Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

China Diplomatic Partner or Strategic Competitor?; United States Says No Business Contracts For Opponents of Iraq War

Aired December 10, 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.


ANNOUNCER: Tonight, in "Broken Borders," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says millions of illegal aliens in this country should be given legal status. We'll be joined by two congressmen to discuss this critically important issue.
The Pentagon says only coalition partners can participate in the reconstruction of Iraq. Old Europe is angry and already threatening retaliation. Jim Bittermann reports from Paris.

In our special report "America Works," our celebration of the men and women who make this country work. Tonight, we introduce you to a garbage collector in Santa Ana, California.

In "Face-Off" tonight: Is China a diplomatic partner of the United States or a military threat? We'll be joined by two leading experts on China, its political economy and its strategic goals.

And "Exporting America": U.S. furniture-makers call for tough action to protect American jobs and assets from cheap Chinese imports. But China has some powerful allies in this country. Lisa Sylvester will have a special report.

This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, December 10. Here now, Lou Dobbs.

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening.

The White House tonight is standing firm in the face of mounting anger among a number of governments about the Pentagon's decision to restrict Iraqi reconstruction contracts to only coalition partners. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the decision is totally appropriate. McClellan said countries such as France and Germany could still participate in the reconstruction of Iraq, but only if they join the coalition.

Senior White House correspondent John King has the report -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, a diplomatic dust-up in some ways reminiscent of the bitter argument about going to war in Iraq in the first place.

This is the Pentagon memo that set it all off, written by the No. 2 man, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. It lays out the rules for getting nearly $20 billion in U.S. reconstruction contracts in Iraq, money to rebuild schools and bridges, the Iraqi oil industry. In it, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz says that money can go to 63 countries, all of them coalition allies, of course, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, other countries, including South Korea and Japan, Italy and Spain.

But deliberately left off by the Bush administration, those who most fiercely opposed the war in Iraq, France Russia, Germany, even Canada, which sent troops early into Afghanistan and is now promising reconstruction money in Iraq. At the White House, they say they always acknowledged there would be consequences for not joining President Bush in confronting Saddam Hussein.

But they prefer, Lou, instead of calling this retaliation, they like to say it's simply rewarding allies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are countries that have been with us from day one. These are countries that are contributing forces, that have been making sacrifices. And that's why this decision was made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now the White House says, France, Germany, Russia and others can still get contracts for reconstruction in Iraq from World Bank money or money pledged by other countries around world. And they could still get subcontracts from those companies hired by the United States.

But the White House says, Lou, from the very beginning, it said those who stood with President Bush in the war would be rewarded. And the White House says it believes the American people will support a decision to award these big, prime contracts, again, some $18.6 billion, only to countries that were willing to take military and political risks -- Lou.

DOBBS: John, thank you very much -- John King, our senior White House correspondent.

There was a swift and even angrier response in parts of Europe and Canada to the Pentagon's decision to restrict those contracts to coalition countries. Several officials described the decision as unacceptable. They warn about possible retaliation against the United States, in fact.

Jim Bittermann reports from Paris.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the French Foreign Ministry, they were studying the legality of Washington's latest unilateral decision. In Brussels, the European Commission was considering whether limiting competition on Iraq contracts is a violation of World Trade rules. But, in Berlin, study wasn't needed. The government called Germany's exclusion unacceptable. JOSCHKA FISCHER, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): From our side, all I can say is that we noted the reports today with astonishment and we will be speaking about it with the American side.

BITTERMANN: Moscow also used the word unacceptable and said Washington should not expect Russia to forgive Iraq's $8 billion debt.

SERGEI IVANOV, RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTER (through translator): As far as the Russian government's position on this, it is not planning any kind of write-off of that debt. Iraq is not a poor country.

BITTERMANN: And a Canadian official said, if his countrymen are being discriminated against because of their nationality, it's doubtful their aid will continue.

PAUL MARTIN, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER-ELECT: While Canada is putting close to $300 million in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq, we have troops in Afghanistan and are carrying a very, very heavy load in that country.

BITTERMANN: In some ways, the business community, especially those hoping to be involved in redeveloping Iraq's oil industry, have taken the news better than the politicians. They anticipated being excluded from contracts and planned ways to get around it through subcontractors or subsidiaries.

JEAN-PIERRE FAVENNEC, FRENCH PETROLEUM INSTITUTE: They could find ways to go into the system and be in Iraq and participate in the reconstruction, to get some subcontracts. But they cannot be in the forefront of the activity.

BITTERMANN (on camera): For months, Washington's diplomats have been stressing to countries like France that rebuilding Iraq is the whole world's business. Governments which opposed the war had been warming to that idea, but that mood has now changed. And even some in Washington had to admit that alienating noncoalition partners just now may not be all that productive.

Jim Bittermann, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: In Iraq, two more American soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division killed in combat in the northern city of Mosul. One was killed in a drive-by shooting, the other in a bombing on the side of the road. The military also says an Air Force C-17 transport plane was apparently hit by a surface-to-air missile just after takeoff from Baghdad International Airport. But it did manage to land safely.

Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reports -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, let's start with what the U.S. military is touting as a success.

There were more than 50 raids across Iraq today, netting more than 40 suspected Saddam Fedayeen fighters and other anti-U.S. fighters. CNN had exclusive access to one of the extensive raids in a town of Lutafiyah, where paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division and Iraqi police carried out Operation Panther Squeeze. There, they believe they captured the people behind an attack on Spanish forces last month, including a man identified as a cell leader named Abu Abdullah.

Among the 15 primary targets were also an Iraqi intelligence officer, a financier, and doctors who were said to have treated the insurgents. Yesterday, those insurgents appeared to fail to shoot down a U.S. C-17 cargo aircraft, the kind that routinely travel in and out of Baghdad. The plane was hit by what appeared to have been a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile taking off from the Baghdad Airport.

One of the C-17's engines was destroyed, but the four-engine aircraft was able to return safely. Only one of the 16 people on board was injured, but only slightly. In the northern city of Mosul, meanwhile, one soldier from the Army's 101st Airborne Division died, another was wounded, when gunmen fired on troops guarding a gasoline station.

A few hours later, guerrillas detonated a roadside bomb, opened fire on a U.S. convoy. They killed one soldier, wounded three others. And, Lou, since the U.S. invaded Iraq on March 20, now 451 Americans have died in Iraq, 310 from hostile fire -- Lou.

DOBBS: And more than 2,000 wounded as well.

Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.

An Army lieutenant colonel who fired a weapon near an Iraqi prisoner during interrogation is unlikely to be court-martialed. A military investigator has recommended that Lieutenant Colonel Allen West face simply administrative action. The commander of the 4th Infantry Division, General Ray Odierno, will make the final decision on punishment, if any. Lieutenant Colonel West's action forced the prisoner ultimately to give up information that helped prevent an attack against a military convoy.

Coming up next: "Exporting America" tonight -- two American industries hit hard by cheap foreign labor and imports. We'll be reporting on this country's devastating manufacturing industry and another American industry that has begun to fight back, with even a little help from, of all places, Washington, D.C.

