader of the opposition in Libya today. Let's hear what she has to say.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE (live): -- in traditional national council to hear their perspective on the situation in Libya. We talked about our efforts to protect civilians and to meet humanitarian needs and about the ongoing coalition military action in support of resolution 1973.

We also discussed the need for a political solution and transition in Libya. And I reiterated the support of the United States on behalf of President Obama for the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people and our commitment to helping them achieve those aspirations.

I also had the opportunity to meet with both Prime Minister Cameron and with Foreign Minister Hague. I expressed the United States' gratitude for the critical leadership that the United Kingdom has shown in building an effective international response to the crisis in Libya. We consulted on the way forward, the military, political, and humanitarian dimensions.

And we also discussed events and broader trends across the Middle East and North Africa and our joint efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I had the opportunity also to consult with a number of other counterparts about Libya, because today's conference is taking place at a moment of transition, as NATO takes over as leader of the coalition mission, a mission in which the United States will continue to play an active supporting role. Some of our coalition partners announced additional support and contributions today which we welcomed.

In addition to our joint military efforts, we discussed the need for progress in Libya along the three nonmilitary tracts. First, delivering humanitarian assistance, second, pressuring and isolating the Gadhafi regime through robust sanctions and other measures. And, third, supporting efforts by Libyans to achieve the political changes that they are seeking.

We also agreed on the structure for decision making going forward on both the military and political tracts. On the military side, we agreed that the North Atlantic Council, with coalition partners fully at the table, will be the sole provider of executive direction for NATO operations, similar to the ISAF approach for Afghanistan.

On the political side, we agreed to establish a contact group to offer a systematic coordination mechanism and broad political guidance on the full range of efforts under resolutions 1970 and 1973. And, as I'm sure you just heard, from the prime minister of Qatar, Qatar has agreed to host the first meeting of the contact group along with the U.K.

In a series of side meetings, I also had the chance to discuss a number of issues, including Syria. I expressed our strong condemnation of the Syrian government's brutal repression of demonstrators, in particular the violence and killing of civilians in the hands of security forces.

I also discussed efforts that are undertaken by the organization of the Islamic conference, particularly our joint effort to pass a resolution at the human rights council that promotes tolerance and respect as well as free expression.

And we greatly appreciate the OIC hosting a meeting of the international contact group on Afghanistan and Pakistan in Jetta (ph). I was also able to consult on a number of regional matters, including, of course, Libya with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey.

So, it was a full day for all of us. We came to London to speak with one voice in support of a transition that leads to a brighter future for the Libyan people.

I'm very pleased with the progress that we have made, both today and in the days preceding it, and grateful for everyone who participated in the conference and in the broader effort in Libya. I think we are making a lot of progress together, and we could not do it unless we were representing the international community as we are.

So, with that, I'd be happy to take your questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our first question is from Andy Quinn of Reuters.

ANDY QUINN, JOURNALIST, REUTERS: Madam secretary, in your meeting today with Dr. Jibril, I was wondering, were you able to make any concrete offers of assistance to them, either through turning over the $33 billion in Libyan funds that have been frozen in the United States or in discussing possible arms transfers? And Admiral Stabridges (ph) told the Senate today that intelligence shows flickers, he used the word 'flickers', of Al Qaeda in the Libyan opposition. How great a concern is that and is that part of the U.S. debate over any potential arms transfers to the transitional council?

CLINTON: Well, Andy, first of all, we have not made any decision about arming the rebels or providing any arms transfers so there has not been any need to discuss that at this point. We did discuss non- lethal assistance. We discussed ways of trying to enable the transition national council to meet a lot of their financial needs and how we could do that through the international community, given the challenges that sanctions pose but recognizing that they obviously are going to need funds to keep themselves going.

We discussed broad range of matters and certainly their presentation, which some of you may have seen earlier today, as to what kind of civil society and political structure they are trying to build in Libya are exactly in line with what they have consistently said were their goals. Their commitment to democracy and to a very robust engagement with people from across the spectrum of Libyans is I think appropriate.

We do not have any specific information about specific individuals from any organization who are part of this, but of course, we're still getting to know those who are leading the trans -- the transitional national council, and that will be a process that continues.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our next question is from Sam Coats of the "Times of London".

