Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Israeli Prime Minister Addresses U.N. General Assembly; GOP Hopefuls Face Off in Florida; Doubts Over Death Penalty; Particles Appear to Travel Faster than Light; Teachers Fight Mexico's Drug Lords; Underfed U.S. Kids on the Rise; Stocks Struggle After Brutal Week

Aired September 23, 2011 - 14:08   ET

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

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: All right. There you have the other side.

In the past couple of hours we have seen almost back-to-back speeches from Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, as well as the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.

Two differing messages up there, but you just heard from Benjamin Netanyahu, and I quote, "Let's get on with it." He says he wants to start negotiations immediately.

He says, "We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations." And he stepped up and issued a challenge to Mahmoud Abbas: "We have flown thousands of miles to be in New York City. We are in the same building. It makes no sense for us not to be meeting right now. Let's start these negotiations today."

Benjamin Netanyahu had some strong words for the U.N. body, called it the theater of the absurd at one point at the beginning. A lot to get at here.

Let me bring in Jamie Rubin. He's a former assistant U.S. secretary of state, also executive editor now of "The Bloomberg View." And also, Hussein Ibish, author, scholar, and research fellow at the American Taskforce on Palestine.

Gentlemen, thank you both for being here.

Jamie, let me start with you here. What did you hear in that -- almost issuing a challenge? And for a lot of people, that makes a lot of sense. They flew all the way here, they're in the same building, and they're not talking?

JAMES RUBIN, FMR. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes. I think that was a public relations gesture by the Israeli prime minister. The issue is not whether they'll meet or whether they'll negotiate. He knows perfectly well for many, many months the Palestinians have been focused on the question of settlements. And I think what was remarkable was, in all those minutes of some very eloquent words, some very eloquent statements about the need for peace, Prime Minister Netanyahu never really answered the basic question which was on everybody's minds, which is why the Israelis must continue to extend the settlement building to enlarge their share of the West Bank day after day, and won't suspend that as a way of getting negotiations going.

That's something the United States has called for. And frankly, because Prime Minister Netanyahu regards this U.N. forum as kind of a grand world debating society, I'm not sure his style was so effective.

President Obama made a very effective case earlier this week for the Israeli security dilemma, and when I think Prime Minister Netanyahu starts criticizing the press from the podium of the U.N., I think he loses his audience. And so I think it was more of like an Israeli debating society than a global debating society.

HOLMES: Hussein, let me bring you in here. And people listening to Benjamin Netanyahu, it sounds like Israel -- and certainly everybody doesn't see it this way, but he says he has done all he can. He said the settlements that Jamie just mentioned there, he said that's not the cause of the conflict, the conflict caused the settlements.

So what did you hear from him in your estimation?

HUSSEIN IBISH, RESEARCH FELLOW, AMERICAN TASK FORCE ON PALESTINE: Well, I thought it was a rather bad speech. I think he's capable of giving good speeches, as he did in Congress earlier this year. But he didn't give one.

It was defensive, and he defended the occupation. Actually, I mean, I think Jamie is wrong. He did actually provide a rationalization for not only expanding settlements, but maintaining the occupation.

He said that Israel needs strategic depth. He said that whenever Israel has withdrawn from territory unilaterally, I might add -- unilaterally -- that it has been met with attacks.

Of course he didn't mention that when it's had agreements, like the treaties with Egypt and Jordan, that those agreements have been held because there was another party on the other side to agree with this. But I also think he was probably rattled by how effective President Abbas was.

President Abbas gave a truly excellent speech, really superb. I don't think the late President Arafat ever gave a speech that effective.

He made the moral case for Palestine in a very powerful way. Now, of course that leaves open the question of what do you do the day after, how do you use that to get back to negotiations, or to create conditions for negotiations that can succeed sometime in the future? I really think that Prime Minister Netanyahu was very defensive about the occupation, and he really sort of made the case for it and why it exists, why it should expand, and why it should continue.