And then our "Face-Off" tonight: China and the United States. Two leading experts face off on whether the United States should consider China a diplomatic partner or a strategic competitor.

And "America Works" -- tonight, a garbage collector from California carrying on a family tradition, as we celebrate work in America. Casey Wian will have his story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: "Exporting America" tonight. President Bush's meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao did little to settle rising trade tensions between the two countries. That's disappointing news for American manufacturers and their employees, who fear that a growing trade deficit will cost them their future.

Today, a group of labor leaders and lobbyists in Washington said, enough is enough.

Louise Schiavone reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Manufacturing jobs lost since employment's peak in March 2001 account for roughly 90 percent of all job losses.

ROBERT ATKINSON, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: Clearly, we're not going to restore 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. A lot of those jobs have been lost for good, partly for good reasons, productivity.

SCHIAVONE: In the past year alone, over half-a-million manufacturing jobs vanished. Among them, 55,000 jobs were lost in fabricated metal products. Apparel-makers lost 45,000. And the U.S. computer and electronics industry lost 89,000 jobs.

Some analysts argue that the U.S. shouldn't look behind to jobs of the last century, when the nation is well-positioned to lead the way in 21st century jobs, like software, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and financial services.

STEPHEN MOORE, PRESIDENT, CLUB FOR GROWTH: We're going to be picking up jobs, hopefully, in these knowledge-based industries that, by the way, tend to pay higher salaries than do working in a factory.

SCHIAVONE: But with an estimated three-quarters-of-a-million American jobs lost to overseas manufacturers and outsourcing in general since 2001, labor and business groups are not as optimistic.

BOB BAUGH, AFL INDUSTRIAL UNIONS COUNCIL: You said financial services. General Electric has 22,000 employees in India. Their entire financial services are over there. All the computer companies and call-in centers are moving overseas.

JIM SCHOLLAERT, AMERICAN MANUFACTURING TRADE ACTION COALITION: Many of our large corporations are responsible for moving their factories to China and selling their goods back into the USA. Unfortunately, our Fortune 500 seemed to have adopted a new business model. It's pay Chinese wages and charge U.S. prices. And that's killing the country. It can't continue.

SCHIAVONE: For the first nine months of this year, the United States' goods deficit with China was $89.7 billion. The overall U.S. goods deficit, $396.5 billion.

(END VIDEOTAPE) SCHIAVONE: Lou, while some producers believe that China has a lot to answer for, others producers believe U.S. tax policy could give them a lift. And that, along with extending unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, remains a task for next year's Congress -- Lou.

DOBBS: Which, if this keeps up, will be facing a number of tasks.

Louise Schiavone, thank you very much.

One manufacturing sector hit hard by the exportation of American jobs is the furniture industry. Over the past four years, almost 30 percent of American jobs in that industry have been shipped overseas. And like textile and television-makers, who successfully pressured the government to impose trade sanctions against Chinese competitors, furniture makers are now also asking for help.

Lisa Sylvester reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Furniture makers in North Carolina and Virginia have felt the pain of deep job cuts, getting the raw end of the deal on globalization; 27 manufacturers and five labor unions accuse the Chinese of illegal dumping, pricing the furniture well below production cost.

They have asked the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission to impose duties averaging 250 percent on Chinese bedroom furniture.

JOHN BASSETT, VAUGHAN-BASSETT FURNITURE: About half of all imports of bedroom furniture now comes from China. When it comes to imports of bedroom furniture, China is the 800-pound gorilla. No other country comes close.

SYLVESTER: Imports from China of household wood furniture -- that includes bedroom furniture -- climbed from $1.67 billion in 2000 to over $3 billion last year, an 81 percent increase. At the same time, U.S. domestic production fell, from $12.12 billion to $10.67 billion.

JOSEPH DORN, ATTORNEY, AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS: Furniture brands, for example, which has been closing plants left and right, has told Wall Street that its future is in Asia, not the United States. Petitioners, however, do not want to become merchandisers for the Chinese. They want to preserve their U.S. assets. They want to maintain their U.S. jobs.

SYLVESTER: Not all U.S. furniture manufacturers support the proposed tariffs. Some of the largest U.S. furniture companies, those importing Chinese furniture, are fighting the petition, along with retailers that include the Bombay Company, Crate and Barrel, J.C. Penney, Rhodes Furniture, and Rooms To Go. Retailers say the tariffs will increase prices for consumers. ERIK AUTOR, NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION: They're going to be paying at least $1,500 and as much as $4,500 more for a suite of bedroom furniture if this case is successful.

SYLVESTER: But for those in North Carolina and Virginia, the extra savings on furniture is not worth the price of their job.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: The Commerce Department has been polling the industry to decide if there's enough support for the tariffs and is expected to release its findings tomorrow -- Lou.

DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. We look forward to those findings.

SYLVESTER: Thank you.

DOBBS: Lisa Sylvester reporting from Washington.

Coming up next, we'll update our growing list of companies that are indeed exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, those names, of course, confirmed here by the staff of this broadcast.

And the Democratic presidential candidates square off in New Hampshire.

The Supreme Court makes a landmark ruling that could have a big impact on the election. Three of this country's leading political journalists join us next.

And Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says the million of illegal aliens in this country should be granted legal status. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Congressman Howard Berman of California join me to share their very different views on the matter.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The Supreme Court today upheld the main features of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. The ruling keeps in place the ban on unlimited soft-money donations, which critics say impede free speech.

For more now on how this may affect the elections, we turn to Ron Brownstein of "The Los Angeles Times." He remains on the campaign trail in Manchester, New Hampshire; from Washington tonight, Alexis Simendinger of "The National Journal," and Roger Simon of the "U.S. News & World Report" magazine.

Good to have you all here.

Let me start first with the decision to uphold -- the Supreme Court's decision to uphold McCain-Feingold. Does this amount to anything? Alexis, let me start with you.

ALEXIS SIMENDINGER, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": Well, of course, it's considered a landmark ruling.

One of the most important things about it, though, is that, while it's considered legal, the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, one of the interesting things that is in the ruling is that no legal decision that the Supreme Court makes is going to stop the flow of money. You can put dams in place, but the river is going to find another way to flow. And that's probably going to be the most interesting thing to watch after the law goes into effect after this election cycle's over.

DOBBS: Ron, does this benefit one party or the other?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, somewhat counterintuitively, the Republican Party has been advantaged by the end of soft money.

You think of the Republicans as the ones who would benefit most from these unlimited big-money contributions. But, really going back 30 years to the days of Bill Brock, Republicans have focused more on small donors. And they're very much outraising Democrats in hard money, what is still allowed. So, yes, this has provided a tactical advantage to Republicans, which is not something that I think most Democrats expected when they supported the bill.

DOBBS: Do you agree, Roger?

ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": I do.

The Democratic Party was a big supporter of campaign finance reform, both its candidates as an institution. And it found, as Ron just said, that it's on the short end of the stick now. This is forcing the parties to do what parties always claimed to be doing, which is going out to the grassroots and getting money from ordinary Americans.

