Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
United States Proposes New U.N. Resolution on Iraq; California Debates Without Schwarzenegger; Former Minister Executed Today In Florida For Murdering Abortion Doctor, Bodyguard
Aired September 03, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): At this hour, former Presbyterian minister who murdered an abortion doctor is scheduled to be executed in Florida. Brian Cabell is a witness at the execution and will have our report.
Help wanted, some new help for the United States in Iraq but a new report says the U.S. military is stretched too thin. Two military experts will debate whether the United States should send more troops.
In our corporate crime watch, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accuses big mutual funds of illegal trading. The cost to small investors could be billions of dollars. Bill Tucker will report.
And, ducking debate, Arnold Schwarzenegger skips the first debate in the California recall race drawing intense criticism from his rivals. Rusty Dornin will have a live report.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, September 3rd, sitting in for the vacationing Lou Dobbs, John King.
KING: Good evening.
The Bush White House today appealed to the United Nations for help in Iraq. It is a dramatic change of course for an administration that has repeatedly talked of only a limited U.N. role in post-war Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell and the White House insist this is an evolution of administration policy not an about face.
Dana Bash is at the White House to explain the administration's goals and reasons and Richard Roth is at the United Nations with both the public and behind-the-scenes reaction. We go first to the White House and Dana Bash - Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, as you said the White House and the State Department, Secretary of State Colin Powell took great pains today to say that the decision to go back to the U.N. is not a new policy, not a shift in policy but merely an extension of their already existing priority, which is to get a large multinational force into Iraq to assist U.S. forces there and also to assist with the cost. But, as you well know, there was been a reluctance to do so with a greater U.N. role but the problem has been over the last few months for this administration is that they have not been able to get some key allies who will contribute the most in troops and the most in money without a greater U.N. role, without a larger U.N. blessing, so that is exactly what the White House is now going to do.
Secretary of State Colin Powell today laid out some of what the key components of this U.S. resolution that he began shopping around today are and I'll go through some of them.
First of all it is to create a multinational force but it would be under the U.S. command and that force and that commander would actually file reports to the United Nations.
And in terms of the political structure here it would invite, not require but invite the Iraqi governing council to submit a plan a d a timeline for building a constitution and determining elections.
And also it would expand the U.N. role in reconstruction but the secretary was pretty vague in terms of the specifics of what the U.N. role would be exactly in that reconstruction.
But the administration did make clear in all of this that they have absolutely no intention of giving up the key U.S. role, the leadership role, in terms of the military component and the political component.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States will continue to play a dominant role, dominant political role through the work of Ambassador Bremer and his coalition colleagues and the dominant role because of the size of the U.S. force presence that is there and the leadership we are providing to the effort but a dominant role doesn't mean the only role.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: And the insistence on that dominant role might certainly be the rub here as the secretary and John Negroponte at the U.N. work the phones and work the key allies in order to get some compromise and get some language down that can actually be passed at the Security Council.
The secretary said that his initial conversations were quite positive and what they are hoping is to get this wrapped up before, John, the president goes up to the U.N. and that is going to be in three weeks - John.
KING: And, Dana, it's no secret that in the past there's been a bit of a tug of war, Secretary Powell much more open to diplomacy, much more open to a U.N. role than say Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Any sense at all as to whether there is still tension within the administration or is Secretary Rumsfeld so desperate for the help that he's willing now to come to the United Nations? BASH: Well, it's unclear exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld said to the president. He was actually here today in a private meeting with Mr. Bush but it was after a private meeting yesterday with Secretary Powell that the president authorized Secretary Powell to go ahead and push for this resolution at the U.N.
I talked to a senior administration official who was on, let's say on Secretary Powell's side earlier today who felt pretty confident in the fact that the policy of those who wanted to go forward, who wanted to have a more international effort through the United Nations seems to be, at this point at least, to be prevailing here at the White House - John.
KING: Dana Bash at the White House, thank you.
And a key question now is whether the Bush administration's proposed resolution satisfies key members of the Security Council. U.N. officials say they want a "meaningful resolution" and by that they mean one that gives the United Nations a significant role in post-war decision making. The United States, as Dana noted, hopes to have a consensus by the time President Bush speaks to the U.N. General Assembly later this month.
Richard Roth joins me now from the United Nations. Richard, what are they saying today?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, nobody is going to come down the hallway and say we told you so, especially in light of the gravity of the situation there, the United Nations bombing two weeks ago, but countries are likely to make the United States squirm a bit perhaps trying to raise the price of getting their support in sending troops and contributing billions of dollars in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Many of the countries, though, have not even seen the text of the resolution, which is going to certainly slow any formal comment. One U.N. diplomat said we'd like to see shared authority.
They certainly don't really enjoy reporting to a U.S. military commander under a multinational force in this resolution even if that commander and the U.S. reports to the Security Council. However, they recognize the coalition is still going to call the shots regarding military affairs but they'd like to see Iraqis get more power and soon.
(VIDEO GAP)
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Richard Roth joins me now from the United Nations.
Richard, what are they saying today?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, nobody is going to come down the hallway and say, we told you so, especially in light of the gravity of the situation there, the United Nations bombing two weeks ago. But countries are likely to make the United States squirm a bit, perhaps trying to raise the price of getting their support in sending troops and contributing billions of dollars in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Many of the countries, though, have not even seen the text of the resolution, which is going to certainly slow any formal comment. One U.N. diplomat said: We'd like to see shared authority.
They certainly don't really enjoy reporting to a U.S. military commander under a multinational force in this resolution, even if that commander in the U.S. reports to the Security Council. However, they recognize, the coalition is still going to call the shots regarding military affairs. But they'd like to see Iraqis get more power and soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMYR JONES PARRY, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: What Washington's going to have to give up and start changing in its approach is this idea that it will dictate what will happen on the ground in Iraq. It hasn't worked. And, furthermore, if it wants to attract valued partners and allies, it's going to have to share responsibility for the political strategy with them, possibly through the United Nations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The United States is believed to have shared the new resolution only with France and Britain. But it's certainly getting a lot of comment and feedback, Secretary Powell saying that the text is being revised as it gets ideas from other countries.
There's the British and U.S. ambassadors last week at a meeting following the bombing of the U.N. And there's the Russian ambassador, Sergey Lavrov. He also will be a tough obstacle to overcome. There he is smoking a cigarette, this despite a new U.N. ban on smoking. Those are some of the types of attitudes here that the United States will have to overcome. But no vote is going to happen this week. It's going to take several days at least -- John, back to you.
KING: Richard, it is cliche, but it is often said time heals all wounds. What is your sense? Do the Security Council members who fought so bitterly with the United States before the war, do they want to extract some blood here and drag this out or do they want to move on?
ROTH: They've seen a lot of blood shed in Iraq, and I think there's a lot of concern on the Security Council that it could spiral out of control, that they may indeed need to help out the United States here.
They would like to get a piece of some of the business action that main ensue in the reconstruction of Iraq. What do they say? Elephants never forget. I mean, there are no elephants in that large, august Security Council chamber. But I don't think the bruised feelings have healed. A lot of countries objected to the war. They still don't want to be seen as now backing it through any legitimacy of a resolution. But they want U.N. political cover.
KING: Richard Roth at the United Nations. Elephants in that room and a little unauthorized smoking as well. Thank you, Richard.
Now, the bargaining over the proposed U.N. resolution is already under way. And it is as much about dollars and cents as it is about diplomacy. France, Germany, and Russia were strong opponents of the war against Saddam Hussein. And their willingness to help secure Iraq now could depend on the role they get to play in Iraq's reconstruction.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With the United States asking the U.N. for help in the occupation of Iraq, the question is, why should the coalition of the unwilling, particularly Russia and France, suddenly be willing to help?
TOSHI YOSHIHARA, FLETCHER SCHOOL, TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Two driving interests behind French and Russian action in this case is geopolitical influence on the one hand and on the other hand economic gain.
PILGRIM: Back in April, Russia and France held a mini summit in St. Petersburg, even while combat still raged in Iraq, to talk about their roles after the war.
Because those permanent members opposed the war in the Security Council, some said the meeting smacked of opportunism. The United States and Britain did the fighting, and now others wanted a piece of the pie under the cover of U.N. participation.
GARY SCHMITT, PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY: President Putin has even made it perfectly clear that he intends to use the U.N.'s new role in Iraq, when it comes to pass, to leverage their old contracts in Iraq. So I do think both Paris and Moscow have hopes that, with the U.N., with a new U.N. mandate, that they'll be able to use their position in the U.N. to renew old ties in Iraq.
PILGRIM: Both Russia and France made money even when Saddam Hussein was in power on the oil-for-food contracts under U.N. sanctions. And both countries had oil exploration and development deals in the works with Saddam Hussein's regime. France's mammoth oil company, Total Fina Elf, snagged a deal to exploit a 20-billion-barrel oil field in southern Iraq.
Russia's LUKoil has been trying to hang on to its $6.5 billion deal it signed in 1997 with Baghdad. Iraq also owes Russia $8 billion in arms sales from the 1980s.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, for this reason, some foresee considerable hard bargaining, as the language and the detail of the new U.N. resolution is worked out. Countries may be working at cross-purposes, some seeking to leverage their advantage and others asking for international generosity in helping Iraq become stable and rebuild -- John.
KING: Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
Now, the United States hopes a U.N. resolution will make it possible for many more countries to send peacekeeping troops into Iraq. Some troops could conceivably come from Security Council members like France, Germany, and Russia. But, so far, the countries that have expressed the most interest, especially if the United Nations gives its blessing, include Turkey, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.
Now, a Polish-led division today took over responsibility for security in part of central Iraq from U.S. Marines. The United States, with 139,000 troops in Iraq, provides the overwhelming number of forces. Its coalition partner, Great Britain, has about 11,000 troops, most of them in southern Iraq. Another 30 countries are sending troops to Iraq, but only 10,000 have arrived so far.