HOLMES: And Jamie, let me bring you back in here. Bad speech made in Hussein's estimation. He just heard an excellent speech by Mahmoud Abbas. But either one of these speeches, so much focus on them both.

Do they move us any closer to anything?

RUBIN: No, they don't. That's what is so troubling.

You heard President Abbas give the moral case. I think that's correct. And I think he had the room in his hands. And I think he really did win over the audience.

Prime Minister Netanyahu made the kind of speech that you make in sort of the Israeli public opinion, but I don't think he won a lot of points from the viewers in the world or in the hallway. And that's really the problem.

These are speechmaking. These are winning debating points. These are ways to perhaps even win a General Assembly vote.

But what was really absent was either leader telling their people or telling the other what steps they're going to take to prevent this U.N. exercise from not turning into a disaster, from not causing great protests in the Palestinian Authority's areas when the U.N. exercise doesn't change anything on the ground, when he -- neither side explained what you need to do the day after to prevent this from being a bad moment.

HOLMES: Right.

Well, Hussein, you wrap it up for me here.

IBISH: No, that's right.

HOLMES: And you just heard James say these that these speeches don't move the process forward, but does it hurt the process in anything you heard today?

IBISH: Not particularly. I mean, it was effective by Abbas and I think ineffective by Netanyahu. But it doesn't change any of the realities on the ground, or even really the diplomatic realities, because the problems facing Palestinian recognition in the U.N. are exactly the same as they were before Abbas' speech. People that agreed with him before agree with him more.

I think we really need to focus now on the day after, and that's two different things.

One is, making sure that aid to the P.A. isn't cut as people in Congress and people in Israel are threatening to do, which could create both a political and a security nightmare for the Israelis and the Palestinians alike to protect the achievements of the state and institution-building program, and the security cooperation that has brought law and order to parts of the West Bank that were formerly chaotic. And to also use the space that's now emerging since the Palestinians are going to make this formal request to Secretary- General Ban, but not push for a vote to try to look for a quartet statement or an EU initiative or something that can help get us past a difficult period where, because the parties are so far apart, and because we're in an election season in the United States, meaningful negotiations will be difficult to resume in the immediate future.

So focus on the ground, build there, make sure the quality of life is maintained and the security cooperation is maintained, and we can have a soft landing rather than a hard landing. And that's what everybody needs.

HOLMES: James, if it gets to a point of a veto, a U.S. veto -- first, do you think it will get that far? And just how damaging is that going to be for the U.S. in the region, if they have to veto it, if the U.S. vetoes, goes through, and has to veto Palestinian statehood?

RUBIN: Well, I think there's a chance that the U.S. will have to veto. There's a chance that the Palestinians, with the speech that Abbas gave today, can muster nine votes in the Security Council, and that that would cause a need for the United States to veto.

It would be damaging. It would be extremely damaging.

The United States has not made an effective case for why the support in the Arab Spring is one thing, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and that we, the United States, don't somehow support the self- determination and rights of the Palestinians. I think the difference, of course, is the Palestinians haven't put forward hundreds of thousands of people engaged in peaceful protests. And if they were to do that, that's the game-changer.

That's when the Arab Spring comes to the Palestinian territories, and the world, including Israelis, will be affected. So that's not going to happen. It doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

What's most likely to happen is that it goes to the General Assembly, where the Palestinians can get a victory. That's not that meaningful.

They get a big vote in their favor, they get their status upgraded, but then the day after, they're no better off. And that's really the challenge that diplomats in Washington, in Europe, at the United Nations, and in these two areas have to solve, is how to prevent the frustration and anger that's likely to come when there's no change on the ground after this exercise, and preventing it from turning into a violent result, which would be a disaster.

IBISH: Well --

HOLMES: Go ahead and wrap it for me there.