On the other hand, as we have seen in campaigns like those of Howard Dean, there are plenty of Americans out there willing to make contributions to political campaigns. So there's a vast amount of untapped money that ordinary citizens are willing to put into this process.

DOBBS: Well, Howard Dean, you just mentioned, Roger. Someone eloquently referred to Dean as the pink elephant in the room last night in the debate.

Ron, since you're still up basking in -- we'll call it the aftermath, rather than the afterglow, of that debate, how did Howard Dean do?

BROWNSTEIN: Very little glow here today, Lou. Kind of an wintry day.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWNSTEIN: I think Howard Dean did fine.

I think one of the strategic or tactical lessons out of that debate was, no one really has developed a line of argument against Howard Dean that has a lot of traction here in New Hampshire. Dick Gephardt is going after Dean, as we've talked about, on a kind of lunch-bucket liberalism argument on trade, on entitlements, on Medicare, on Social Security in Iowa for a more blue-collar and more primary audience.

But up here in New Hampshire, where the Democratic primary electorate is more upscale, better educated, more moved by lifestyle liberalism issues, perhaps foreign policy, environment, social issues, no one really has developed a line of attack against Howard Dean. I thought he came out of the debate fine last night, even though the other candidates tried to turn against him this dramatic endorsement by Al Gore. I don't think they had much success with that.

DOBBS: Alexis, does that amount to an anointment? The presidential nomination of the Democratic Party is now Howard Dean's for sure?

SIMENDINGER: Well, he sure hopes so. And he engineered his day yesterday to hope that that was the case.

I think the rest of the candidates were right, though, in their underscoring that it's up to the voters. Clearly, among the elites in the Democratic Party, Howard Dean is trying to make sure that he's filling that gap for them and that the endorsement by Al Gore was supposed to put him on a stronger footing in that score.

But, in terms of the voters, I was just out in Iowa. I was working on a story with the Kerry campaign. And you could really underscore, at least from listening to them, their confidence that those supporters in other states outside of New Hampshire are giving their guys a chance.

DOBBS: Roger, Premiere Wen Jiabao meeting with President Bush, in the background, rising tensions in the Straits of Taiwan.

SIMON: Taiwan.

DOBBS: At the same time, not so distant and certainly not in the background, $130 billion likely trade deficit this year. How did the president do?

SIMON: Well, I think he did what he wanted to do, which was to indicate -- nothing is as nuanced as our Taiwan and China policy. It's even more nuanced than our Mideast policy, if we had a Mideast policy.

(LAUGHTER)

SIMON: Every word counts. Every comma between the words count. So, what the president did was to indicate to China that he was taking a stronger tone against the government of Taiwan and urging them, telling them, basically, not to hold a referendum on independence, because China won't tolerate it. That's an important signal that he sent.

DOBBS: Ron?

BROWNSTEIN: There's sort of a cycle here and sort of almost an inexorability to this. Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush, saying that he was too soft on China and then moved toward a much closer relationship with them, angering conservatives in 1998, when he reiterated the three no's, as you'll recall, during a trip to Shanghai.

Then George W. Bush comes and runs against Clinton, saying he had erred when he called China a strategic partner. He said they're a competitor. And then here we are, again, inevitably almost, as other interests in North Korea and other issues demand, or compel, he moves himself toward a policy closer to what the government of China wants to hear on the issue of Taiwan. I suspect that we're going to see a Democratic candidate in the next few days running against George W. Bush and saying he is being too soft on China.

In fact, they're already doing that on the trade issue.

DOBBS: OK.

Ron, thank you very much. Alexis, thank you. Roger, thank you very much. All three of you, look forward to seeing you next week.

SIMENDINGER: Thanks, Lou.

SIMON: Thank you.

DOBBS: Coming up next: "Broken Borders." Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says illegal aliens in this country should be granted some sort of legal status. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Congressman Howard Berman of California have very different views about the issue. They are our guests next.

And "Face-Off" -- tonight, two leading experts on China will debate whether the United States should consider China a diplomatic partner or strategic competitor.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: In "Broken Borders" tonight, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is calling for the legalization of millions of illegal aliens living in this country.

Speaking at a Dade County town hall meeting near Miami yesterday, Ridge said -- and we quote -- "The bottom line is, as a country, we have to come to grips with the presence of eight to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status, some way, but also, as a country, decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it."

Joining me now, two members of Congress who have outspoken views on the issue of immigration reform, Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. He chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, joining us tonight from Denver.

Good to have you with us, Congressman.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Congressman Howard Berman of California, a member of the International Relations Committee. In September, he co-authored a bill giving illegal aliens permanent residency, joining us tonight from Los Angeles.

Congressman, good to have you with us.

This statement by Tom Ridge coming something of a bolt from the blue, Congressman Tancredo. What's your reaction?

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: Secretary Ridge is way, way, way out of line here.

First of all, the creation of immigration policy or changing immigration policy is the responsibility of the Congress, and the Congress alone. His responsibility is to enforce it. If he doesn't like the policy, if he thinks he can't enforce it because he doesn't have the resources, he has two choices.

He comes to the Congress and says, I need the resources to enforce the law, or, I choose not to enforce the law and I'm going to resign. His is not to make a determination as to which laws should be enforced and which should not. We have an immigration policy. It's now certainly imperfect in many ways, but the secretary should enforce the law or resign.

DOBBS: Congressman Berman, let me ask you, your reaction?

REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Tom Ridge is a former congressman. He knows full well that the Congress legislates our immigration policy.

What he was showing was leadership in recognizing the reality of the situation. We have a law. We haven't been able to enforce it. We've invested billions of dollars, massive expansion of Border Patrol, tremendous amount of new technologies, and we still haven't been able to enforce that border. What he's trying to do is come to grips with the reality of the situation, that there are probably eight to 12 million undocumented people in this country. And in a place like...

DOBBS: Congressman, can I ask you a question?

BERMAN: Sure. DOBBS: You just said undocumented people. Do you mean illegal aliens?

BERMAN: People who came here illegally, who crossed the border in violation of the law.

DOBBS: Where do we come up with this language? Who are we trying to protect or kid. Undocumented. They're illegal aliens.

BERMAN: You can call them a lot of different things. You can call most of them hard-working, taxpaying people trying to help our economy.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: They came here illegally. They're human beings. Because

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Congressman, I would not argue with you.

TANCREDO: They broke the law. You understand that they broke the law?

DOBBS: But we start with the first issue. They are illegal aliens.

Congressman?

BERMAN: All right.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I'm sorry. That wasn't particularly helpful, was it, to say, Congressman, to two congressmen? I apologize.

(LAUGHTER)

DOBBS: Congressman Tancredo, let me ask you this.

One of the things that -- and you as well, Congressman Berman. The fact is, Tom Ridge did say it. He said it out loud: Let's come up with a national immigration policy. We can argue about language. We can argue about numbers. We can't argue about one thing. We have a huge number of illegal aliens in the country. We don't have an immigration policy that either works, makes sense. And we don't have a party on either the side of the Democrats or the Republicans who seem to have the guts to deal with the issue.