A new congressional report highlights a major reason the administration is now urgently appealing for international help. The Congressional Budget Office says the military can sustain the current U.S. force level in Iraq only until next March.
Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has that story -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, the second-guessing and "I told you so's" are creating a crescendo of criticism both inside and outside the building.
Let's start with Tom White, the Army secretary, fired by Secretary Rumsfeld in April. He calls the reconstruction of Iraq haphazard, writing in a new book -- quote -- "It is quite clear the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate." And he said it ignored the harsh realities on the ground. The U.S. hopes that, by bringing in United Nations troops, it can lessen the burden on U.S. forces and put a multinational face on the reconstruction effort.
Some argue that bringing the U.N. in, though, could make things worse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I don't know of anybody who thinks that the U.N. is going to solve all of the challenging problems that we're confronting now and the Iraqi people are confronting at the moment. The question is, will it in fact help or quite possibly will it make matters worse? And a lot depends, I think, on the details of the mandate now being negotiated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: But others, including many in Congress, argue the tradeoff is worth it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: American taxpayers have footed the bill for the war on terror almost single-handedly so far. And it's time now for other countries to step up to the plate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: In fact, the ability to maintain the current troop levels is questioned by a Congressional Budget Office analysis, which concludes the active Army would be unable to sustain an occupation force at the present size beyond March 2004, if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief.
A classified report done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff faults the planning process, including, the Pentagon waited too long to get organized and that, as a result, plans for the postwar were rushed and inadequate. And Pentagon sources tell CNN that a separate plan calling for 200,000 troops to maintain security after the war was rejected as politically unacceptable -- John.
KING: Jamie, politically unacceptable, and yet, since the war, we have heard Don Rumsfeld, the secretary, and others say repeatedly, they would send more troops if the generals asked for more troops. It seems to be this report you're talking about that the generals have received strong hints they better not ask for more troops.
MCINTYRE: Well, the -- clearly, Don Rumsfeld believes that the fewer number of troops involved, the better, both in the military action and also in the rebuilding effort. And he stubbornly insists that they don't need more U.S. troops on the ground there now. And the commanders are backing him up, at least in public.
KING: Jamie McIntyre, at the Pentagon, thank you very much.
And in our "Face-Off" tonight: Should more U.S. troops go to Iraq? We will debate this quite controversial question with former Lieutenant General Dan Christman and RAND analyst James Dobbins, a former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan.
And that brings us to tonight's poll question: Who do you think needs to do more in Iraq, the United Nations, the United States, the Iraqi people themselves, or France and Germany? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll bring you the results a bit later in the show.
Now the final results of yesterday's poll question. We asked you: What makes you feel safer? Six percent of you said the Department of Homeland Security; 13 percent said air marshals; 1 percent said that color-coded terror threat level system. And 80 percent said none of the above.
Coming up: an execution in Florida just a short time ago that has captured the nation's attention. Brian Cabell will have a live report. Then: behind the blackout. Congress investigates how it happened. Congressman Billy Tauzin of Louisiana is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and he will join us.
And, while candidates in California's recall race prepare to spar over the issues, one high-profile candidate was left with egg on his shoulder.
Rusty Dornin will have that in a live report up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Coming up: The face of the American population is changing, more dramatically in some states. Which ones have the highest proportion of foreign-born residents?
Up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: This news just in to CNN from Starke, Florida: Convicted murderer and anti-abortion activist Paul Hill has been executed. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection for killing a Florida doctor who performed abortions and that doctor's bodyguard nine years ago.
Earlier today, Hill told reporters he felt no remorse and expected a -- quote -- "great reward in heaven."
CNN's Brian Cabell witnessed hill's execution in Florida state prison. He will join us live shortly.
And late news tonight about media ownership in this country: A federal appeals court has blocked the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its controversial new rules on media ownership. The rules, which would allow media companies to own more outlets in a single market, were slated to take effect tomorrow. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay while it considers a lawsuit filed by a media activist group trying to block those rules permanently. The FCC, so far, has no comment on that ruling.
In California, the major candidates for governor, except perhaps the best-known candidate, are preparing tonight for their first debate. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to skip the debate and instead hold a news conference, which he did a couple of hours ago.
Rusty Dornin is live for us in Walnut Creek, California, and has the latest -- Rusty?
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, Governor Gray Davis just arrived, just stepped out of his car here in Walnut Creek at the Lesher Center for the debate today.
Also, to greet him were about 50 people here who are against the recall, the recall of Governor Gray Davis. The format here will be that Governor Gray Davis will take the stage by himself for about a half-hour. Apparently, the governor did insist upon being alone, not having the other candidates on the stage with him. He will take questions from three journalists and five people who submitted questions on the Internet. That'll be for a half-hour.
And then, for 90 minutes, questions will be put to five of the leading candidates. They are Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat, two Republicans, Peter Ueberroth and Tom McClintock, the independent Arianna Huffington, and the Green Party candidate, Peter Camejo. Now, of course, not on the dais will be Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said no to all of the debates except for one, where the questions will be given to the candidates.
However, it looks like Schwarzenegger's campaign launched an offensive today by sending a letter to the California Broadcasting Association asking them not to submit the questions to the candidates, to keep them a secret. Apparently, the Broadcasters Association is saying: We're not going to do that. We are not going to submit to what the candidates want.
But that's the reason that Schwarzenegger was under fire, because he was only going to come to one -- is only going to come to one debate, where he already will know those questions. Meantime, Schwarzenegger was at Long Beach State University today, where, upon entering for his speech, someone through an egg which glanced his shoulder. He gave a few comments about it as he got on stage.
However, this is the very first official political speech that Schwarzenegger has given since this campaign began -- John.
KING: Rusty Dornin, live for us in Walnut Creek, California, enjoy the debate, minus Arnold.
And you notice, the person who threw the egg was behind Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Now, one of his main campaign themes he continues to stress, his Austrian roots and his subsequent rise to fame as an immigrant to this country. That strategy could possibly work to his advantage. A U.S. census survey released today shows 33 million residents in this country are foreign-born. California ranked first, with 26 percent of its population born outside the United States. New York came in second, with more than 11 percent.
Texas and Florida rounded out the top four states, with about 10 percent of their populations -- residents -- excuse me -- foreign- born.
Now, coming up: shedding light on what went wrong. Congress investigates the blackout. Congressman Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will join us.
Also ahead, New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer's campaign against corporate crime puts four of this country's biggest mutual fund companies on notice. Bill Tucker has that report.
And a killer and a former minister put to death in Florida. Brian Cabell joins us live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Almost three weeks to the day after the worst blackout in American history, a congressional committee today held a hearing on what went wrong.
Lisa Sylvester has that report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than two weeks after the lights went off, leaving 50 million people in the dark, the Department of Energy has not pinpointed the exact cause.
SPENCER ABRAHAM, ENERGY SECRETARY: We are gathering information on about 10,000 individual events that happened across thousands of square miles in the space of about nine seconds.
SYLVESTER: The nation's worst blackout is believed to have started in the Midwest, knocking out electricity as far away as Canada and New York. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are looking to minimize the chance of another blackout by imposing mandatory reliability standards on electricity companies and adding incentives for investment in new transmission lines.
The power lines in many parts of the country are overburdened. Energy companies have been reluctant to build new lines, not a very profitable side of the business. Republicans say the blackout only highlights the need to pass comprehensive energy legislation.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS (R), ILLINOIS: For those who will claim to take it, an isolated aspect of energy, it is just like putting a Band- Aid on a problem. And that's why it's so critical to have a national energy policy.
SYLVESTER: But some Democrats worry, Republicans are trying to capitalize on the blackout to push through controversial provisions in the broad energy bill, including drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge.
REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We should stop searching in Alaska for solutions to the blackout. The problem is not in Alaska. It is in Ohio. The solutions won't be found above the Arctic Circle, but below Lake Erie.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Democratic Congressman John Dingell will introduce legislation this week that would require electric companies to follow mandatory standards. This bill would be separate from the larger energy bill and only addresses the grid problems -- John.
KING: Lisa, any sense from Secretary Abraham or anyone else as to when they will have the answer? He says he wants to give this investigation time. Any sense of a timetable? SYLVESTER: He's not being pinned down on any specific timetable. What Secretary Abraham is saying is, this is something that will take weeks. And, in all likelihood, it could take months.
What they have to do is pore over a lot of data. And that is certainly going to take a while. And they don't want to come out prematurely and say they think they know what caused it and then it turns out to be something else -- John.
KING: Lisa Sylvester, live for us tonight in Washington, thank you.
And tonight's quote comes from those hearings on the blackout. "To all opponents of electricity legislation, I hate to say, I told you so, but, well, I told you so." That is from Congressman Billy Tauzin, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Congressman Tauzin joins us now live.
Congressman, thank you for joining us.
I hope you heard that report. And you obviously heard Secretary Abraham today. He says they want to take some time. They don't know who's to blame just yet. Does that mean this could happen again today?
REP. BILLY TAUZIN (R), LOUISIANA: Well, it could happen in a number of parts of America.
Chicago is still very vulnerable. I pointed that out 2 1/2 years ago. And the grid is still weak in the Northeast. It is certainly weak in California, where Path 15 has not been solved. There's a surplus of energy in Northern California, a deficit of energy in Southern California. When that economy picks up again, they're going to have problems again.
So, yes, it can happen anywhere in the country. We even had brownouts in Louisiana a few years ago.
KING: And from what you know today, sir, is this a behavioral problem, somebody made a mistake or somebody violated some regulation? Or is this a technical problem that would take much longer to cure?
TAUZIN: Well, it's got a lot of facets, from what we know now.