IBISH: Well, you do that through funding. No, you do that through funding. You do that through not cutting funds to the P.A. You do that by continuing to fund the security services, the institution-building, the upgrade and the quality of life that Prime Minister Fayyad, under the leadership of Abbas, has done such a good job of promoting over the past couple of years.

I mean, that is the great achievement that can be built on here. And it can help buy us time until we can arrange the politics to be more in line with everybody's policies, and we can actually resume meaningful negotiations which can end this conflict, you know, with a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

That's going to take some time. But there's things you can work with on the ground. They have just got to be funded.

Defunding them creates the nightmare scenario that Jamie was talking about. And I do think even if a Palestinian movement began nonviolently, both because of Israeli forces and because of the way some Palestinian groups will try to take advantage of it, it probably wouldn't stay nonviolent that long.

HOLMES: All right. Well, Hussein Ibish, James Rubin, gentlemen, thank you both.

IBISH: Thanks.

HOLMES: We're going to turn here in a moment to politics back in this country. It was eight against one, some will tell you, last night at the Republican debate. Eight candidates taking shots at Texas Governor Rick Perry. He is the front-runner as of now, but will that last?

"Fair Game," next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Well, let's go beyond partisan talking points right now and get to the heart of the political debate. All sides are "Fair Game."

And in last night's GOP debate in Florida, it was pretty much eight against one. Texas Governor Rick Perry again facing incoming fire from his Republican challengers on issues from Social Security to immigration. But they didn't make a dent really in his front-runner status.

We'll talk about that with Will Cain, CNN contributor and columnist for TheBlaze.com.

Good to see you.

And Democratic political consultant Ed Espinoza.

Gentlemen, thank you both for being here.

Before, Will, we talk about the candidates, let's talk about the crowd. We have seen this in a few different debates now, these GOP debates, the audience has some kind of reaction. So we're going to listen now to the reaction they had last night to a question from a gay soldier.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I'm a gay soldier and I didn't want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

(BOOING)

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: OK. So, Will, you hear there the audience booing a question from a gay soldier. There was another debate where there was a hypothetical about a young man who might have been sick, and what do we do, we just let him die? And some people were yelling out "Yes!" in the audience.

Do these audience reactions in front of a national audience like that, I mean, does this play into the debate? Do you think this is representative of the Republican base and maybe even of the Republican candidates?

WILL CAIN, COLUMNIST, THEBLAZE.COM: No, I don't. And I don't think it was representative of even that audience last night.

It sounded to me, T.J., like two or three people tops. And you know what? To hell with those people.

There is an intellectual debate to be had about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." There are smart questions to be asked about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But because of that guy, or those handful of people, you're asking me about this today. So that's the conversation we get to have.

HOLMES: Ed, what do you think? Is it just a couple of knuckleheads? But even so, does it make a difference to the American audience that's watching, or really, like Will said, just a couple of knuckleheads getting some attention?

ED ESPINOZA, DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL CONSULTANT: Yes, I think it does. And actually, I agree with Will. We need to move the conversation forward. This isn't the way to do it.

The problem is, is that these voices you hear when you have members of the audience saying, "Let him die" to somebody who doesn't have health care, when you have people booing a gay soldier, and when you have voters who are giving the lead in the Republican primary to someone who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, this is out of the mainstream. It's not normal.

There's polling that supports that this isn't where America is going. I tweeted about this polling this morning.

The problem is, is that consultants like myself ask candidates to speak to their audiences. And Rick Perry is speaking to this audience, and he's winning because of it. Where that takes them, I don't know.

HOLMES: I see you smiling there. We were going to get to Rick Perry next.

Will, you go ahead and jump in there. How is he doing?

CAIN: No, no. I just want to say I don't like the theme, the string that's being connected between, as you said, T.J., and I agree with the word, "knucklehead," in an audience that boos a gay soldier and questioning the validity of Social Security. There's not a moral equivalency here. There's not a string to tie those two things together. I don't want to see it trying to be done.

HOLMES: OK. Well, let's go ahead and move past that then.