SAM COATS, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "TIMES OF LONDON": Two things. First of all, is it your understanding that the U.N. resolution of 1973 makes it illegal to supply arms to the Libyan rebels, or do you think that there could be some room for maneuver of that should get to that? And secondly, it's quite striking when the rebels were walk talking earlier today, none of their names are public, apart from three or four of the 30 of them, and they clearly have access to -- they have quite a lot of power and access to a lot of funds through oil money. Do you think that they should be more transparent in terms of declaring who they are, where they're from, what kind of groupings they come from, and how they are using the money?

CLINTON: Well, as to the first question, it is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. As I said, we have not made that decision at this time.

Secondly, I do think the greater transparency will, of course, be expected and will be delivered. But I think you have to put this into context, I mean this is a very fast evolving, but by no means settled, structure that they are trying to build. They also claim to have a number of people who are willing to work with them from central and western Libya who, for security reasons, cannot yet be named. So I do think that this is a work in progress. And just as with respect to Andy's question, we don't know as much as we would like to know and as much as we expect we will know. We're picking up information. A lot of contact is going on. Not only by our government, but many governments that are part of the coalition. So we're building an understanding. But at this time, obviously it is, as I say, a work in progress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jay Somg (ph), "The Wall Street Journal."

QUESTION: Thank you.

I have a question regarding Syria. Over the weekend you gave an interview where you said how many members of Congress viewed President Assad as a reformer. Is that your position? Because, you know, there's been well documented cases of Syrian support for terrorist groups, allegations it's pursued atomic weapons and some in Congress said Syria actually poses a greater threat to the United States' national security than Libya does. Is it the Obama administration's position now that it can work with President Assad to instigate or initiate some of the reforms that his people are clearly calling for?

Thank you.

CLINTON: Well, first, Jay, as you rightly pointed out, I referenced opinions of others. I was not speaking either for myself or for the administration. We deplore the crackdown that is occurring in Syria, and we call on Syria, as we have throughout the last months, to respect the rights of its citizens, to allow people to protest peacefully, to work toward political and economic reform that would be to the benefit of the Syrian people. So there's no difference in how we view this than how we have viewed the other incredible sequence of actions that we've seen in North Africa and in the Middle East.

And we hope that there is an opportunity for reform. We hope there's an opportunity for reform in all of these countries. We want to see peaceful transitions. We want to see democracies that represent the will of the people.

So I think that we're like the Syrian people, waiting and watching to see what comes from the Syrian government. They, you know, they dismissed the cabinet today, which resigned en masse. And as we have said so many times before, we support the timely implementation of reforms that meet the demands that Syrians are presenting to their government, such as immediately eliminating Syria's state of emergency laws, which has been in effect for a long time.

It is up to the Syrian government. It is up to the leadership, starting with President Bashar Assad, to prove that it can be responsive to the needs of its own people. So we're troubled by what we hear, but we're also going to continue to urge that the promise of reform, which has been made over and over again and which you reported on just a few months ago, I'm a reformer, I'm going to reform and I've talked to members of Congress and others about that, that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in Syria, will actually be turned into reality. That's what we're waiting and watching for.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the final question from Duncan Gardham of "The Daily Telegraph."

QUESTION: Hi.

I wondered how you view the situation in Libya at the moment. There seems to be a bit of almost ping-pong going on, the rebels seem to be withdrawing from some areas today. How do you see the situation evolving in Libya? How long do you see it lasting? And if you're talking to Gadhafi, what are his options? He can obviously try and stay or he can face the ICC, but is there a third option where he could travel to another country?

CLINTON: Well, first, I think that what we are seeing in Libya is a strengthening of the opposition, a consistent and very persistent effort by the opposition to try to hold ground, which they have had, and to regain ground which they have lost. Unfortunately, we are also seeing with Gadhafi a continuing pressure on the rebels, on his people, a willingness to use force. We had reports today of continuing military action by Gadhafi's forces in Misurata and elsewhere. So this is a volatile, dynamic situation that is unfolding.

We accomplished a lot in a very short period of time. We clearly believe, as President Obama said last night, that we prevented a massacre in Benghazi, that we were able to stop the military advance that was moving rapidly from west to east, and that we sent a clear message through the international community's willingness to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians that that kind of ruthless behavior by a leader toward his own people would not be tolerated.