The most important is that these transmission lines were not built to carry huge loads of electricity initially. They were designed to allow monopoly utility companies in various states to exchange electricity when they needed it. Now they're trunk lines carrying massive amounts of power to parts of the country that basically have grown demand, but have not grown their own power stations. So they've become literally overloaded with power. And, in many cases, the systems are not fully, if you will, as smart as they ought to be, in terms of managing that power.
Secondly, we know that the systems managers, the reliability councils, need mandatory authority to enforce standards of reliability on that system. Once these systems become interstate, you need a regional manager with power to say: You've got to upgrade them. You've got to fix them. You've got to modernize the system in order to be a part of the system. They can't really do that today until the legislation passes, which the House passed in April and the Senate just passed in July, that would give them that right.
KING: Well, sir, you say we need to deal with this. Some critics would say, then break out the electricity portion of the energy bill, because that bill gets stalled over things like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and things like that.
Why not? Why not break out the electricity section, say, this is an emergency we need to deal with now, and then come back and do the rest?
TAUZIN: Well, for several reasons.
One, all those reliability reforms are in the comprehensive bill. And you can't really sell the electricity problems, short-term or long-term, unless you deal with alternative energy, unless you deal with conservation, unless you deal with new incentives to make sure we have enough natural gas to power the plants that produce the electricity.
Electricity doesn't flow from the air. It doesn't come out of the wall. Somebody's got to turn something into electricity and deliver it to us over these long lines. So it's a comprehensive problem. It's not a simple problem, no. 2. No. 2, try to pass a bill quickly in the Senate. The Senate has no rules of (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Every senator can stop a bill anonymously. We've got the Senate now in a house in a conference. We're one vote away in the House and the Senate from a national energy bill. Why done that while we have the chance? It includes all the new reliability reforms that everyone wants to pass.
KING: Good luck to you on that front. Sir, I want to change gears just a bit. You're just back from Washington. One of the debates Congress is about to have is how much will the war effort in Iraq cost, should more U.S. troops be sent.
I want to get not just your sense but when you were home did you sense a change in public opinion?
Are your constituents getting more restless about this, more skeptical about this, more critical of the administration?
Give me your sense.
TAUZIN: Well, back in Louisiana people are enormously supportive of the president and the administration and our defense forces and their efforts around the world to fight terrorism. But I don't have to tell you there's a growing sense of concern about how it's going in Iraq and a growing sense of concern about our troops. The other side is that -- the other side of that is that you know, everyone knows that this fight is going to be long in Louisiana. We put more young men and women in uniform in the Persian gulf in the last war there than any other state in America on a per capita basis. So our folks understand this is a long fight, and if we don't fight them where they live we're going to fight them over here where we live. And I think they know we're in it for the long haul. But yes, there is a growing sense of concern about how well it's going.
KING: Congressman Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us tonight on the energy debate and on Iraq as well. Welcome back to Washington.
TAUZIN: Thank you, sir.
KING: And coming up, face-off.
Should more U.S. Troops be sent to Iraq?
Two leading experts will join us to share their radically different views on the issue.
And the "State of the States." Our special report continues tonight with Vermont and a governor who received pretty high marks from at least one of his constituents.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a very personable guy, a very good speaker. When you meet him and with him for a couple of minutes, you would think that you were his long-time friend. He's just a great guy.
KING: See and hear for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING: In tonight's "Face Off," should the United States send more troops to Iraq?
Terrorist attacks on U.S. troops and other targets continue, but the U.S. Armed Forces are stretched thin, meeting their global commitments. Former Lieutenant General Dan Christman is against deploying any more troops, but former diplomat James Dobbins believes the United States should reinforce Iraq if other countries do not provide sufficient forces.
Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us from Washington tonight.
General Christman, let me start with you, sir. You see these attacks, why not more troops?
LT. GEN. DAN CHRISTMAN (RET.), FMR. ASSIST. TO CHMN. JOINT CHIEFS: Well, I think first of all, I have enormous respect for Jim Dobbins and we agree I think on one central point. This is a critical turning point in this campaign. We have to succeed. I think we also agree on the notion that there needs to be more boots here on the ground. We differ, though, on the color and nationality of those boots. I don't think they should be U.S. boots. They need to be Iraqi boots. They need to very selectively be international boots. But there's a real concern in my mind about more U.S. forces there, in great part, John, because if we do this it seems to me it simply perpetuates this patina of American occupation. The generals in charge there, Abizaid and Sanchez in particular, very learned leaders do not want to go that way. They want to build up the Iraqi military. That should be our priority.
KING: But Jim Dobbins, I'll get to you in just a second, but General Christman, the generals on the ground say they do not need more troops, but they've also heard repeatedly their bosses at the Pentagon say they don't think more troops are necessary. You used to wear the uniform. Are you in a tough box there? You see the attacks coming, you know, sir, it will take months, whether it's bringing up an Iraqi army or bringing in more international troops.
How does that general on the ground deal with that?
CHRISTMAN: John, I think in the first instance it's a question of balancing risks. I differ in a sense with you. John Abizaid and Rick Sanchez, they are in agreement that more boots on the ground are needed. By inspection one agrees with that. We already have 30,000 Iraqi police, for example. There are 400 police in Najaf. Yes, it takes time. But it doesn't take years. And I think what we need to do now is intensify this training program with linguists and mentors. We know how to do this. There are very, very good special ops and light infantry personnel that can train the Iraqi military. That's where our focus ought to be, to get that element and also a very, very carefully selected international contingent. This development from the White House I think is most useful in terms of trying to secure a Security Council resolution that will allow some hopefully additional international contingents in Iraq.
KING: Jim Dobbins, what do you think of that?
JIM DOBBINS, FMR. U.S. SPEC. ENVOY TO AFGHANISTAN: Well, you know, there's a debate in Washington against the background of a general agreement that we need more in Iraq, but a disagreement about what we need more of. Neo-conservatives are arguing we need more American troops. Neo-liberals are arguing we need more allied troops. The Pentagon has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) been arguing we need more Iraqi troops. And I guess my view is they may all be right, that given the dimensions of the problem we may need to move on all three fronts to mobilize an adequate force. I agree with General Christman that the priority ought to be getting more allies there and getting more Iraqis there. But that's not going to happen substantially or quickly enough in my judgment. And so we have to at least keep open the option of also sending more Americans, I'm afraid.
KING: Well, Jim Dobbins, to you first, and then General Christman. Is the fact we're even having this debate, about whether more troops are necessary, where they should come from, is that a fact a reflection of the fact that the Pentagon just misjudged what post- war Iraq would look like?
Jim Dobbins, you first.
DOBBINS: Well, I think the administration itself has admitted that its initial assessment was unduly optimistic. Now, this is not unprecedented. You'll remember that Bill Clinton said we'd be out of Bosnia in a year. Harry Truman thought we'd be out of Germany and Japan in a year. So this triumph of hope over expectation is not without precedent. That said, this was a pretty serious miscalculation. We lost some time. We lost some ground. And we're now having to make it up.
CHRISTMAN: John, I'd add two points to that. First of all, I agree with what Jim said. But I think what's giving the Pentagon pause, really, are two factors now. In terms of going to the Security Council and trying to elicit greater international support. Number one, the Pentagon very much wants to reconstitute and preserve a strategic reserve to ensure that if some contingency occurs, northeast Asia, southeast Asia, in Korea, whatever, that we have the forces that can do that. We have two thirds now of the combat elements of our army, for example, committed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Bosnia. That's a very, very overloaded situation given how tenuous some of these situations are internationally.
But second, John, I think what's really driving much of this is this concern about a return to a hollow army. I was a veteran of this period of the '70s when extended deployments, repeated deployments to the combat zone in southeast Asia led to the departure of young lieutenants and sergeants and we were in disastrous shape by the early 1970s. The hollow army was coined from that period. We cannot get there again. And although there are no major storm clouds yet, the Pentagon is most concerned that we not get there, and that's the risk it seems to me, if we shape the force in Iraq with significant numbers of additional U.S. troops.
KING: James Dobbins, you're a diplomat. Help me with this question. Both of you seem to agree you need to change the composition, the patina, as the general put it, of this force so it's not just Americans on the ground. Where are the Arab states?
You have a Muslim country right near the Arab world. If you had Saudi troops or Egyptian troops outside that mosque in Najaf, maybe the horrible tragedy of last week would not have happened. Why are they so reluctant to help here?
DOBBINS: Well, first of all, I would be cautious about bringing in troops from neighboring countries given the long-standing tensions in the region. I think we're better off looking for troops that come from some distance, from Morocco, for instance, or Pakistan or Indonesia or Malaysia. Or Egypt.
I do believe that an admixture of Arab-speaking Muslim troops would be helpful. They've been reluctant because they opposed the war, because this had too much the patina, as has been said, of an American rather than an international operation. And I think a security council resolution could change that.
KING: Gentlemen, I want to thank you both for joining us for face-off tonight. We need to end it there. General Dan Christman, diplomat James Dobbins. Thank you very much for your thoughts.
CHRISTMAN: Thanks, John.
DOBBINS: Pleasure.
KING: And a reminder now for you to vote in tonight's poll. Who needs to do more in Iraq? The United Nations, the United States, Iraqis, or France and Germany? Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll bring you the results a little later in the show.
And coming up -- an execution in Florida. Just a short time ago. Brian Cabell witnessed that execution, and has a live report next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Tonight we continue our series of special reports on the short list of states that have managed to stay out of financial crisis. Tonight, a state known for its liberal social policies and independent streak in Washington, Vermont. Peter Viles has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What do you suppose the finances look like in a little state that sends a socialist to Congress and elected Democrat Howard Dean, governor 5 times? Well, today Vermont has a Republican governor, a balanced budget, and money in the bank. The secret? Vermonters will tell you it's common sense at the state Capitol.