What do we do here?

Congressman Berman, you first, please.

BERMAN: Well, Lou, I've listened to you for a while state the problem. It's the solution that's the difficulty. We have an immigration policy, but it hasn't been enforced. It's called our law. We allow a reasonable, generous amount of immigration through the legal system, based on family relationships, specific skills, and in keeping with the tradition of home for refugees and people who are fleeing from persecution.

The problem has been that we thought, in 1986, through the use of employer sanctions and a massively increased Border Patrol, that we would be able to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

DOBBS: And full amnesty. And full amnesty.

BERMAN: And it turned we gave a full amnesty to probably 2.5 to three million people at that time. But the fact is, we weren't able to.

The single most effective tool to stop the crossing of the border -- there are other forms of illegal immigration, people coming here on temporary visas.

DOBBS: Right.

BERMAN: But for crossing the border, the single most effective thing we could do is to engage Mexico as a full partner in patrolling that border and dealing with the interior areas where

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: My gosh, Congressman, I have got to stop you.

And, Congressman Tancredo, you're freezing there and I apologize. But I've got to ask the congressman this.

A full partner? We couldn't have more of a full partner, could we? President Fox has the temerity to come to this country and, in three border states, tell people, governors, what they should be doing to provide benefits to simply state that he wants his people, that is, illegal aliens, provided for in this country, provided driver's licenses. That is one of the most remarkable statements I've ever heard from a head of state.

BERMAN: But we're not discussing -- Tom Ridge didn't talk about drivers' licenses and he didn't talk about providing

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: No, he didn't. He said, let's get an immigration policy.

BERMAN: What he said is, you have eight to 12 million people in this country without documents here illegally.

DOBBS: Right.

BERMAN: What are you going to do about it?

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Let's find out from Congressman Tom Tancredo, who is freezing out there.

And I apologize.

TANCREDO: Here's what you're going to do, Mr. Ridge. You are the secretary of homeland security. Your job is to enforce the law. That's what you're supposed to do. Don't ask questions about it. Enforce it.

If you can't do it, find somebody who will. Find somebody else who can. And I'll tell you another thing. This just drives me crazy, this idea that, oh, we've got 13 million people in here; the best way to actually deal with it is to just say that they all are legal and to essentially abandon the border. It's ridiculous. We can enforce the law if we choose to. We have the resources. What we don't have is the will.

I swear to you that we could employ both the technology and the human resources to both our northern and southern borders, so as to actually enforce our immigration laws and seal those borders effectively. No, could we make it so that every single person that wants to come across is stopped? No. But could we stop this massive flow of illegals into the country? Yes. We choose not to. We choose not to.

That's the whole issue here. We actually want, as a policy, illegal immigration, because it provides cheap labor.

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: You know it. I know it. Howard, let's go ahead admit it, because, if we want to stop it, we can.

And, if Secretary Ridge says that he can't, we've got to find somebody else who can.

BERMAN: Lou, this -- you can rant and rave all you want. I don't accept what Tom says.

TANCREDO: Well, thanks.

(LAUGHTER)

BERMAN: I don't think the secretary accepts what Tom says. We want to stop the illegal immigration.

TANCREDO: No, we don't, Howard. Oh, for heaven's sake.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: Tom, Tom, you can say it all you want. The illegal immigration...

TANCREDO: I shall. I'll continue to say it as far as I can, as long as I can.

BERMAN: All right. Can I just interject for a second here?

DOBBS: Please.

TANCREDO: Go ahead.

BERMAN: Talk about homeland security.

You have eight million to 12 million people operating under false identification. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they reside. That is a very threatening system. We know certain industries are relying almost totally on the employment by these -- of these people; 90 percent of the people who plant and prune and harvest our crops in the Western United States are here using false identifiers.

They're subject to exploitation. They represent

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: They're also subject to deportation.

DOBBS: I apologize.

Gentlemen, on...

BERMAN: Tremendous exploitation.

DOBBS: On the divide between exploitation and deportation, we are going to have to hold it. I hope you both will come back to discuss this issue.

TANCREDO: Will do.

DOBBS: Tom Tancredo, congressman of Colorado, thank you very much.

TANCREDO: You bet.

DOBBS: And Congressman Berman, thank you very much for being with us. Thanks, gentlemen.

It brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. The question: Do you believe the United States should legalize millions of illegal aliens already living in this country, yes or no? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show.

Next tonight, we'll share your thoughts about the exportation of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.

Also, our special report celebrating those Americans whose hard work keeps this country running. Tonight, a California garbage hauler whose workday begins well before dawn. Casey Wian has his story coming up next.

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: We continue to update our list of companies we've confirmed to be exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor marks. These are companies sending those jobs overseas or choosing to employ cheap foreign labor, instead of employing U.S. workers.

We're asking for your help in identify the companies still. We've received thousand of e-mail. And I have to tell you, it's going to be taking us weeks. We will be taking weeks and weeks to confirm these notifications.

Tonight, we're adding to the list of companies. Again, all of these we have confirmed to be exporting America. And here we go. And bear with us. It's a huge list, and, in yellow, the new additions, 3M, Adaptec. That's a computer networking company in Milpitas, California, Advanced Micro Devices, Alcoa, Bechtel, Charles Schwab, ChevronTexaco, Cooper Tools. That manufactures assembly equipment. It's based in Lexington, South Carolina. Covad Communications, an Internet and online service provider based in Santa Clara, California. Ford Motor, JDS Uniphase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Motorola, New York Life insurance company, Otis Elevator, the nation's No. 1 maker of elevators and a subsidiary of United Technologies, SBC Communications, Solectron Corporation, a contracts electronic manufacturer again based in Milpitas, California.

Well, please continue sending us the names of those companies you know to be exporting America." Send them to us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. We'll continue to report on them, as we confirm each one of those companies each evening right here.

Taking a look now at some of your thoughts on "Exporting America."

From Willits, California: "It amazes me that the majority of people can see what the politicians and economic advisers can't. We see our borders be invaded by illegals and our jobs being sent to other countries. Yet the people who could and should stop it refuse to do anything" -- Rose Lewis Foster.

From Newmarket, New Hampshire: "Your show on exporting America is long overdue and greatly appreciated by those who make an honest effort to buy American. When shopping, I always look for the made-in- America label" -- Bill Blank.

From Chicago, Illinois: "Lou, I was quite surprised to see your show, 'Exporting America,' whining and whining about how Americans lose jobs to foreign countries, but did not even mention the underlying reason. Foreign goods are simply and cheaper. Foreigners work much harder and they're better educated in high-tech industries. It all boils down to competition. And the United States is losing" -- Sean Lee.

From Carmel, New York: "Why is it good to expert U.S. jobs overseas in the name of free trade, but bad for U.S. citizens to buy drugs from Canada and overseas at lower prices than are available in the United States? Is free trade only good when it benefits large corporations and executives?" -- Rick Boehme.

And from Forestville, California: "Lou, how you talk about 'Exporting America," then the following ad is from Deutsche Bank asking us to give them our money? How about a Miller Beer ad or something American, anyway?" -- George Quarles.