ESPINOZA: But there is polling.

HOLMES: Go ahead and wrap it up. I'll let you get that point out. Go ahead, Ed.

ESPINOZA: Well, the point I'm making is that there are comments that there are positions in the party that are making certain people front-runners and it's based on polling. I'm sorry, it goes against what popular polling is right now.

HOLMES: All right. Let's go ahead and get past that.

Like you said in the first place, Will, you hate we even had to have a question on that. So let's turn to Rick Perry.

We saw his front-runner status. Don't know how long he might be able to hold on to that.

Did he do anything last night that's going to help him hold on to that, or is Mitt Romney a coming?

CAIN: T.J., you know, I made the mistake about a couple of weeks ago of saying Rick Perry would be the next president of the United States. I even wrote it.

But I added a caveat that, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot, that he doesn't self-destruct. But either way I was wrong, T.J., because right now, what it looks like is Rick Perry will just fizzle out.

He stammered, he was halting, he had trouble finding his points, and he stood next to a guy, Mitt Romney, who was smooth and articulate. So, right now, it looks to me like Rick Perry is just going to fizzle away.

HOLMES: Well, Ed, on that point, do you think he's going to necessarily fizzle away, or he's still trying to find his footing a little bit and he can still pull this off? ESPINOZA: Well, about a guy shooting himself in the foot, Rick Perry is a guy who likes to go jogging with a pistol, so it may literally happen at some point. But whether or not it happens in the political arena, the thing is he's running against people like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, who have run for president a bunch of times before.

So, what you've got with Rick Perry is a guy who hasn't really been tested at this level. He's run in Texas for 10 or 12 years without any real challenges, and now he's got to go through this testing phase, and it's proving to be a little difficult for him.

Will he survive? He's survived before. It remains to be seen if he will now. But he still leads in the polls, 31 percent of Republicans support him.

CAIN: And Ed and T.J., I'd just say apparently Rick Perry is bad at the debating part of debates.

HOLMES: Well, I think he probably needs to correct that, doesn't he?

Ed Espinoza, Will Cain, always good to see you.

Will, be careful what you write out there. OK? It always comes back to bite you.

CAIN: I won't make any more predictions, T.J.

HOLMES: Gentlemen, thank you both. You all have a good weekend. Talk to you again soon.

Well, as we come up on the bottom of the hour here now, a story that really captured the nation and really captured some international attention this week. Troy Davis, he maintained his innocence even as he was strapped to the gurney. His case now sparking a renewed debate in this country over the death penalty.

Did Georgia execute an innocent man? Should scientific evidence be required in the death penalty?

We're taking on this issue, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: The execution of convicted cop killer Troy Davis is reviving the national debate over the death penalty. Davis was put to death by lethal injection Wednesday in Georgia maintaining his innocence until the very end.

His case triggered an extraordinary amount of national and international attention centered around the fact that there was no DNA evidence linking Davis to the crime and several of the key witnesses later recanted their testimonies.

The Davis case perhaps like no other in recent history is bringing the death penalty debate back into the spotlight all centered around the pivotal question. Was an innocent man put to death?

Joining me now, CNN legal contributor, Paul Callan, law professor at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley and Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins. Gentlemen, thank you all for being here.

Mr. Watkins, let me start with you. Did this renew a debate about whether or not the country wants the death penalty or just about one man who many people thought was innocent?

CRAIG WATKINS, FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN ELECTED AS CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR DALLAS: You know, I believe it does. This gives us the opportunity to really look at how we pursue justice in the United States. I can only tell you that my injuries as relates to Troy Davis is just from what I've read and seen on TV.

I mean, he's in Atlanta, I'm in Texas. But I've said all along since I have been the district attorney, we need to revisit how we dismiss justice in this country and it needs to be improved. Here in Dallas alone, we have had at least 26 individuals exonerated for crimes they have not committed.