CORNEY REED, (RET) STATE TROOPER: They watch the pennies as you and I would our own money. They didn't go for big programs until they had the money to pay for them. They just didn't seem to spend the money before they had it.
VILES: Vermont is known for its dairy cows, Ben and Jerry's ice cream, and liberal social policies; Gay civil unions come to mind. But one of its strongest political traditions is fiscal responsibility.
ART WOOLF, VERMONT ECONOMY NEWSLETTER: Part of it, I think, you can attribute it to maybe Yankee frugality. I think implicitly most Vermonters and most people in the legislature, understand that there's a limit to how much you can tax, especially in a small state like Vermont, without having some significant impacts on the economy.
VILES: Vermont is not for everyone. Summers are short, taxes are high, 12th highest in the nation, including a controversial statewide property tax.
DAVE LARSEN, VERMONT EDUCATION COMMISSIONER: When we have maybe 96,000 children to educate, I think there's a certain element of logic and fairness in the concept of pooling the state's property wealth, if that's the way we're going to pay for education, to do so.
VILES: But schools are solid. Vermont kids score near the top in national reading tests, and the economy has held its own with a jobless rate of just 4.1 percent. Burton Snowboards is a global brand that chooses to have its headquarters in Vermont.
LAURENT POTDEVIN, PRES. BURTON SNOWBOARDS: We've got great relationship with, you know, different elements of the government, and they've been very helpful in a number of areas, you know, whether it's getting training for our manufacturing facility or whether it's been helping us with import regulations around some of the products that we've made.
VILES: Vermont attracts transplants, locals call them flatlanders, drawn to the state's quality of life.
JOSEPH HEALY, EDITOR, "VERMONT" MAGAZINE: Recreation is probably No. 1. Most people that I know, regardless of their age, hike, bike, camp, ski, fish, snow-shoe, snowboard, you name it. And I think that's the No. 1 attraction.
VILES: Another attraction, maybe the only state fair in America where you can see kids in tie-dyed t-shirts, a 1,000-pound pumpkin, and a demolition derby that features a tie-dyed car. Peter Viles, CNN, Essex Junction, Vermont.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: And joining us now for more on Vermont's fiscal success is its Governor, James Douglas. He joins us from Montpelier. Sir, thank you for joining us.
Success so far, but you're looking all the time for more sources of revenue and are now a Powerball member. Why the Lottery?
GOVERNOR JAMES DOUGLAS, (R) VERMONT: Well, we joined it because a lot of people were going out of state to buy their tickets, frankly. We're on the border of New Hampshire, and a lot of people go across the river, buy their Powerball tickets, and buy a lot of other things while they're there. So we thought we ought to join the pack and get people to buy their tickets in Vermont.
KING: Forgive me for putting it this way, sir, but we had the governor of Deleware on last night as well, a Democrat, she's had success, you've had success, a Republican, in Vermont. Is this a case where size matters? Smaller states, is it easier for them to deal when the economy goes south like this?
DOUGLAS: I think it has many advantages. Vermont's like one big family. We're a community. We care about each other. We want to make sure we understand the responsibilities of government and what we need to do to create open opportunity for the people of our state.
We have a strong commitment to fiscal integrity, as you've indicated. We also have a strong commitment to our environmental ethic. And by combining those traditions and commitments, we've been relatively successful.
KING: As you know, a former Vermont governor is in the news quite a bit these days, Howard Dean, a Democrat. You have at times praised his fiscal stewardship. Tell us a little bit about Howard Dean. Is he a fiscal conservative as he's trying to tell the American people now?
DOUGLAS: Well, I'll let the American people decide ultimately whether he's a liberal or conservative or what he is. But Vermonters traditionally in the legislature, in the executive branch, in the population at large, have had a strong commitment to fiscal restraint.
We're the only state in America, as you may know, that has no constitutional or other legal requirement for a balanced budget. But we feel we don't need it because of our tradition of thrift and responsibility. That's why we were able to end the year that ended on June 30 in the black, add some money to our rainy day reserves, and still meet the responsibilities of state government and also pass along a small portion of the federal tax cut to the low and middle- income taxpayers of our state.
So we've been able to be successful over time and you know, John, I'd like to think that the fellow who was state treasurer for the last eight years had something to do with it. That was me.
KING: You were of course that fellow. I'm interested, as Howard Dean has made it to the top of the pack of the Democratic field running for president, are you and your staff getting more calls from the White House political people, from other Republicans, trying to find avenues where perhaps they might be able to criticize Governor Dean, former Governor Dean?
DOUGLAS: We're getting a lot of questions from the national media. That's for sure. A lot of people asking about my predecessor, Governor Dean, and a lot of folks coming to Montpelier looking through the official records of his administration, that sort of thing.
But I'm really focused on what I can do for the people of Vermont. That's what my responsibility is. I came into office earlier this year and had a very ambitious agenda for our legislature. A massive jobs bill to create more opportunity for companies to access loan capital, tax incentives and credits for investors and companies to grow and expand in our state.
Very significant commitment to fiscal restraint. The state government growing by less than 1 percent in our general fund. So I really am focused on the responsibilities that I have as governor of our state, and I'll let the political situation take care of itself.
KING: Let me try, sir, just to get you on record, then, quickly. If Governor Dean wins the nomination and you go to the ballot box next November and you can vote for a home state ex-governor, Democrat Howard Dean or the Republican president of the United States, which lever will you pull?
DOUGLAS: Oh, we don't have levers. We mark our paper ballots in Vermont. But I support President Bush. I was a state campaign chairman here before. I think he's done a great job in providing leadership to our country. And I will certainly support him again.
KING: Governor James Douglas of Vermont. Thank you for your time tonight, sir. And returning now to one of our top stories, about 40 minutes ago anti-abortion activist Paul Hill became the first person in this country to be executed for killing a doctor who performed abortions. Hill said he felt no remorse for killing that Florida doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola nine years ago.
Brian Cabell witnessed hill's execution tonight. He joins us live now from Florida State Prison, where it took place -- Brian.
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, John.
It didn't take long at all. Six or seven minutes by my watch. He was declared dead at 6:08. No smiles as he lay there on the gurney.
And he had a final statement. It lasted about 30 or 40 seconds. I'll read you part of it. He said, "I want to thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving me from my sins, enabling me to persevere." He then went on to thank his family. He also said, "If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force. Do what you have to do to stop it. May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected." Those were his final words.
And then the medication, the chemicals were administered, three separate chemicals. Two doctors came in after about five or six minutes, and finally the second daughter -- doctor nodded. That was the word that finally, in fact, he was dead at 6:08 p.m. We were escorted out of the chamber and came back here about 15 minutes ago, John.
Demonstrations for a good part of the afternoon, but no more than 30 or 40, tops, and the rain scared a number of them away. There are still a few out there right now. But Paul Hill is dead -- John.
KING: Brian, as part of this debate many anti-abortion activists have criticized his conduct saying murdering, taking a life is not the way to advance the cause. Any of that outside the prison today? Are they protesting as well or making their case anyway?
CABELL: Some of them. But most of them were saying Paul Hill was right and to kill Paul Hill is absolutely wrong. But yes, there are many within the mainstream anti-abortion movements, you're right, who say what he did was absolutely wrong but they say doing what happened here just about 40 minutes ago was another wrong. So nobody wins in this case.
KING: Brian Cabell for us in Stark, Florida. Thank you, Brian.
And when we come back, we'll have the results of tonight's poll.
And Christine Romans will have the market.
And mom-and-pop investors may have been cheated out of billions of dollars by some of the biggest mutual funds in the business, according to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Bill Tucker has that report. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Coming up, stocks today made a strong move. Christine Romans will have all the latest on the markets and much more. All still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Now the results of tonight's poll. The question -- "Who do you think needs to do more in Iraq?" Thirty-eight percent of you said the United Nations; 29 percent of you said the United States; 28 percent said Iraqis; and 4 percent said France and Germany.
In Oklahoma today, former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers pleaded not guilty to criminal charges of violating the state's securities laws. Oklahoma's attorney general said false information in company documents led to millions of dollars in losses for investors and the state's pension funds invested in WorldCom. If convicted, Ebbers could face up to ten years in prison. The U.S. attorney has expressed concern that the Oklahoma charges could interfere with an ongoing federal investigation. Ebbers and the company itself have not been charged in federal court.
But five other former WorldCom executives are on our corporate crime scoreboard. Altogether 88 corporate executives have been charged since Enron's collapse. So far only one has been sent to jail.
Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced a $40 million settlement with Camp Canary Capital Partners. The hedge fund is accused of illegal trading with four of the country's largest mutual funds. According to Spitzer, those trades added up to billions of dollars in losses for investors.
On Wall Street today, stocks pushed the major averages to new highs for the year. Christine Romans has more on the rally -- Christine.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: John, a bullish day and a busy day. It was the busiest day since about mid-July, and the market internals were strong for a second day. Four hundred sixty stocks on the Big Board hit new 52-week highs. Only four new lows. And five stocks rose for every three that fell.
Now, many of the averages hit 14 and 17-month highs, as you pointed out, but look at the value line index. It measures 1700 stocks equally. It hit a record high today, and it's up 32 percent this year.
Meanwhile, sentiment remains bullish. More than 55 percent of the newsletter writers surveyed say they're optimistic. Only 18 percent are bearish. Now, that frustrates the bears, who say when so many people are bullish it's a sign the market's run is over. The bears, John, have been frustrated now for several months. They say rising bond yields and high valuations make stocks unattractive. But so far they have been wrong. And stocks have had a sensational six months. The Dow and Nasdaq up 20-plus percent. The Nasdaq up more than 40 percent over the past six months, John.
KING: Christine Romans, thank you.