This has happened so quickly that we're now facing questions like the ones you ask. But I'm not sure that we know exactly when we will get to any change in attitude by Gadhafi and those around him. As you know, there's a lot of reaching out that is occurring. A lot of conversations that are going on. And as the Arab League has said, it's also obvious to everyone that Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. So we believe he must go. We're working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome. He will have to make a decision. And that decision so far as we're aware has not yet been made. You probably know that the Secretary-General's special envoy will be going to Tripoli and Benghazi, once again to urge Gadhafi to implement a real cease-fire that is not going to be immediately breeched by his own forces, to withdraw from those areas that he has taken by force, and to look for a political resolution, which could include his leaving the country.

So all of this is in play. And many of the nations that were here in London today are working together to try to gather information, to share the impressions each has with the conversations that are coming from Tripoli and from those close to Gadhafi about what is or isn't being considered. So I expect to see things continue to move in a positive direction, but I can't, by any means, give you any sort of timeline. That is just not, you know, sensible at this point. We don't have enough information to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you all very much.

(END OF PROGRESS)

KAYE: And you've been listening to Secretary Hillary Clinton. She's been meeting with ministers from dozens of countries and organizations there in London. She said that they came to London to speak with one voice about the future of Libya, and she believes that they have accomplished that. They consulted on both political issues and humanitarian issues. She said they haven't made any decisions about whether or not to arm the rebels who have said that they need more air strikes, they need help on the ground. So we will continue to watch that as the U.S., she said, will continue as well to play a supporting role and an active role in Libya.

Meanwhile, we want to continue our discussion about Libya. Leaders are waging the battle against Gadhafi on two fronts. And we're going to break that down with Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: And before that quick break you were listening to Hillary Clinton speaking in London about Libya. And we want to bring in Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis, who's joining us from D.C.

Bob, you just heard Secretary Hillary Clinton. This has become somewhat of a messy civil war, really. What's missing? Seems to be specifics on the endgame here. How do you see this all playing out?

LT. COL. ROBERT "BOB" MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): Well, Randi, it could end up being a stalemate. In other words, you could basically split the baby. East, Benghazi's the capital for the rebels, and west, Gadhafi survives. Of course, if the rebels continue to get robust support, as they are right now, and making fairly good progress, there's a good chance, I would say, that diplomatically they can get Gadhafi out of the country and the rebels can take over. It just depends upon how long we endue.

And, in fact, Secretary Clinton said very clearly that they interpret U.N. Resolution 1973 as giving them the OK to arm the rebels. And so I suspect, if we think there's a chance that Gadhafi will, in fact, be -- work his way out of there, one way or another, that we'll begin to do some training and some equipping. And, of course, that will allow them to, you know, take care of the remnants of Gadhafi's army that will got give up.

KAYE: She said they haven't made any decision yet on arming the rebels. Do you think that would be a good idea? I mean will that be necessary in the end?

MAGINNIS: Well, if Gadhafi doesn't give up and you do want him out, I don't see any other alternative at this point. Boots on the ground is something the president said from the very beginning, we don't intend to do. But that doesn't mean the French and the Brits and others won't send in small teams. They don't have the numbers, though. And that's the problem. It's a massive country, larger than Alaska, 1,100 miles of coastline. So you'd have to choose your targets very carefully and the numbers of troops have to be minimized.

KAYE: Right. Well, let's talk a little bit about what's happening on the ground there specifically. Gadhafi forces again attacking the city of Misurata. One resident called it utter carnage. Yet President Obama still saying that regime change by force is a mistake and that Gadhafi won't be taken out by military power. So do you see this ending in a stalemate when this is all said and done, which some people fear?

MAGINNIS: Yes, I'm afraid that it might, Randi, you know. And the president last night -- and I think there's some justified criticism against the Bush administration. He used the example of Iraq. It took us eight-plus years to get out of there. We're still not out of there, but hopefully soon. Libya could end up being much the same. You go in there, even after all this massive firepower, and you put boots on the ground, it could take a long time because we don't know if this is going to morph into a counterinsurgency, which is a real possibility given the size of his army and the tribal differences. Not all that different from the situation we've seen elsewhere.

KAYE: And as the rebels continue to push west toward Sirte, toward Tripoli, will they need more air strikes to battle Gadhafi's forces, do you think, as they've requested?