Well, actually, George, South African Breweries bought Miller Brewing in July of last year. So Miller is technically no longer truly an American company. But we get your point.

We love hearing from you. E-mail us at LouDobbs@CNN.com.

Just ahead here, the current state of U.S.-China relations. Two experts face off tonight about a wide range of issues, including the escalating trade deficit, the exportation of jobs to China, strategic competition, and partners in diplomacy -- next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The president of Taiwan today refused to back down in the controversy about his plans to hold a referendum demanding China reduce its military threat against the island. Yesterday, President Bush called upon the Taiwanese leader to avoid any actions that could upset the relationship between Taiwan and China.

Mike Chinoy reports from Taipei.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE CHINOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): George Bush has spoken, but Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian doesn't appear to be listening. Appearing before an enthusiastic crowd of workers from his ruling party, Chen declared he would go ahead with a controversial referendum to coincide with presidential elections next March.

CHEN SHUI-BIAN, TAIWANESE PRESIDENT (through translator): Referendum is a normal practice in democratic countries and a basic right of the people that they cannot be deprived of.

CHINOY: The referendum will ask Taiwan's people to demand that China remove its missiles aimed at the island. Many diplomats and political analysts here, the Bush administration, and the government in Beijing suspect it's actually designed to stir up anti-China sentiment, boost Chen's reelection bid, and set a precedent for future referendums that could lead to Taiwan independence.

Mainland China has said it will use force to prevent that, which is why President Bush, who doesn't want another crisis, when he's preoccupied with Iraq, North Korea and his own reelection campaign, used such strong language.

But Chen's supporters said they were puzzled by Mr. Bush's warning. HSIAO BI-KHIM, TAIWANESE LEGISLATOR: We also find it very hard to comprehend why an action to maintain peace and to maintain the status quo would be seen as provocative, while Chinese missiles are taken for granted and not condemned.

CHINOY: And, in a meeting with a visiting American congressman, Chen shrugged off the criticism.

CHEN (through translator): The defensive referendum is aimed at preventing war, removing a menace to the people, and preserving Taiwan's current status. We are not looking to change the current status of Taiwan.

CHINOY: On the streets, reactions to the controversy was mixed.

"We have been a democracy for years," says this man. "The U.S. is a democracy, too. We have the right to choose. So I support President Chen."

"I think the U.S. stand is good," this man says. "We want to peace. China shouldn't terrorize us, but we shouldn't provoke them."

Provoking China, though, appears to be exactly what Chen is doing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHINOY: So, if President Bush thought that his extraordinary personal rebuke directed at Taiwan's leader would prompt President Chen to change his tune, the message does not appear to be getting through -- Lou.

DOBBS: Mike, thank you very much -- Mike Chinoy reporting from Taipei.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is our guest here tomorrow evening in an exclusive interview. It's his first, in fact, on American television.

Earlier today, I talked with Premier Wen about the record U.S. trade deficit with China, the exportation of American jobs to China and, of course, Taiwan. In that interview, Premier Wen drew a sharp distinction between the pursuit of democracy on Taiwan and the pursuit of independence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEN JIABAO, CHINESE PREMIER (through translator): We respect the desire of the Taiwan people to develop and pursue democracy. However, we firmly oppose the attempt by certain separatist fores on Taiwan to pursue independence under the disguise of promoting democracy in an attempt to cut off Taiwan from the mainland. So, we have expressed our firm determination and strengths to safeguard state unity. That is exactly designed to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits area.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: We will have the full interview here with Premier Wen tomorrow even, 6:00 p.m. Eastern, 3:00 p.m. Pacific. Please join us.

China's relationship with the United States and indeed the rest of the world is at the center of our "Face-Off" tonight.

Joining me now is Banning Garrett. He is the director of Asia programs at the Atlantic Council of the United States, who says China wants peace and stability. On the other side, the author of "The Coming Collapse of China," Gordon Chang, who says China's goals are not the same as our own, especially on the area of trade.

Welcome to you both.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: First, if I may, Gordon, this issue with Taiwan, strategic ambiguity, it seems to be becoming a lot less ambiguous.

GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR, "THE COMING COLLAPSE OF CHINA": Well, certainly.

President Bush, who some say was provoked, but other people say is going off the range, certainly feels that it is necessary to prevent a crisis, in order to make both parties clearly aware of what American policy is. And I suspect that he has certainly achieved that goal.

DOBBS: Your thoughts?

BANNING GARRETT, ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES: I agree with that.

I think that President Bush had to sort of lay out where American interests lie and lay out American concern about what is clearly, as Mike Chinoy said in that piece you just ran, there is a whole electioneering part of this for Chen Shui-bian, trying to provoke the PRC, hoping that that would win votes in Taiwan.

And there's a bigger game afoot for the United States. We have much larger strategic interests at stake. And I think President Bush is recognizing that in his effort to draw distinction between the move towards independence and support for Taiwan's democracy.

DOBBS: The idea of strategic ambiguity, that will not ultimately be satisfying to either the Taiwanese or to the Chinese governments. Where do you think we're headed?

GARRETT: I think that, although President Chen said that he will go ahead with the referendum, I think the fact that President Bush has made so clear where the United States stands on this, even if the referendum goes ahead, it's a very clear message to the PRC of where the United States stands on this and that the United States does not want to see instability in the Taiwan Strait. And I think that's a positive message to the PRC, even if it fails to deter the President Chen from going ahead with the referendum.

DOBBS: Premier Wen today told me that he and the president met and saw eye to eye on a host of elements in the resolving trade issues and creating ultimately a trade balance. Are you hopeful?

CHANG: Not really. I think that there are some economic forces at work.

But also, I think that China essentially does not want to comply with WTO. What we have seen over the last two years is foot-dragging on many of its promises. But the most important thing, though, is not just the specific promises that China made to join the WTO, but really the subsidies that China gives to its state-owned enterprises and to the banks.

Those are an integral part of the system. And I don't think that they -- certainly, they're not compliant with WTO. And, certainly, the Chinese government can't get rid of them.

DOBBS: Let's go to the issue, a huge nation, 1.3 billion people. Their economy is growing at 8 percent a year. It's a powerhouse. It is truly the miracle of Asia.

Now, do you see China in our future as a strategic competitor, as the president articulated at the beginning of his administration, or are they indeed possibly a partner?

GARRETT: I would say the latter. Now, any predictions of the future have to be tempered, because you don't know.

But I think the possibility of China emerging as a strategic partner is very real. And I think China sees its own interests in a way that are increasingly compatible with ourselves. And China is aware, for example, over the last decade, while China has grown so strong, it's done it in an era of American hegemony. And American hegemony, American dominance in the world has not been threatened by China's growth. So that could go on into the future.

DOBBS: Gordon, you have the final thought.

CHANG: Well, it's cheer that China certainly has come a long way, but that's not saying very much.

They have openly said they want to reduce American influence, not only in Asia, and around the world. You've got to remember that they still have relationships with bad regimes. And they are the king of proliferation. So we don't need to use emotionally-laden termed. We just have to point to the facts. This is going to be a very troubled relationship.