And that's our show for tonight. Thanks for joining us. For all of use, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
California Debates Without Schwarzenegger; Former Minister Executed Today In Florida For Murdering Abortion Doctor, Bodyguard>
Aired September 3, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): At this hour, former Presbyterian minister who murdered an abortion doctor is scheduled to be executed in Florida. Brian Cabell is a witness at the execution and will have our report.
Help wanted, some new help for the United States in Iraq but a new report says the U.S. military is stretched too thin. Two military experts will debate whether the United States should send more troops.
In our corporate crime watch, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accuses big mutual funds of illegal trading. The cost to small investors could be billions of dollars. Bill Tucker will report.
And, ducking debate, Arnold Schwarzenegger skips the first debate in the California recall race drawing intense criticism from his rivals. Rusty Dornin will have a live report.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, September 3rd, sitting in for the vacationing Lou Dobbs, John King.
KING: Good evening.
The Bush White House today appealed to the United Nations for help in Iraq. It is a dramatic change of course for an administration that has repeatedly talked of only a limited U.N. role in post-war Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell and the White House insist this is an evolution of administration policy not an about face.
Dana Bash is at the White House to explain the administration's goals and reasons and Richard Roth is at the United Nations with both the public and behind-the-scenes reaction. We go first to the White House and Dana Bash - Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, as you said the White House and the State Department, Secretary of State Colin Powell took great pains today to say that the decision to go back to the U.N. is not a new policy, not a shift in policy but merely an extension of their already existing priority, which is to get a large multinational force into Iraq to assist U.S. forces there and also to assist with the cost. But, as you well know, there was been a reluctance to do so with a greater U.N. role but the problem has been over the last few months for this administration is that they have not been able to get some key allies who will contribute the most in troops and the most in money without a greater U.N. role, without a larger U.N. blessing, so that is exactly what the White House is now going to do.
Secretary of State Colin Powell today laid out some of what the key components of this U.S. resolution that he began shopping around today are and I'll go through some of them.
First of all it is to create a multinational force but it would be under the U.S. command and that force and that commander would actually file reports to the United Nations.
And in terms of the political structure here it would invite, not require but invite the Iraqi governing council to submit a plan a d a timeline for building a constitution and determining elections.
And also it would expand the U.N. role in reconstruction but the secretary was pretty vague in terms of the specifics of what the U.N. role would be exactly in that reconstruction.
But the administration did make clear in all of this that they have absolutely no intention of giving up the key U.S. role, the leadership role, in terms of the military component and the political component.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States will continue to play a dominant role, dominant political role through the work of Ambassador Bremer and his coalition colleagues and the dominant role because of the size of the U.S. force presence that is there and the leadership we are providing to the effort but a dominant role doesn't mean the only role.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: And the insistence on that dominant role might certainly be the rub here as the secretary and John Negroponte at the U.N. work the phones and work the key allies in order to get some compromise and get some language down that can actually be passed at the Security Council.
The secretary said that his initial conversations were quite positive and what they are hoping is to get this wrapped up before, John, the president goes up to the U.N. and that is going to be in three weeks - John.
KING: And, Dana, it's no secret that in the past there's been a bit of a tug of war, Secretary Powell much more open to diplomacy, much more open to a U.N. role than say Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Any sense at all as to whether there is still tension within the administration or is Secretary Rumsfeld so desperate for the help that he's willing now to come to the United Nations? BASH: Well, it's unclear exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld said to the president. He was actually here today in a private meeting with Mr. Bush but it was after a private meeting yesterday with Secretary Powell that the president authorized Secretary Powell to go ahead and push for this resolution at the U.N.
I talked to a senior administration official who was on, let's say on Secretary Powell's side earlier today who felt pretty confident in the fact that the policy of those who wanted to go forward, who wanted to have a more international effort through the United Nations seems to be, at this point at least, to be prevailing here at the White House - John.
KING: Dana Bash at the White House, thank you.
And a key question now is whether the Bush administration's proposed resolution satisfies key members of the Security Council. U.N. officials say they want a "meaningful resolution" and by that they mean one that gives the United Nations a significant role in post-war decision making. The United States, as Dana noted, hopes to have a consensus by the time President Bush speaks to the U.N. General Assembly later this month.
Richard Roth joins me now from the United Nations. Richard, what are they saying today?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, nobody is going to come down the hallway and say we told you so, especially in light of the gravity of the situation there, the United Nations bombing two weeks ago, but countries are likely to make the United States squirm a bit perhaps trying to raise the price of getting their support in sending troops and contributing billions of dollars in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Many of the countries, though, have not even seen the text of the resolution, which is going to certainly slow any formal comment. One U.N. diplomat said we'd like to see shared authority.
They certainly don't really enjoy reporting to a U.S. military commander under a multinational force in this resolution even if that commander and the U.S. reports to the Security Council. However, they recognize the coalition is still going to call the shots regarding military affairs but they'd like to see Iraqis get more power and soon.
(VIDEO GAP)
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Richard Roth joins me now from the United Nations.
Richard, what are they saying today?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, nobody is going to come down the hallway and say, we told you so, especially in light of the gravity of the situation there, the United Nations bombing two weeks ago. But countries are likely to make the United States squirm a bit, perhaps trying to raise the price of getting their support in sending troops and contributing billions of dollars in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Many of the countries, though, have not even seen the text of the resolution, which is going to certainly slow any formal comment. One U.N. diplomat said: We'd like to see shared authority.
They certainly don't really enjoy reporting to a U.S. military commander under a multinational force in this resolution, even if that commander in the U.S. reports to the Security Council. However, they recognize, the coalition is still going to call the shots regarding military affairs. But they'd like to see Iraqis get more power and soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMYR JONES PARRY, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: What Washington's going to have to give up and start changing in its approach is this idea that it will dictate what will happen on the ground in Iraq. It hasn't worked. And, furthermore, if it wants to attract valued partners and allies, it's going to have to share responsibility for the political strategy with them, possibly through the United Nations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The United States is believed to have shared the new resolution only with France and Britain. But it's certainly getting a lot of comment and feedback, Secretary Powell saying that the text is being revised as it gets ideas from other countries.
There's the British and U.S. ambassadors last week at a meeting following the bombing of the U.N. And there's the Russian ambassador, Sergey Lavrov. He also will be a tough obstacle to overcome. There he is smoking a cigarette, this despite a new U.N. ban on smoking. Those are some of the types of attitudes here that the United States will have to overcome. But no vote is going to happen this week. It's going to take several days at least -- John, back to you.
KING: Richard, it is cliche, but it is often said time heals all wounds. What is your sense? Do the Security Council members who fought so bitterly with the United States before the war, do they want to extract some blood here and drag this out or do they want to move on?
ROTH: They've seen a lot of blood shed in Iraq, and I think there's a lot of concern on the Security Council that it could spiral out of control, that they may indeed need to help out the United States here.
They would like to get a piece of some of the business action that main ensue in the reconstruction of Iraq. What do they say? Elephants never forget. I mean, there are no elephants in that large, august Security Council chamber. But I don't think the bruised feelings have healed. A lot of countries objected to the war. They still don't want to be seen as now backing it through any legitimacy of a resolution. But they want U.N. political cover.
KING: Richard Roth at the United Nations. Elephants in that room and a little unauthorized smoking as well. Thank you, Richard.
Now, the bargaining over the proposed U.N. resolution is already under way. And it is as much about dollars and cents as it is about diplomacy. France, Germany, and Russia were strong opponents of the war against Saddam Hussein. And their willingness to help secure Iraq now could depend on the role they get to play in Iraq's reconstruction.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With the United States asking the U.N. for help in the occupation of Iraq, the question is, why should the coalition of the unwilling, particularly Russia and France, suddenly be willing to help?
TOSHI YOSHIHARA, FLETCHER SCHOOL, TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Two driving interests behind French and Russian action in this case is geopolitical influence on the one hand and on the other hand economic gain.
PILGRIM: Back in April, Russia and France held a mini summit in St. Petersburg, even while combat still raged in Iraq, to talk about their roles after the war.
Because those permanent members opposed the war in the Security Council, some said the meeting smacked of opportunism. The United States and Britain did the fighting, and now others wanted a piece of the pie under the cover of U.N. participation.
GARY SCHMITT, PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY: President Putin has even made it perfectly clear that he intends to use the U.N.'s new role in Iraq, when it comes to pass, to leverage their old contracts in Iraq. So I do think both Paris and Moscow have hopes that, with the U.N., with a new U.N. mandate, that they'll be able to use their position in the U.N. to renew old ties in Iraq.
PILGRIM: Both Russia and France made money even when Saddam Hussein was in power on the oil-for-food contracts under U.N. sanctions. And both countries had oil exploration and development deals in the works with Saddam Hussein's regime. France's mammoth oil company, Total Fina Elf, snagged a deal to exploit a 20-billion-barrel oil field in southern Iraq.
Russia's LUKoil has been trying to hang on to its $6.5 billion deal it signed in 1997 with Baghdad. Iraq also owes Russia $8 billion in arms sales from the 1980s.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, for this reason, some foresee considerable hard bargaining, as the language and the detail of the new U.N. resolution is worked out. Countries may be working at cross-purposes, some seeking to leverage their advantage and others asking for international generosity in helping Iraq become stable and rebuild -- John.
KING: Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
Now, the United States hopes a U.N. resolution will make it possible for many more countries to send peacekeeping troops into Iraq. Some troops could conceivably come from Security Council members like France, Germany, and Russia. But, so far, the countries that have expressed the most interest, especially if the United Nations gives its blessing, include Turkey, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.
Now, a Polish-led division today took over responsibility for security in part of central Iraq from U.S. Marines. The United States, with 139,000 troops in Iraq, provides the overwhelming number of forces. Its coalition partner, Great Britain, has about 11,000 troops, most of them in southern Iraq. Another 30 countries are sending troops to Iraq, but only 10,000 have arrived so far.