MAGINNIS: Absolutely. And, of course, we've already put our A-10 warthogs in there and we're using AC-130 -- you know they have -- you know these large caliber machine guns, 105s on the side. That's for pinpointing even in a built-up area a particular target. Our precision capability is absolutely essential if you're going to take him out, you know, vehicle by vehicle. And this could be a protracted (ph) time period. The rebels can't do it by themselves, clearly.

KAYE: When you look at the overall uprising unfolding throughout the Middle East, all of that violence, security and political experts argue that there are other countries that are key to U.S. interest. Maybe even more key, like Syria. So can you help us understand how the U.S. might pick and choose which country to help or which country to begin using air strikes again?

MAGINNIS: Well, clearly you have to look at your vital national interests. Syria and I think the

KAYE: -- key to U.S. interest, maybe even more key, like Syria.

So can you help us understand how the U.S. might pick and choose which country to help or which country to begin using air strikes against?

LT. COL. ROBERT "BPB" MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, clearly you have to look at your vital national interest. Syria, and I think the secretary is right. We're watching she carefully. They have weapons of mass destruction, we know they have chemical weapons. We believe that perhaps they could have a nuclear program, clearly they had one with the Israelis knocked out a couple of years back.

So, if they threaten their neighbors and they have against us in Iraq and they have against Israelis by sponsoring terrorism, then that, I think, puts them a little higher on the list than perhaps a couple other countries. But you have Yemen's falling apart and it's the home of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is a major threat to us.

So there are a host of nations we have to watch. We have to look at our vital national interests. And keep in mind, we have limited resources and we just can't spread them so thinly that we can't accomplish our missions.

KAYE: All right. Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis, we will leave it there.

Thank you, Bob.

MAGINNIS: Thank you, Randi.

KAYE: And in the next hour, Nic Robertson will bring us the latest on the rebels and what he's seeing on the ground in Libya. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: So listen to this. A potential Republican presidential candidate says he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge. Herman Cain was at the Conservative Principles Conference in Iowa last weekend when a Think Progress blog reporter asked if he would appoint Muslims to the cabinet or to federal judgeships.

This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HERMAN CAIN (R), POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I will not and here's why. There's this creeping attempt -- there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: So, we want to hear what you think about this. What do you think about those comments? To join the discussion, go to CNN.com/ali and share your thoughts with us.

It's a nuisance at the airport, but could it also be hazardous to your health? Well, the results of a new study on the safety of body scanners are coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KAYE: Welcome back. It's 37 minutes past the hour. We're talking about full body X-ray scanners at the airports. At first, the controversy centered around privacy, then it shifted to potential health risks. Yet a new report from the University of California finds that passengers shouldn't be too worry.

Senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins us now to talk about this.

Elizabeth, what have you learned? What does this tell us about the radiation?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This report is really interesting because it tries to put things in terms that regular people can understand. We're talking about radiation, it gets confusing.

KAYE: Yes.

COHEN: And so basically it found is that when you go through one of these backscatter machines at the airport which uses radioation, you are getting radiation. But one scan gives you about the same radiation that you would get by just being in an airplane for two minutes because there's radiation all around us.

KAYE: Sure. You get it when you fly.

COHEN: Right. And you get even more when you fly. So a scan equals two minutes on an airplane.

KAYE: So it sounds like they're downplaying it but it's also not risk-free, right? COHEN: Right. It's not risk-free. I mean, they did say that there are -- using mathematical modeling, that we will see more cancers just because of these scans. But the numbers are teeny tiny. That's my term, not theirs. The numbers are really, really small.

So take a look at this, for example. Let's say you had 100 million passengers who were flying and they took seven one-way flights per year. You would have six extra cancers. And by extra, I mean because of the scan, you would have six extra cancers in those 100 million passengers. So that is a small number.

Now, I'm not making a judgment. I mean, those six people might not be very happy about this.

KAYE: Sure. Six is six.

COHEN: Right. Six is six. But it is a very -- it is a small number.

KAYE: I've been through these machines and I can't imagine how a child must feel going through them because it's a little strange. Maybe it feels like a game to them.

But I'm curious, is there an added risk for children?

COHEN: There is because they're smaller and because their bodies are growing rapidly. So they did another analysis in this report where they picked five-year-old girls. They looked at five-year-old girls and they said id two million five-year-old girls took one round trip flight a week, those are very active five-year-old girls, you would see over the course of their lifetime one extra case of breast cancer.