DOBBS: Gordon, Banning, thank you both very much. We will be continuing this issue, obviously, for some time. We hope you'll participate. Thanks. GARRETT: Thanks, Lou.

CHANG: Thank you.

DOBBS: Tonight's thought is on diplomacy. And it is actually one of my favorite thoughts on diplomacy: "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way" -- that from author Daniel Vare.

Coming up next, "America Works." We'll introduce you to a California man who's worked his way up in the trash-hauling business over the past 18 years. Casey Wian has his story.

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Now the results of tonight's poll; 19 percent of you said the United States should legalize the millions of illegal aliens already living in this country; 81 percent said we should not.

Now "America Works" -- tonight, a garbage collector who is on the job hours before most of us are even beginning to think about waking up.

Casey Wian has his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Robin morning begins before 4:00 with goodbyes to his sleeping family. Then it's off to works as a trash hauler. He started at 18, with seven years of lifting residential garbage cans. Now 37, his route is commercial.

ROBIN SAUCEDO, TRASH COLLECTOR: You've got to put your time in. And, eventually, you'll get your turn.

WIAN: After safety check on his truck, by 5:00, he begins his jam-packed route.

SAUCEDO: The toughest part is when you're out there and you have to roll these bins 20 feet, 150 feet. That after a while, that gets -- you get tired.

WIAN: Try keying up with Saucedo for a day if you want to appreciate your job. Besides the physical challenges and smell, Saucedo has to dodge cars, power lines, even people.

SAUCEDO: A lot of homeless people, they like to sleep in containers. Since the whole time I've been here, out of 18 years, I've dumped one homeless person in there. And he had hurt his arm really bad.

WIAN: One of Saucedo's newest tool is a digital camera for photographing overflowing bins. The customer gets a copy and a letter. Once the truck is full, it's off to the landfill or the recycling station. (on camera): It's only 11:00 in the morning and Saucedo has already made more than 70 stops, picked up more than 100 containers and dumped two full truckloads of garbage.

(voice-over): Most days, lunch is in the truck. With overtime and a half day on Saturday, Saucedo earns about $50,000 a year.

His father, Marcos (ph), has been a waste management trash hauler for 33 years.

SAUCEDO: I just had a baby and I was looking for something stable. So my father had just told me, why don't you try it out? I said, I'll try it for about a year.

WIAN: Eighteen years later, another workday ends, after 116 stops.

SAUCEDO: I'm back. How was your day?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

SAUCEDO: OK?

WIAN: Saucedo comes home to wife, Michelle (ph), a school bus driver, grown daughter Stephanie (ph), and 6-year-old son Manuel (ph), who wants to drive a trash truck, too.

SAUCEDO: I think my son would make a good living at it.

WIAN: That would make three generations of proud trash haulers.

Casey Wian, CNN, Santa Ana, California.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: And that's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us.

For all of us here, 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





States Says No Business Contracts For Opponents of Iraq War>


Aired December 10, 2003 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, in "Broken Borders," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says millions of illegal aliens in this country should be given legal status. We'll be joined by two congressmen to discuss this critically important issue.
The Pentagon says only coalition partners can participate in the reconstruction of Iraq. Old Europe is angry and already threatening retaliation. Jim Bittermann reports from Paris.

In our special report "America Works," our celebration of the men and women who make this country work. Tonight, we introduce you to a garbage collector in Santa Ana, California.

In "Face-Off" tonight: Is China a diplomatic partner of the United States or a military threat? We'll be joined by two leading experts on China, its political economy and its strategic goals.

And "Exporting America": U.S. furniture-makers call for tough action to protect American jobs and assets from cheap Chinese imports. But China has some powerful allies in this country. Lisa Sylvester will have a special report.

This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, December 10. Here now, Lou Dobbs.

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening.

The White House tonight is standing firm in the face of mounting anger among a number of governments about the Pentagon's decision to restrict Iraqi reconstruction contracts to only coalition partners. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the decision is totally appropriate. McClellan said countries such as France and Germany could still participate in the reconstruction of Iraq, but only if they join the coalition.

Senior White House correspondent John King has the report -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, a diplomatic dust-up in some ways reminiscent of the bitter argument about going to war in Iraq in the first place.

This is the Pentagon memo that set it all off, written by the No. 2 man, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. It lays out the rules for getting nearly $20 billion in U.S. reconstruction contracts in Iraq, money to rebuild schools and bridges, the Iraqi oil industry. In it, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz says that money can go to 63 countries, all of them coalition allies, of course, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, other countries, including South Korea and Japan, Italy and Spain.

But deliberately left off by the Bush administration, those who most fiercely opposed the war in Iraq, France Russia, Germany, even Canada, which sent troops early into Afghanistan and is now promising reconstruction money in Iraq. At the White House, they say they always acknowledged there would be consequences for not joining President Bush in confronting Saddam Hussein.

But they prefer, Lou, instead of calling this retaliation, they like to say it's simply rewarding allies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are countries that have been with us from day one. These are countries that are contributing forces, that have been making sacrifices. And that's why this decision was made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now the White House says, France, Germany, Russia and others can still get contracts for reconstruction in Iraq from World Bank money or money pledged by other countries around world. And they could still get subcontracts from those companies hired by the United States.

But the White House says, Lou, from the very beginning, it said those who stood with President Bush in the war would be rewarded. And the White House says it believes the American people will support a decision to award these big, prime contracts, again, some $18.6 billion, only to countries that were willing to take military and political risks -- Lou.

DOBBS: John, thank you very much -- John King, our senior White House correspondent.

There was a swift and even angrier response in parts of Europe and Canada to the Pentagon's decision to restrict those contracts to coalition countries. Several officials described the decision as unacceptable. They warn about possible retaliation against the United States, in fact.

Jim Bittermann reports from Paris.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the French Foreign Ministry, they were studying the legality of Washington's latest unilateral decision. In Brussels, the European Commission was considering whether limiting competition on Iraq contracts is a violation of World Trade rules. But, in Berlin, study wasn't needed. The government called Germany's exclusion unacceptable. JOSCHKA FISCHER, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): From our side, all I can say is that we noted the reports today with astonishment and we will be speaking about it with the American side.

BITTERMANN: Moscow also used the word unacceptable and said Washington should not expect Russia to forgive Iraq's $8 billion debt.

SERGEI IVANOV, RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTER (through translator): As far as the Russian government's position on this, it is not planning any kind of write-off of that debt. Iraq is not a poor country.

BITTERMANN: And a Canadian official said, if his countrymen are being discriminated against because of their nationality, it's doubtful their aid will continue.

PAUL MARTIN, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER-ELECT: While Canada is putting close to $300 million in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq, we have troops in Afghanistan and are carrying a very, very heavy load in that country.

BITTERMANN: In some ways, the business community, especially those hoping to be involved in redeveloping Iraq's oil industry, have taken the news better than the politicians. They anticipated being excluded from contracts and planned ways to get around it through subcontractors or subsidiaries.