A new congressional report highlights a major reason the administration is now urgently appealing for international help. The Congressional Budget Office says the military can sustain the current U.S. force level in Iraq only until next March.
Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has that story -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, the second-guessing and "I told you so's" are creating a crescendo of criticism both inside and outside the building.
Let's start with Tom White, the Army secretary, fired by Secretary Rumsfeld in April. He calls the reconstruction of Iraq haphazard, writing in a new book -- quote -- "It is quite clear the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate." And he said it ignored the harsh realities on the ground. The U.S. hopes that, by bringing in United Nations troops, it can lessen the burden on U.S. forces and put a multinational face on the reconstruction effort.
Some argue that bringing the U.N. in, though, could make things worse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I don't know of anybody who thinks that the U.N. is going to solve all of the challenging problems that we're confronting now and the Iraqi people are confronting at the moment. The question is, will it in fact help or quite possibly will it make matters worse? And a lot depends, I think, on the details of the mandate now being negotiated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: But others, including many in Congress, argue the tradeoff is worth it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: American taxpayers have footed the bill for the war on terror almost single-handedly so far. And it's time now for other countries to step up to the plate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: In fact, the ability to maintain the current troop levels is questioned by a Congressional Budget Office analysis, which concludes the active Army would be unable to sustain an occupation force at the present size beyond March 2004, if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief.
A classified report done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff faults the planning process, including, the Pentagon waited too long to get organized and that, as a result, plans for the postwar were rushed and inadequate. And Pentagon sources tell CNN that a separate plan calling for 200,000 troops to maintain security after the war was rejected as politically unacceptable -- John.
KING: Jamie, politically unacceptable, and yet, since the war, we have heard Don Rumsfeld, the secretary, and others say repeatedly, they would send more troops if the generals asked for more troops. It seems to be this report you're talking about that the generals have received strong hints they better not ask for more troops.
MCINTYRE: Well, the -- clearly, Don Rumsfeld believes that the fewer number of troops involved, the better, both in the military action and also in the rebuilding effort. And he stubbornly insists that they don't need more U.S. troops on the ground there now. And the commanders are backing him up, at least in public.
KING: Jamie McIntyre, at the Pentagon, thank you very much.
And in our "Face-Off" tonight: Should more U.S. troops go to Iraq? We will debate this quite controversial question with former Lieutenant General Dan Christman and RAND analyst James Dobbins, a former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan.
And that brings us to tonight's poll question: Who do you think needs to do more in Iraq, the United Nations, the United States, the Iraqi people themselves, or France and Germany? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll bring you the results a bit later in the show.
Now the final results of yesterday's poll question. We asked you: What makes you feel safer? Six percent of you said the Department of Homeland Security; 13 percent said air marshals; 1 percent said that color-coded terror threat level system. And 80 percent said none of the above.
Coming up: an execution in Florida just a short time ago that has captured the nation's attention. Brian Cabell will have a live report. Then: behind the blackout. Congress investigates how it happened. Congressman Billy Tauzin of Louisiana is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and he will join us.
And, while candidates in California's recall race prepare to spar over the issues, one high-profile candidate was left with egg on his shoulder.
Rusty Dornin will have that in a live report up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Coming up: The face of the American population is changing, more dramatically in some states. Which ones have the highest proportion of foreign-born residents?
Up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: This news just in to CNN from Starke, Florida: Convicted murderer and anti-abortion activist Paul Hill has been executed. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection for killing a Florida doctor who performed abortions and that doctor's bodyguard nine years ago.
Earlier today, Hill told reporters he felt no remorse and expected a -- quote -- "great reward in heaven."
CNN's Brian Cabell witnessed hill's execution in Florida state prison. He will join us live shortly.
And late news tonight about media ownership in this country: A federal appeals court has blocked the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its controversial new rules on media ownership. The rules, which would allow media companies to own more outlets in a single market, were slated to take effect tomorrow. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay while it considers a lawsuit filed by a media activist group trying to block those rules permanently. The FCC, so far, has no comment on that ruling.
In California, the major candidates for governor, except perhaps the best-known candidate, are preparing tonight for their first debate. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to skip the debate and instead hold a news conference, which he did a couple of hours ago.
Rusty Dornin is live for us in Walnut Creek, California, and has the latest -- Rusty?
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, Governor Gray Davis just arrived, just stepped out of his car here in Walnut Creek at the Lesher Center for the debate today.
Also, to greet him were about 50 people here who are against the recall, the recall of Governor Gray Davis. The format here will be that Governor Gray Davis will take the stage by himself for about a half-hour. Apparently, the governor did insist upon being alone, not having the other candidates on the stage with him. He will take questions from three journalists and five people who submitted questions on the Internet. That'll be for a half-hour.
And then, for 90 minutes, questions will be put to five of the leading candidates. They are Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat, two Republicans, Peter Ueberroth and Tom McClintock, the independent Arianna Huffington, and the Green Party candidate, Peter Camejo. Now, of course, not on the dais will be Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said no to all of the debates except for one, where the questions will be given to the candidates.
However, it looks like Schwarzenegger's campaign launched an offensive today by sending a letter to the California Broadcasting Association asking them not to submit the questions to the candidates, to keep them a secret. Apparently, the Broadcasters Association is saying: We're not going to do that. We are not going to submit to what the candidates want.
But that's the reason that Schwarzenegger was under fire, because he was only going to come to one -- is only going to come to one debate, where he already will know those questions. Meantime, Schwarzenegger was at Long Beach State University today, where, upon entering for his speech, someone through an egg which glanced his shoulder. He gave a few comments about it as he got on stage.
However, this is the very first official political speech that Schwarzenegger has given since this campaign began -- John.
KING: Rusty Dornin, live for us in Walnut Creek, California, enjoy the debate, minus Arnold.
And you notice, the person who threw the egg was behind Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Now, one of his main campaign themes he continues to stress, his Austrian roots and his subsequent rise to fame as an immigrant to this country. That strategy could possibly work to his advantage. A U.S. census survey released today shows 33 million residents in this country are foreign-born. California ranked first, with 26 percent of its population born outside the United States. New York came in second, with more than 11 percent.
Texas and Florida rounded out the top four states, with about 10 percent of their populations -- residents -- excuse me -- foreign- born.
Now, coming up: shedding light on what went wrong. Congress investigates the blackout. Congressman Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will join us.
Also ahead, New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer's campaign against corporate crime puts four of this country's biggest mutual fund companies on notice. Bill Tucker has that report.
And a killer and a former minister put to death in Florida. Brian Cabell joins us live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Almost three weeks to the day after the worst blackout in American history, a congressional committee today held a hearing on what went wrong.
Lisa Sylvester has that report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than two weeks after the lights went off, leaving 50 million people in the dark, the Department of Energy has not pinpointed the exact cause.
SPENCER ABRAHAM, ENERGY SECRETARY: We are gathering information on about 10,000 individual events that happened across thousands of square miles in the space of about nine seconds.
SYLVESTER: The nation's worst blackout is believed to have started in the Midwest, knocking out electricity as far away as Canada and New York. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are looking to minimize the chance of another blackout by imposing mandatory reliability standards on electricity companies and adding incentives for investment in new transmission lines.
The power lines in many parts of the country are overburdened. Energy companies have been reluctant to build new lines, not a very profitable side of the business. Republicans say the blackout only highlights the need to pass comprehensive energy legislation.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS (R), ILLINOIS: For those who will claim to take it, an isolated aspect of energy, it is just like putting a Band- Aid on a problem. And that's why it's so critical to have a national energy policy.
SYLVESTER: But some Democrats worry, Republicans are trying to capitalize on the blackout to push through controversial provisions in the broad energy bill, including drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge.
REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We should stop searching in Alaska for solutions to the blackout. The problem is not in Alaska. It is in Ohio. The solutions won't be found above the Arctic Circle, but below Lake Erie.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Democratic Congressman John Dingell will introduce legislation this week that would require electric companies to follow mandatory standards. This bill would be separate from the larger energy bill and only addresses the grid problems -- John.
KING: Lisa, any sense from Secretary Abraham or anyone else as to when they will have the answer? He says he wants to give this investigation time. Any sense of a timetable? SYLVESTER: He's not being pinned down on any specific timetable. What Secretary Abraham is saying is, this is something that will take weeks. And, in all likelihood, it could take months.
What they have to do is pore over a lot of data. And that is certainly going to take a while. And they don't want to come out prematurely and say they think they know what caused it and then it turns out to be something else -- John.
KING: Lisa Sylvester, live for us tonight in Washington, thank you.
And tonight's quote comes from those hearings on the blackout. "To all opponents of electricity legislation, I hate to say, I told you so, but, well, I told you so." That is from Congressman Billy Tauzin, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Congressman Tauzin joins us now live.
Congressman, thank you for joining us.
I hope you heard that report. And you obviously heard Secretary Abraham today. He says they want to take some time. They don't know who's to blame just yet. Does that mean this could happen again today?
REP. BILLY TAUZIN (R), LOUISIANA: Well, it could happen in a number of parts of America.
Chicago is still very vulnerable. I pointed that out 2 1/2 years ago. And the grid is still weak in the Northeast. It is certainly weak in California, where Path 15 has not been solved. There's a surplus of energy in Northern California, a deficit of energy in Southern California. When that economy picks up again, they're going to have problems again.
So, yes, it can happen anywhere in the country. We even had brownouts in Louisiana a few years ago.
KING: And from what you know today, sir, is this a behavioral problem, somebody made a mistake or somebody violated some regulation? Or is this a technical problem that would take much longer to cure?
TAUZIN: Well, it's got a lot of facets, from what we know now.