And I think anyone who has the backbone to say that we have not made a mistake and given a person the ultimate punishment in this country is just not being truthful with themselves or this country.

LEMON: Paul, let me bring you in here because I believe it was you who talked about, you know, from conviction to this Wednesday was 20 years that this man was on death row. Some people question why does it take so long.

You know, if we're sure about the outcome, if we're sure about the punishment, it shouldn't take that long. I believe you suggested it takes too long. But on the point Mr. Watkins just made, shouldn't we take all the time we need to be sure?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, we should. But you know, if you're going to have the death penalty, the only way it works from a deterrent standpoint is if a murderer knows that he's going to be punished swiftly and that the public really knows that the crime -- what crime occurred and that the murderer was brought to justice quickly.

Twenty two years later, it doesn't send the message of deterrents. If you're not going to send that message then maybe we shouldn't have the death penalty. On the other hand, of course, T.J., we have to have a system that ensures that the person being put to death is guilty.

And it's really in my view, it's got to be not beyond a reason doubt, but really beyond all doubt. I think because of that feeling that's why the courts struggle so hard and revisit these cases so often to make sure they get it right.

HOLMES: Jonathan, what do you think about that point? You know, if it takes so long, is this really serving its purpose to serve as a deterrent to crime, violent crime out there? Why does it take so long and is that a good thing in your opinion to make sure we have the right appeals and that we're sure?

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, you have to separate the two statements. First, on deterrents, there's very little evidence that the death penalty affects a crime in the form of deterrents. I'm a criminal defense attorney.

I've talked to a lot of people in prison for murder, I've represented some, and I can tell you I think that's completely fallacious. When people commit murder, they don't do the calculus of risk in terms of the likely punishment they will receive. But in terms of time that it takes, you can't have it both ways as a civilized society. You can't say we're going to execute people and we're going to do it fast. And Davis is a good example.

One of the reasons it's so complex is because of a law in 1996 to speed up these cases by preventing people presenting evidence, even compelling evidence after their trial if theoretically it could have been presented at their trial, much of the evidence with Mr. Davis was barred on that basis.

But those seven witnesses who recanted, many of them said they were coerced by the police, the worst type of allegation in a case. So when people say it takes too long, they need to look at a case like Davis.

HOLMES: Mr. Watkins, should there be a higher standard in some of these cases for the type of evidence that can land someone on death row?

WATKINS: Yes, I believe in our country we have a perfect standard in place. The problem is, is that we get caught up in the procedural methods that are in place.

When we're dealing with the ultimate punishment, maybe we should look outside of the procedural methods, because sometimes that won't lead us to the truth. And we're dealing with a person's life here.

And in the Troy Davis case, obviously there are individuals that were in the position that he didn't commit the crime and he was barred from introducing information and evidence that he may not have committed a crime because of procedure.

HOLMES: Well, Paul and Jonathan -- go ahead, Paul. I need you to wrap it up.

CALLAN: First of all, I don't think that that's true. You know, I don't know personally whether he's guilty or not, but I do know that his case was a thoroughly reviewed case by the Georgia Supreme Court, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an actual innocence hearing.

Judge Moore issued a 172-page decision saying that claims that he was actually innocent were smoke and mirrors. So I think that -- and this was only two years before the execution. So I think he got a fair trial and he got a fair evaluation of his case. HOLMES: Jonathan, I've got to go. We have some breaking news, but just a yes or no from you. Will this case and all the attention it got change anything or people's opinions about the death penalty?

TURLEY: Well, if it has one positive feature, it will spark a debate over whether this is an efficient and equitable way to dispense justice.

HOLMES: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much. We ran into some breaking news with Benjamin Netanyahu so we don't have as much time as we like, but still we appreciate you all taking the time with us. You all have a good weekend. Quick break here, folks. I'm right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: OK, Albert Einstein may have been wrong, but who am I to say that? I'm not the one saying it possibly, but a 1905 Albert Einstein said nothing could be faster than the speed of light.