So I think these numbers sort of put it well because you can sort of -- you have a choice and these numbers kind of tell you the data that you need to make that choice.

KAYE: Right. And speaking of choices, just as we wrap it up, I mean, you have a choice even to not do these and get the pat down, right?

COHEN: Right. You can opt out and you can get the pat down. And actually, for my Empowered Patient column on Thursday, I asked doctors including our own Sanjay Gupta, what they do. So you can find out what Sanjay does he travels.

KAYE: Oh, now -- that's such a tease. Now I want to know. I go through them just because I don't want the pat down.

COHEN: Right. Some people, they don't want it and some people say even a tiny bit of radiation I don't want it. It's very personal.

KAYE: Very personal. All right, well thank you for helping us getting to the bottom of that.

COHEN: Thanks. KAYE: Appreciate it.

Secretary Clinton weighs in on the future of the war in Libya with more on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: And now a look at news you may have missed. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a major sex discrimination case against walmart. The court will decide whether the case can go forward as a class action lawsuit potentially involving 1.5 million female workers. If so, walmart could be liable for billions in damages and back pay.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says military action will continue until Libyan leader know Moammar Gadhafi ceases his attacks on civilians. Clinton has been discussing Libya with other diplomats and Libyan opposition leaders in London. She says there has been no decision about arming the rebels there.

Syrians jammed downtown Damascus today cheering for President Bashar al Assad. The Syrian leader's cabinet resigned just a short time ago. It's been reported that al Assad will ease an emergency law that's been in place now for half a century. The reforms follow anti- government protests in southern Syria.

U.S. citizen, passport in hand, stopped at the border, then sent to another country. Did I mention the citizen is just four years-old? We'll follow her attempts to get back to her native land, back to her home, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back. It's 46 minutes past the hour.

Sometime tonight, Emily Ruiz, who's just 4, should be arrive in her native land, the United States, and be reunited with her parents. Why do we care? Why are we telling you her story?

Listen to this. Emily is a U.S. citizen, born in this country to Guatemalan immigrants who aren't citizens and who don't have documentation. Well, some months back, she went to stay with her grandparents in Guatemala, since New York winters aren't very good for her asthma.

This month, she and her grandfather tried to fly back to the U.S., but her grandfather was stopped by customs agents at Dulles airport near Washington. He had immigration problems dating back to the 1990s. Emily had and still has a valid U.S. passport, but she's also a small child. And that was a complication.

Her family says authorities gave them a choice. Either send Emily back to Guatemala with her grandfather or put her in state custody with strangers. Now, remember, she's only four. Whether Emily's parents were given the option of picking her up at the airport is in some dispute. We've been trying to set up a phone interview with the Ruiz family attorney, but he and Emily are actually on a plane right now from Guatemala. So, we're hoping to get them as soon as we can. Once we make contact and a connection, we'll bring that story and interview to you.

Meanwhile, mention sex tourism, and Thailand may come to mind. But you may be surprised if not shocked to know sex trafficking and sex tourism are thriving right here in the United States. And many of the victims are very young girls being smuggled across the border with Mexico. Rafael Romo looks at this disturbing trend as part of CNN's yearlong "Freedom Project: Ending Modern-Day Slavery."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN SENIOR LATIN AMERICAN AFFAIRS EDITOR (voice- over): By the Almador Cortez-Mesa gets out of jail, he will be 76 years old. The Mexican national was sentenced to 40 years in prison after being convicted of forcing into prostitution young girls he smuggled from Mexico to Atlanta.

SALLY YATES, U.S. ATTORNEY, NORTHERN GEORGIA DISTRICT: He was the head of a human trafficking ring that brought ten young women here from Mexico on the promise of love and marriage and coming here for a better life. And after he tricked the women into coming here, he then forced them into prostitution.

ROMO: According to Sally Yates, U.S. attorney, some of the victims were as young as 14 year old and were held as slaves. They were forced to have sex with dozens of men every night in locations around the Atlanta area.

YATES: In fact, the first night that they were here, these young girls were forced to have sex with over 20 men each. There were some nights it would be as many as 40.

ROMO: Nine of the victims testified in course against Cortez- Mesa.

One of them testified that Cortez-Mesa would say that he would take it out on her mother if she tried to escape. Authorities say the level of cruelty against the victims is hard to describe.