The most important is that these transmission lines were not built to carry huge loads of electricity initially. They were designed to allow monopoly utility companies in various states to exchange electricity when they needed it. Now they're trunk lines carrying massive amounts of power to parts of the country that basically have grown demand, but have not grown their own power stations. So they've become literally overloaded with power. And, in many cases, the systems are not fully, if you will, as smart as they ought to be, in terms of managing that power.
Secondly, we know that the systems managers, the reliability councils, need mandatory authority to enforce standards of reliability on that system. Once these systems become interstate, you need a regional manager with power to say: You've got to upgrade them. You've got to fix them. You've got to modernize the system in order to be a part of the system. They can't really do that today until the legislation passes, which the House passed in April and the Senate just passed in July, that would give them that right.
KING: Well, sir, you say we need to deal with this. Some critics would say, then break out the electricity portion of the energy bill, because that bill gets stalled over things like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and things like that.
Why not? Why not break out the electricity section, say, this is an emergency we need to deal with now, and then come back and do the rest?
TAUZIN: Well, for several reasons.
One, all those reliability reforms are in the comprehensive bill. And you can't really sell the electricity problems, short-term or long-term, unless you deal with alternative energy, unless you deal with conservation, unless you deal with new incentives to make sure we have enough natural gas to power the plants that produce the electricity.
Electricity doesn't flow from the air. It doesn't come out of the wall. Somebody's got to turn something into electricity and deliver it to us over these long lines. So it's a comprehensive problem. It's not a simple problem, no. 2. No. 2, try to pass a bill quickly in the Senate. The Senate has no rules of (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Every senator can stop a bill anonymously. We've got the Senate now in a house in a conference. We're one vote away in the House and the Senate from a national energy bill. Why done that while we have the chance? It includes all the new reliability reforms that everyone wants to pass.
KING: Good luck to you on that front. Sir, I want to change gears just a bit. You're just back from Washington. One of the debates Congress is about to have is how much will the war effort in Iraq cost, should more U.S. troops be sent.
I want to get not just your sense but when you were home did you sense a change in public opinion?
Are your constituents getting more restless about this, more skeptical about this, more critical of the administration?
Give me your sense.
TAUZIN: Well, back in Louisiana people are enormously supportive of the president and the administration and our defense forces and their efforts around the world to fight terrorism. But I don't have to tell you there's a growing sense of concern about how it's going in Iraq and a growing sense of concern about our troops. The other side is that -- the other side of that is that you know, everyone knows that this fight is going to be long in Louisiana. We put more young men and women in uniform in the Persian gulf in the last war there than any other state in America on a per capita basis. So our folks understand this is a long fight, and if we don't fight them where they live we're going to fight them over here where we live. And I think they know we're in it for the long haul. But yes, there is a growing sense of concern about how well it's going.
KING: Congressman Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us tonight on the energy debate and on Iraq as well. Welcome back to Washington.
TAUZIN: Thank you, sir.
KING: And coming up, face-off.
Should more U.S. Troops be sent to Iraq?
Two leading experts will join us to share their radically different views on the issue.
And the "State of the States." Our special report continues tonight with Vermont and a governor who received pretty high marks from at least one of his constituents.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a very personable guy, a very good speaker. When you meet him and with him for a couple of minutes, you would think that you were his long-time friend. He's just a great guy.
KING: See and hear for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING: In tonight's "Face Off," should the United States send more troops to Iraq?
Terrorist attacks on U.S. troops and other targets continue, but the U.S. Armed Forces are stretched thin, meeting their global commitments. Former Lieutenant General Dan Christman is against deploying any more troops, but former diplomat James Dobbins believes the United States should reinforce Iraq if other countries do not provide sufficient forces.
Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us from Washington tonight.
General Christman, let me start with you, sir. You see these attacks, why not more troops?
LT. GEN. DAN CHRISTMAN (RET.), FMR. ASSIST. TO CHMN. JOINT CHIEFS: Well, I think first of all, I have enormous respect for Jim Dobbins and we agree I think on one central point. This is a critical turning point in this campaign. We have to succeed. I think we also agree on the notion that there needs to be more boots here on the ground. We differ, though, on the color and nationality of those boots. I don't think they should be U.S. boots. They need to be Iraqi boots. They need to very selectively be international boots. But there's a real concern in my mind about more U.S. forces there, in great part, John, because if we do this it seems to me it simply perpetuates this patina of American occupation. The generals in charge there, Abizaid and Sanchez in particular, very learned leaders do not want to go that way. They want to build up the Iraqi military. That should be our priority.
KING: But Jim Dobbins, I'll get to you in just a second, but General Christman, the generals on the ground say they do not need more troops, but they've also heard repeatedly their bosses at the Pentagon say they don't think more troops are necessary. You used to wear the uniform. Are you in a tough box there? You see the attacks coming, you know, sir, it will take months, whether it's bringing up an Iraqi army or bringing in more international troops.
How does that general on the ground deal with that?
CHRISTMAN: John, I think in the first instance it's a question of balancing risks. I differ in a sense with you. John Abizaid and Rick Sanchez, they are in agreement that more boots on the ground are needed. By inspection one agrees with that. We already have 30,000 Iraqi police, for example. There are 400 police in Najaf. Yes, it takes time. But it doesn't take years. And I think what we need to do now is intensify this training program with linguists and mentors. We know how to do this. There are very, very good special ops and light infantry personnel that can train the Iraqi military. That's where our focus ought to be, to get that element and also a very, very carefully selected international contingent. This development from the White House I think is most useful in terms of trying to secure a Security Council resolution that will allow some hopefully additional international contingents in Iraq.
KING: Jim Dobbins, what do you think of that?
JIM DOBBINS, FMR. U.S. SPEC. ENVOY TO AFGHANISTAN: Well, you know, there's a debate in Washington against the background of a general agreement that we need more in Iraq, but a disagreement about what we need more of. Neo-conservatives are arguing we need more American troops. Neo-liberals are arguing we need more allied troops. The Pentagon has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) been arguing we need more Iraqi troops. And I guess my view is they may all be right, that given the dimensions of the problem we may need to move on all three fronts to mobilize an adequate force. I agree with General Christman that the priority ought to be getting more allies there and getting more Iraqis there. But that's not going to happen substantially or quickly enough in my judgment. And so we have to at least keep open the option of also sending more Americans, I'm afraid.
KING: Well, Jim Dobbins, to you first, and then General Christman. Is the fact we're even having this debate, about whether more troops are necessary, where they should come from, is that a fact a reflection of the fact that the Pentagon just misjudged what post- war Iraq would look like?
Jim Dobbins, you first.
DOBBINS: Well, I think the administration itself has admitted that its initial assessment was unduly optimistic. Now, this is not unprecedented. You'll remember that Bill Clinton said we'd be out of Bosnia in a year. Harry Truman thought we'd be out of Germany and Japan in a year. So this triumph of hope over expectation is not without precedent. That said, this was a pretty serious miscalculation. We lost some time. We lost some ground. And we're now having to make it up.
CHRISTMAN: John, I'd add two points to that. First of all, I agree with what Jim said. But I think what's giving the Pentagon pause, really, are two factors now. In terms of going to the Security Council and trying to elicit greater international support. Number one, the Pentagon very much wants to reconstitute and preserve a strategic reserve to ensure that if some contingency occurs, northeast Asia, southeast Asia, in Korea, whatever, that we have the forces that can do that. We have two thirds now of the combat elements of our army, for example, committed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Bosnia. That's a very, very overloaded situation given how tenuous some of these situations are internationally.
But second, John, I think what's really driving much of this is this concern about a return to a hollow army. I was a veteran of this period of the '70s when extended deployments, repeated deployments to the combat zone in southeast Asia led to the departure of young lieutenants and sergeants and we were in disastrous shape by the early 1970s. The hollow army was coined from that period. We cannot get there again. And although there are no major storm clouds yet, the Pentagon is most concerned that we not get there, and that's the risk it seems to me, if we shape the force in Iraq with significant numbers of additional U.S. troops.
KING: James Dobbins, you're a diplomat. Help me with this question. Both of you seem to agree you need to change the composition, the patina, as the general put it, of this force so it's not just Americans on the ground. Where are the Arab states?
You have a Muslim country right near the Arab world. If you had Saudi troops or Egyptian troops outside that mosque in Najaf, maybe the horrible tragedy of last week would not have happened. Why are they so reluctant to help here?
DOBBINS: Well, first of all, I would be cautious about bringing in troops from neighboring countries given the long-standing tensions in the region. I think we're better off looking for troops that come from some distance, from Morocco, for instance, or Pakistan or Indonesia or Malaysia. Or Egypt.
I do believe that an admixture of Arab-speaking Muslim troops would be helpful. They've been reluctant because they opposed the war, because this had too much the patina, as has been said, of an American rather than an international operation. And I think a security council resolution could change that.
KING: Gentlemen, I want to thank you both for joining us for face-off tonight. We need to end it there. General Dan Christman, diplomat James Dobbins. Thank you very much for your thoughts.
CHRISTMAN: Thanks, John.
DOBBINS: Pleasure.
KING: And a reminder now for you to vote in tonight's poll. Who needs to do more in Iraq? The United Nations, the United States, Iraqis, or France and Germany? Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll bring you the results a little later in the show.
And coming up -- an execution in Florida. Just a short time ago. Brian Cabell witnessed that execution, and has a live report next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Tonight we continue our series of special reports on the short list of states that have managed to stay out of financial crisis. Tonight, a state known for its liberal social policies and independent streak in Washington, Vermont. Peter Viles has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What do you suppose the finances look like in a little state that sends a socialist to Congress and elected Democrat Howard Dean, governor 5 times? Well, today Vermont has a Republican governor, a balanced budget, and money in the bank. The secret? Vermonters will tell you it's common sense at the state Capitol.
CORNEY REED, (RET) STATE TROOPER: They watch the pennies as you and I would our own money. They didn't go for big programs until they had the money to pay for them. They just didn't seem to spend the money before they had it.