This theory of relativity as you know held up pretty well since then until now because physicists at a renowned lab were experimenting with neutrinos. Those are actually tiny. They're so tiny subatomic particles.

They actually make atoms look big, but they shot a neutrino beam underground from Geneva to Italy. That's a distance of 450 miles, and it turns out that those neutrinos traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than light.

We're talking about a 60 billionth of one second. It's really small here we're talking, but if the results can be duplicated, that's small number will have a seismic effect on the very foundations of modern physics.

In other words, we would have to rethink Einstein's theory of relativity, possibly revolutionizing physics as we know it and turning science on its head.

Also coming up here, we'll turn to the outrage over warring drug gangs. Teachers and Mexico's tourist playground of Acapulco take matters into their own hands. Their brave struggle right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Acapulco, Mexico, when you think of that, you don't think about an actual drug war playing out, but that has been what's happening. It's become a battlefield and drug lords there are showing no mercy, even striking out at school teachers. Do you remember this back in May?

This is a gun battle outside a school in Monterey. The teacher stayed calm, told the kids to put their heads down. She even sang to them. In Acapulco though, let's take you back there.

That's where our Rafael Romo is going to take us now to explain that teachers there have had it with the drug gangs.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN SENIOR LATIN AMERICAN AFFAIRS EDITOR (voice- over): The message is clear. No security, no classes. Thousands of teachers in the Mexican beach resort of Acapulco are taking to the streets to tell the government that they're fed up with the violence.

Some parents and students protested as well. The teachers refuse to go back to the classroom until they get assurances about their security.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We are asking for conditions that allow us to return both our schools and our homes for normal. That's all we're asking for. We don't think that's too much to ask for. We're asking for something that anybody anywhere in the world would want, peace.

ROMO: Late last month, teachers fled from 140 schools after receiving threats. Criminal groups left written notes demanding a portion of the teachers' salary. Schools where teachers refused to pay kick backs the written threat said would be attacked.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We're calling on all seven regions to unite. Next may be a statewide strike. We will go to other schools in other regions to ask those teachers to join us too.

ROMO: Acapulco authorities have created a security program called "Safe School." They say so far no one has been attacked or hurt at any school.

MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ, TRANSIT POLICE DIRECTOR (through translator): We have increased the number and reach of our operations and officers patrolling schools. In the first 15 days of the "Safe School" program, we had zero incidents at the schools.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Rafael Romo here now. We think Acapulco. We don't think that, so just what are these numbers telling us?

ROMO: I had an opportunity to interview the director in the city of Acapulco earlier this year and he was telling me last year they broke the number of murders with 1,010.

This year they broke the record in August. They're at 1,288 as of last night. So that gives you an idea, and the murder rate is 126, very, very high.

HOLMES: All right, Rafael Romo, who's been covering Mexico and the violence there for us, always good to see you. Thanks so much.

Well, they are not even old enough to pay the family bills, but the tough economy hitting little kids across the U.S. hard. Those details next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: An in-depth look now at poverty in America. Oftentimes when you think about malnourished children, you might not think of children right here, you think maybe of children in other countries.

But you don't have to go outside of our own borders to find children in need of food. Our Deborah Feyerick now takes us to Boston where the high cost of housing and heat has many families cutting back on food.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Looking at Juvens Lewis, you would never guess this playful first grader suffers from chronic malnutrition.

His mom, Rolande Decossa, earns less than $10,000 a year at her part-time job. And even though the single mom gets help from food stamps, she still worries constantly about not having enough to eat.

ROLANDE DECOSSA, SINGLE MOM: I'm shaking, shaking head like crazy. Number one thing you've got to take care of the house, but after that to see how I'm going to buy food for my kid.

FEYERICK: Figures show nationwide more than 16 million children live in homes with parents struggling to put enough food on the table.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Juvens.