BROCK NICHOLSON, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: Daily beatings to remind them that they needed to stay in line. Atrocities hard to believe they occur here in the United States.

ROMO (on camera): This case, tried here in the federal court building in Atlanta, is an example of how human trafficking crosses borders. The victims were recruited in Mexico by Mexican traffickers, were illegally to the United States and offered to American and also foreign customers.

YATES: It used to be that sex tourism was something that you thought of, like for example, in Thailand. Well, now people are coming here to have sex with young children. ROMO: In addition to Cortez-Mesa, five other members of his ring, including a brother and two nephews, pleaded guilty to similar charges. They were alL given sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years.

Rafael Romo, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: With the Japan nuclear disaster on everyone's mind these days, we want to show you where the United States actually ranks when it comes to alternative energies. So stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: The nuclear disaster in Japan has sparked a renewed push for renewable energy in this country. First, let's starts with how we actually get power here.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration shows we get most of our power from fossil fuels, as you can see right there. 92 percent comes from oil, gas, coal and nuclear. These are all nonrenewable forms of energy. So, basically once we've used them up, well, we can't get any more. And, of course, they aren't great for the environment either.

So what about that other 8 percent or so of renewable energy? Well, take a look at this pie chart. This is the U.S. renewable energy consumption. Here is how it breaks down when it comes to that. The majority comes from something called hydro power, basically means power from moving water. There you can see how the rest of it all breaks down as well.

You'll notice last on the list, just one tiny piece of that pie that we hear very little about -- the most about actually, is solar power. Solar power is likely the one that you know the most about, so why is it at the bottom of this list? That very small slice?

Here to tell us why is Ryne Raffaelle, head of the solar division. He's the director of the National Center for Photovoltix, a national renewable energy lab. He's joining us via Skype from Golden, Colorado.

Ryne, tell us why solar energy is at the bottom the list when it comes to consumption? What's holding us back?

RYNE RAFFAELLE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER OF PHOTOVOLTIX (via Skype): It's kind of ironic, isn't it? You know, we have, say, an incredible solar resource in this country, enough sunlight hits the planet every hour to power mankind's needs for the entire year, yet in terms of renewables, it's such a small portion of our energy portfolio.

There's several reasons for that. One thing is it's sort of the new kid on the block. We've had hydropower and wind power for quite some time, so even though we've had solar cells for some 40 years it still is an emerging technology. And, frankly, you know, say, 20 years ago, it was still very expensive. So it had a hard time competing with a lot of the entrenched staples, if you will, of our energy portfolio.

KAYE: Yes. And we know that it really takes quite a bit of surface area to install the solar panels. Solar energy, also, goes away, obviously, when the sun goes away. So, why do you think we should be putting all of these efforts into solar energy?

RAFFAELLE: Well, you know, in terms of the amount of power that's coming from the sun, even during those daylight hours that we're able to harvest it, it's still an incredible amount of energy. Now, one of the things with regards to the fact that it peaks in, say, the middle of the afternoon, that's actually when our peak power consumption is as well. And so it turns out, as more and more energy utilities go to time of day pricing, that further incentivizes the use of solar. Because, you know, the solar energy production peaks right when our demand peaks. It's actually very, very well matched.

KAYE: So, is there anything that we can do as a country to bring solar power higher on the renewables consumption list?

RAFFAELLE: Well, there's some great opportunities that already exist, sort of in the solar realm, in terms of the incentives that are available to the consumers, either through the state or federal tax breaks as well as some municipalities have gone to net meter reading where the utility company will actually pay you for any excess electricity you use. It does require up-front costs right now in terms of purchasing the array, but there's new pricing models that are emerging where developers that buy the array and then you pay them back over time.

And so, you know, even today, though, it makes good economic sense in large portions of the country. Portions where we have a lot of sunlight, utility costs are high. It already makes sense. I mean, you can pay off your rent in literally five years and it's warrantied for 25 years. So, for the next 20 years you're making profit.

KAYE: Yes. Well, they're certainly expensive, so hopefully the tax incentives will help encourage consumers to start using them at home. We will see. Ryne Raffaelle, thank you so much. Appreciate the explanation.

To learn even more about solar power and to see how solar energy stocks are doing since the Japan nuclear disaster, head to Ali's blog, CNN.com/ali. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)