JEAN-PIERRE FAVENNEC, FRENCH PETROLEUM INSTITUTE: They could find ways to go into the system and be in Iraq and participate in the reconstruction, to get some subcontracts. But they cannot be in the forefront of the activity.

BITTERMANN (on camera): For months, Washington's diplomats have been stressing to countries like France that rebuilding Iraq is the whole world's business. Governments which opposed the war had been warming to that idea, but that mood has now changed. And even some in Washington had to admit that alienating noncoalition partners just now may not be all that productive.

Jim Bittermann, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: In Iraq, two more American soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division killed in combat in the northern city of Mosul. One was killed in a drive-by shooting, the other in a bombing on the side of the road. The military also says an Air Force C-17 transport plane was apparently hit by a surface-to-air missile just after takeoff from Baghdad International Airport. But it did manage to land safely.

Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reports -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, let's start with what the U.S. military is touting as a success.

There were more than 50 raids across Iraq today, netting more than 40 suspected Saddam Fedayeen fighters and other anti-U.S. fighters. CNN had exclusive access to one of the extensive raids in a town of Lutafiyah, where paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division and Iraqi police carried out Operation Panther Squeeze. There, they believe they captured the people behind an attack on Spanish forces last month, including a man identified as a cell leader named Abu Abdullah.

Among the 15 primary targets were also an Iraqi intelligence officer, a financier, and doctors who were said to have treated the insurgents. Yesterday, those insurgents appeared to fail to shoot down a U.S. C-17 cargo aircraft, the kind that routinely travel in and out of Baghdad. The plane was hit by what appeared to have been a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile taking off from the Baghdad Airport.

One of the C-17's engines was destroyed, but the four-engine aircraft was able to return safely. Only one of the 16 people on board was injured, but only slightly. In the northern city of Mosul, meanwhile, one soldier from the Army's 101st Airborne Division died, another was wounded, when gunmen fired on troops guarding a gasoline station.

A few hours later, guerrillas detonated a roadside bomb, opened fire on a U.S. convoy. They killed one soldier, wounded three others. And, Lou, since the U.S. invaded Iraq on March 20, now 451 Americans have died in Iraq, 310 from hostile fire -- Lou.

DOBBS: And more than 2,000 wounded as well.

Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.

An Army lieutenant colonel who fired a weapon near an Iraqi prisoner during interrogation is unlikely to be court-martialed. A military investigator has recommended that Lieutenant Colonel Allen West face simply administrative action. The commander of the 4th Infantry Division, General Ray Odierno, will make the final decision on punishment, if any. Lieutenant Colonel West's action forced the prisoner ultimately to give up information that helped prevent an attack against a military convoy.

Coming up next: "Exporting America" tonight -- two American industries hit hard by cheap foreign labor and imports. We'll be reporting on this country's devastating manufacturing industry and another American industry that has begun to fight back, with even a little help from, of all places, Washington, D.C.

And then our "Face-Off" tonight: China and the United States. Two leading experts face off on whether the United States should consider China a diplomatic partner or a strategic competitor.

And "America Works" -- tonight, a garbage collector from California carrying on a family tradition, as we celebrate work in America. Casey Wian will have his story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: "Exporting America" tonight. President Bush's meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao did little to settle rising trade tensions between the two countries. That's disappointing news for American manufacturers and their employees, who fear that a growing trade deficit will cost them their future.

Today, a group of labor leaders and lobbyists in Washington said, enough is enough.

Louise Schiavone reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Manufacturing jobs lost since employment's peak in March 2001 account for roughly 90 percent of all job losses.

ROBERT ATKINSON, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: Clearly, we're not going to restore 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. A lot of those jobs have been lost for good, partly for good reasons, productivity.

SCHIAVONE: In the past year alone, over half-a-million manufacturing jobs vanished. Among them, 55,000 jobs were lost in fabricated metal products. Apparel-makers lost 45,000. And the U.S. computer and electronics industry lost 89,000 jobs.

Some analysts argue that the U.S. shouldn't look behind to jobs of the last century, when the nation is well-positioned to lead the way in 21st century jobs, like software, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and financial services.

STEPHEN MOORE, PRESIDENT, CLUB FOR GROWTH: We're going to be picking up jobs, hopefully, in these knowledge-based industries that, by the way, tend to pay higher salaries than do working in a factory.

SCHIAVONE: But with an estimated three-quarters-of-a-million American jobs lost to overseas manufacturers and outsourcing in general since 2001, labor and business groups are not as optimistic.

BOB BAUGH, AFL INDUSTRIAL UNIONS COUNCIL: You said financial services. General Electric has 22,000 employees in India. Their entire financial services are over there. All the computer companies and call-in centers are moving overseas.

JIM SCHOLLAERT, AMERICAN MANUFACTURING TRADE ACTION COALITION: Many of our large corporations are responsible for moving their factories to China and selling their goods back into the USA. Unfortunately, our Fortune 500 seemed to have adopted a new business model. It's pay Chinese wages and charge U.S. prices. And that's killing the country. It can't continue.

SCHIAVONE: For the first nine months of this year, the United States' goods deficit with China was $89.7 billion. The overall U.S. goods deficit, $396.5 billion.

(END VIDEOTAPE) SCHIAVONE: Lou, while some producers believe that China has a lot to answer for, others producers believe U.S. tax policy could give them a lift. And that, along with extending unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, remains a task for next year's Congress -- Lou.

DOBBS: Which, if this keeps up, will be facing a number of tasks.

Louise Schiavone, thank you very much.

One manufacturing sector hit hard by the exportation of American jobs is the furniture industry. Over the past four years, almost 30 percent of American jobs in that industry have been shipped overseas. And like textile and television-makers, who successfully pressured the government to impose trade sanctions against Chinese competitors, furniture makers are now also asking for help.

Lisa Sylvester reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Furniture makers in North Carolina and Virginia have felt the pain of deep job cuts, getting the raw end of the deal on globalization; 27 manufacturers and five labor unions accuse the Chinese of illegal dumping, pricing the furniture well below production cost.

They have asked the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission to impose duties averaging 250 percent on Chinese bedroom furniture.

JOHN BASSETT, VAUGHAN-BASSETT FURNITURE: About half of all imports of bedroom furniture now comes from China. When it comes to imports of bedroom furniture, China is the 800-pound gorilla. No other country comes close.

SYLVESTER: Imports from China of household wood furniture -- that includes bedroom furniture -- climbed from $1.67 billion in 2000 to over $3 billion last year, an 81 percent increase. At the same time, U.S. domestic production fell, from $12.12 billion to $10.67 billion.

JOSEPH DORN, ATTORNEY, AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS: Furniture brands, for example, which has been closing plants left and right, has told Wall Street that its future is in Asia, not the United States. Petitioners, however, do not want to become merchandisers for the Chinese. They want to preserve their U.S. assets. They want to maintain their U.S. jobs.