FEYERICK: Dr. Megan Sandel treats him at Boston Medical Center's Unique Grow Clinic, which specializes in underweight and malnourished children.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Step right on the scale, 37.2 pounds.

FEYERICK: The 6-year-old, Juvens, currently weighs as much as an average 4-year-old.

DR. MEGAN SANDEL, PEDIATRICIAN, BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: People think about acute malnutrition and look at Somalia or something like that. What we see is chronic malnutrition, stunted growth, kids that are the size of a 1-year-old when they're 2 years old and they're not going to be able to make up for the rest of their lives.

FEYERICK: Emergency rooms in Boston are seeing a spike in severely underweight children ages 5 and younger, a crucial period for brain growth and child development. These kids are more likely to get sick and fall behind in school.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. So where do I go next? OK.

FEYERICK: Pediatrician Deborah Frank runs the grow clinic and sees as many as 40 children a week.

DR. DEBORAH FRANK, GROW CLINIC, BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: Some kids, it's pretty obvious, you can count their ribs. Their arms and legs look skinny. Their heads look too big. The scary thing is that even when you feed kids and get them going again and physically growing, that you can often find deficits in learning and behavior all the way into high school.

FEYERICK: In other cities like Baltimore and Minneapolis, many doctors say the numbers of malnourished kids have doubled in the last two years because of the recession. Boston's Grow Clinic opened a pantry where doctors now write prescriptions for food.

SANDEL: We thought we were going to serve 500 families a month and last month we served 7,500 families. We're handing out over 7,500 bags of food every single month.

FEYERICK: More than 40 million people received food stamps in the summer of 2010 alone, a record high. Some in Congress are now talking about cuts in that and other nutrition programs.

FRANK: Sort of like somebody saying we're about to have a plague epidemic so the government is cutting back on immunizations and antibiotics to save money just as the plague is hitting.

FEYERICK: A plague that could have serious consequences for children. Deborah Feyerick, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Squinty eyes a little bit there when I say look at the stocks. Not as bad as it has been the past couple of days. Right now, the Dow down off, it's off 24 points right now, but still that is really pale in comparison to what we saw yesterday, almost a 400-point loss for the Dow. We'll keep an eye on the markets for you.

Also we'll turn to our heroes of 2011. Our Anderson Cooper introduces 2011 CNN Heroes when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Fifth anniversary of our CNN Heroes. Over the years, we've received over 40,000 nominations from you, our viewers, in more than 1 100 countries and now it's time to decide this year's hero of the year. Our Anderson Cooper with a look at the top ten.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Anderson Cooper. All year, we've been introducing you to everyday people changing the world. We call them CNN Heroes. Now we announce the top ten CNN Heroes for 2011.

The honorees are in alphabetical order by first name, Amy Stokes. She uses the internet to match teens lacking role models with adults around the world. Bruno Serato is serving up a solution so motel kids don't go to bed hungry. Derrick Kayongo collects motel soaps and reprocesses them to save lives.

Diane Latiker in a violent neighborhood, she opened her door inviting gang members in. Eddie Canales helps young football players sidelined by spinal cord injuries. Elena Duron Miranda offers poor children away out of the trash dump into school. Patrice Millet diagnosed with incurable cancer started feeding and coaching children from Haiti's slums. Robin Lim helps poor women have healthy pregnancies and safe deliveries.

Sal Dimiceli pays for rent, food and basic necessities to keep the working poor afloat and Taryn Davis who built a sisterhood of healing for a new generation of American war widows.

Congratulations, the top ten CNN Heroes of 2011. Which one inspires you the most? Go to cnnheroes.com online or on your mobile device to vote for CNN Hero of the Year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Reminder, all 10 will be on at live at CNN Heroes, An All-Star Tribute, that's hosted by our Anderson Cooper. That will be on December 11th for you and remember, you decide the winner here.

As he just mentioned, you can go to cnnheroes.com right now to vote. That does it for me. After a quick break, Brooke Baldwin takes this thing over.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)