VILES: Vermont is known for its dairy cows, Ben and Jerry's ice cream, and liberal social policies; Gay civil unions come to mind. But one of its strongest political traditions is fiscal responsibility.
ART WOOLF, VERMONT ECONOMY NEWSLETTER: Part of it, I think, you can attribute it to maybe Yankee frugality. I think implicitly most Vermonters and most people in the legislature, understand that there's a limit to how much you can tax, especially in a small state like Vermont, without having some significant impacts on the economy.
VILES: Vermont is not for everyone. Summers are short, taxes are high, 12th highest in the nation, including a controversial statewide property tax.
DAVE LARSEN, VERMONT EDUCATION COMMISSIONER: When we have maybe 96,000 children to educate, I think there's a certain element of logic and fairness in the concept of pooling the state's property wealth, if that's the way we're going to pay for education, to do so.
VILES: But schools are solid. Vermont kids score near the top in national reading tests, and the economy has held its own with a jobless rate of just 4.1 percent. Burton Snowboards is a global brand that chooses to have its headquarters in Vermont.
LAURENT POTDEVIN, PRES. BURTON SNOWBOARDS: We've got great relationship with, you know, different elements of the government, and they've been very helpful in a number of areas, you know, whether it's getting training for our manufacturing facility or whether it's been helping us with import regulations around some of the products that we've made.
VILES: Vermont attracts transplants, locals call them flatlanders, drawn to the state's quality of life.
JOSEPH HEALY, EDITOR, "VERMONT" MAGAZINE: Recreation is probably No. 1. Most people that I know, regardless of their age, hike, bike, camp, ski, fish, snow-shoe, snowboard, you name it. And I think that's the No. 1 attraction.
VILES: Another attraction, maybe the only state fair in America where you can see kids in tie-dyed t-shirts, a 1,000-pound pumpkin, and a demolition derby that features a tie-dyed car. Peter Viles, CNN, Essex Junction, Vermont.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: And joining us now for more on Vermont's fiscal success is its Governor, James Douglas. He joins us from Montpelier. Sir, thank you for joining us.
Success so far, but you're looking all the time for more sources of revenue and are now a Powerball member. Why the Lottery?
GOVERNOR JAMES DOUGLAS, (R) VERMONT: Well, we joined it because a lot of people were going out of state to buy their tickets, frankly. We're on the border of New Hampshire, and a lot of people go across the river, buy their Powerball tickets, and buy a lot of other things while they're there. So we thought we ought to join the pack and get people to buy their tickets in Vermont.
KING: Forgive me for putting it this way, sir, but we had the governor of Deleware on last night as well, a Democrat, she's had success, you've had success, a Republican, in Vermont. Is this a case where size matters? Smaller states, is it easier for them to deal when the economy goes south like this?
DOUGLAS: I think it has many advantages. Vermont's like one big family. We're a community. We care about each other. We want to make sure we understand the responsibilities of government and what we need to do to create open opportunity for the people of our state.
We have a strong commitment to fiscal integrity, as you've indicated. We also have a strong commitment to our environmental ethic. And by combining those traditions and commitments, we've been relatively successful.
KING: As you know, a former Vermont governor is in the news quite a bit these days, Howard Dean, a Democrat. You have at times praised his fiscal stewardship. Tell us a little bit about Howard Dean. Is he a fiscal conservative as he's trying to tell the American people now?
DOUGLAS: Well, I'll let the American people decide ultimately whether he's a liberal or conservative or what he is. But Vermonters traditionally in the legislature, in the executive branch, in the population at large, have had a strong commitment to fiscal restraint.
We're the only state in America, as you may know, that has no constitutional or other legal requirement for a balanced budget. But we feel we don't need it because of our tradition of thrift and responsibility. That's why we were able to end the year that ended on June 30 in the black, add some money to our rainy day reserves, and still meet the responsibilities of state government and also pass along a small portion of the federal tax cut to the low and middle- income taxpayers of our state.
So we've been able to be successful over time and you know, John, I'd like to think that the fellow who was state treasurer for the last eight years had something to do with it. That was me.
KING: You were of course that fellow. I'm interested, as Howard Dean has made it to the top of the pack of the Democratic field running for president, are you and your staff getting more calls from the White House political people, from other Republicans, trying to find avenues where perhaps they might be able to criticize Governor Dean, former Governor Dean?
DOUGLAS: We're getting a lot of questions from the national media. That's for sure. A lot of people asking about my predecessor, Governor Dean, and a lot of folks coming to Montpelier looking through the official records of his administration, that sort of thing.
But I'm really focused on what I can do for the people of Vermont. That's what my responsibility is. I came into office earlier this year and had a very ambitious agenda for our legislature. A massive jobs bill to create more opportunity for companies to access loan capital, tax incentives and credits for investors and companies to grow and expand in our state.
Very significant commitment to fiscal restraint. The state government growing by less than 1 percent in our general fund. So I really am focused on the responsibilities that I have as governor of our state, and I'll let the political situation take care of itself.
KING: Let me try, sir, just to get you on record, then, quickly. If Governor Dean wins the nomination and you go to the ballot box next November and you can vote for a home state ex-governor, Democrat Howard Dean or the Republican president of the United States, which lever will you pull?
DOUGLAS: Oh, we don't have levers. We mark our paper ballots in Vermont. But I support President Bush. I was a state campaign chairman here before. I think he's done a great job in providing leadership to our country. And I will certainly support him again.
KING: Governor James Douglas of Vermont. Thank you for your time tonight, sir. And returning now to one of our top stories, about 40 minutes ago anti-abortion activist Paul Hill became the first person in this country to be executed for killing a doctor who performed abortions. Hill said he felt no remorse for killing that Florida doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola nine years ago.
Brian Cabell witnessed hill's execution tonight. He joins us live now from Florida State Prison, where it took place -- Brian.
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, John.
It didn't take long at all. Six or seven minutes by my watch. He was declared dead at 6:08. No smiles as he lay there on the gurney.
And he had a final statement. It lasted about 30 or 40 seconds. I'll read you part of it. He said, "I want to thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving me from my sins, enabling me to persevere." He then went on to thank his family. He also said, "If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force. Do what you have to do to stop it. May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected." Those were his final words.
And then the medication, the chemicals were administered, three separate chemicals. Two doctors came in after about five or six minutes, and finally the second daughter -- doctor nodded. That was the word that finally, in fact, he was dead at 6:08 p.m. We were escorted out of the chamber and came back here about 15 minutes ago, John.
Demonstrations for a good part of the afternoon, but no more than 30 or 40, tops, and the rain scared a number of them away. There are still a few out there right now. But Paul Hill is dead -- John.
KING: Brian, as part of this debate many anti-abortion activists have criticized his conduct saying murdering, taking a life is not the way to advance the cause. Any of that outside the prison today? Are they protesting as well or making their case anyway?
CABELL: Some of them. But most of them were saying Paul Hill was right and to kill Paul Hill is absolutely wrong. But yes, there are many within the mainstream anti-abortion movements, you're right, who say what he did was absolutely wrong but they say doing what happened here just about 40 minutes ago was another wrong. So nobody wins in this case.
KING: Brian Cabell for us in Stark, Florida. Thank you, Brian.
And when we come back, we'll have the results of tonight's poll.
And Christine Romans will have the market.
And mom-and-pop investors may have been cheated out of billions of dollars by some of the biggest mutual funds in the business, according to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Bill Tucker has that report. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Coming up, stocks today made a strong move. Christine Romans will have all the latest on the markets and much more. All still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Now the results of tonight's poll. The question -- "Who do you think needs to do more in Iraq?" Thirty-eight percent of you said the United Nations; 29 percent of you said the United States; 28 percent said Iraqis; and 4 percent said France and Germany.
In Oklahoma today, former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers pleaded not guilty to criminal charges of violating the state's securities laws. Oklahoma's attorney general said false information in company documents led to millions of dollars in losses for investors and the state's pension funds invested in WorldCom. If convicted, Ebbers could face up to ten years in prison. The U.S. attorney has expressed concern that the Oklahoma charges could interfere with an ongoing federal investigation. Ebbers and the company itself have not been charged in federal court.
But five other former WorldCom executives are on our corporate crime scoreboard. Altogether 88 corporate executives have been charged since Enron's collapse. So far only one has been sent to jail.
Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced a $40 million settlement with Camp Canary Capital Partners. The hedge fund is accused of illegal trading with four of the country's largest mutual funds. According to Spitzer, those trades added up to billions of dollars in losses for investors.
On Wall Street today, stocks pushed the major averages to new highs for the year. Christine Romans has more on the rally -- Christine.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: John, a bullish day and a busy day. It was the busiest day since about mid-July, and the market internals were strong for a second day. Four hundred sixty stocks on the Big Board hit new 52-week highs. Only four new lows. And five stocks rose for every three that fell.
Now, many of the averages hit 14 and 17-month highs, as you pointed out, but look at the value line index. It measures 1700 stocks equally. It hit a record high today, and it's up 32 percent this year.
Meanwhile, sentiment remains bullish. More than 55 percent of the newsletter writers surveyed say they're optimistic. Only 18 percent are bearish. Now, that frustrates the bears, who say when so many people are bullish it's a sign the market's run is over. The bears, John, have been frustrated now for several months. They say rising bond yields and high valuations make stocks unattractive. But so far they have been wrong. And stocks have had a sensational six months. The Dow and Nasdaq up 20-plus percent. The Nasdaq up more than 40 percent over the past six months, John.
KING: Christine Romans, thank you.
And that's our show for tonight. Thanks for joining us. For all of use, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
California Debates Without Schwarzenegger; Former Minister Executed Today In Florida For Murdering Abortion Doctor, Bodyguard>