SYLVESTER: Not all U.S. furniture manufacturers support the proposed tariffs. Some of the largest U.S. furniture companies, those importing Chinese furniture, are fighting the petition, along with retailers that include the Bombay Company, Crate and Barrel, J.C. Penney, Rhodes Furniture, and Rooms To Go. Retailers say the tariffs will increase prices for consumers. ERIK AUTOR, NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION: They're going to be paying at least $1,500 and as much as $4,500 more for a suite of bedroom furniture if this case is successful.

SYLVESTER: But for those in North Carolina and Virginia, the extra savings on furniture is not worth the price of their job.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: The Commerce Department has been polling the industry to decide if there's enough support for the tariffs and is expected to release its findings tomorrow -- Lou.

DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. We look forward to those findings.

SYLVESTER: Thank you.

DOBBS: Lisa Sylvester reporting from Washington.

Coming up next, we'll update our growing list of companies that are indeed exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, those names, of course, confirmed here by the staff of this broadcast.

And the Democratic presidential candidates square off in New Hampshire.

The Supreme Court makes a landmark ruling that could have a big impact on the election. Three of this country's leading political journalists join us next.

And Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says the million of illegal aliens in this country should be granted legal status. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Congressman Howard Berman of California join me to share their very different views on the matter.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The Supreme Court today upheld the main features of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. The ruling keeps in place the ban on unlimited soft-money donations, which critics say impede free speech.

For more now on how this may affect the elections, we turn to Ron Brownstein of "The Los Angeles Times." He remains on the campaign trail in Manchester, New Hampshire; from Washington tonight, Alexis Simendinger of "The National Journal," and Roger Simon of the "U.S. News & World Report" magazine.

Good to have you all here.

Let me start first with the decision to uphold -- the Supreme Court's decision to uphold McCain-Feingold. Does this amount to anything? Alexis, let me start with you.

ALEXIS SIMENDINGER, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": Well, of course, it's considered a landmark ruling.

One of the most important things about it, though, is that, while it's considered legal, the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, one of the interesting things that is in the ruling is that no legal decision that the Supreme Court makes is going to stop the flow of money. You can put dams in place, but the river is going to find another way to flow. And that's probably going to be the most interesting thing to watch after the law goes into effect after this election cycle's over.

DOBBS: Ron, does this benefit one party or the other?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, somewhat counterintuitively, the Republican Party has been advantaged by the end of soft money.

You think of the Republicans as the ones who would benefit most from these unlimited big-money contributions. But, really going back 30 years to the days of Bill Brock, Republicans have focused more on small donors. And they're very much outraising Democrats in hard money, what is still allowed. So, yes, this has provided a tactical advantage to Republicans, which is not something that I think most Democrats expected when they supported the bill.

DOBBS: Do you agree, Roger?

ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": I do.

The Democratic Party was a big supporter of campaign finance reform, both its candidates as an institution. And it found, as Ron just said, that it's on the short end of the stick now. This is forcing the parties to do what parties always claimed to be doing, which is going out to the grassroots and getting money from ordinary Americans.

On the other hand, as we have seen in campaigns like those of Howard Dean, there are plenty of Americans out there willing to make contributions to political campaigns. So there's a vast amount of untapped money that ordinary citizens are willing to put into this process.

DOBBS: Well, Howard Dean, you just mentioned, Roger. Someone eloquently referred to Dean as the pink elephant in the room last night in the debate.

Ron, since you're still up basking in -- we'll call it the aftermath, rather than the afterglow, of that debate, how did Howard Dean do?

BROWNSTEIN: Very little glow here today, Lou. Kind of an wintry day.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWNSTEIN: I think Howard Dean did fine.

I think one of the strategic or tactical lessons out of that debate was, no one really has developed a line of argument against Howard Dean that has a lot of traction here in New Hampshire. Dick Gephardt is going after Dean, as we've talked about, on a kind of lunch-bucket liberalism argument on trade, on entitlements, on Medicare, on Social Security in Iowa for a more blue-collar and more primary audience.

But up here in New Hampshire, where the Democratic primary electorate is more upscale, better educated, more moved by lifestyle liberalism issues, perhaps foreign policy, environment, social issues, no one really has developed a line of attack against Howard Dean. I thought he came out of the debate fine last night, even though the other candidates tried to turn against him this dramatic endorsement by Al Gore. I don't think they had much success with that.

DOBBS: Alexis, does that amount to an anointment? The presidential nomination of the Democratic Party is now Howard Dean's for sure?

SIMENDINGER: Well, he sure hopes so. And he engineered his day yesterday to hope that that was the case.

I think the rest of the candidates were right, though, in their underscoring that it's up to the voters. Clearly, among the elites in the Democratic Party, Howard Dean is trying to make sure that he's filling that gap for them and that the endorsement by Al Gore was supposed to put him on a stronger footing in that score.

But, in terms of the voters, I was just out in Iowa. I was working on a story with the Kerry campaign. And you could really underscore, at least from listening to them, their confidence that those supporters in other states outside of New Hampshire are giving their guys a chance.

DOBBS: Roger, Premiere Wen Jiabao meeting with President Bush, in the background, rising tensions in the Straits of Taiwan.

SIMON: Taiwan.

DOBBS: At the same time, not so distant and certainly not in the background, $130 billion likely trade deficit this year. How did the president do?

SIMON: Well, I think he did what he wanted to do, which was to indicate -- nothing is as nuanced as our Taiwan and China policy. It's even more nuanced than our Mideast policy, if we had a Mideast policy.

(LAUGHTER)

SIMON: Every word counts. Every comma between the words count. So, what the president did was to indicate to China that he was taking a stronger tone against the government of Taiwan and urging them, telling them, basically, not to hold a referendum on independence, because China won't tolerate it. That's an important signal that he sent.

DOBBS: Ron?

BROWNSTEIN: There's sort of a cycle here and sort of almost an inexorability to this. Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush, saying that he was too soft on China and then moved toward a much closer relationship with them, angering conservatives in 1998, when he reiterated the three no's, as you'll recall, during a trip to Shanghai.

Then George W. Bush comes and runs against Clinton, saying he had erred when he called China a strategic partner. He said they're a competitor. And then here we are, again, inevitably almost, as other interests in North Korea and other issues demand, or compel, he moves himself toward a policy closer to what the government of China wants to hear on the issue of Taiwan. I suspect that we're going to see a Democratic candidate in the next few days running against George W. Bush and saying he is being too soft on China.

In fact, they're already doing that on the trade issue.

DOBBS: OK.

Ron, thank you very much. Alexis, thank you. Roger, thank you very much. All three of you, look forward to seeing you next week.

SIMENDINGER: Thanks, Lou.

SIMON: Thank you.

DOBBS: Coming up next: "Broken Borders." Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says illegal aliens in this country should be granted some sort of legal status. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Congressman Howard Berman of California have very different views about the issue. They are our guests next.

And "Face-Off" -- tonight, two leading experts on China will debate whether the United States should consider China a diplomatic partner or strategic competitor.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: In "Broken Borders" tonight, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is calling for the legalization of millions of illegal aliens living in this country.

Speaking at a Dade County town hall meeting near Miami yesterday, Ridge said -- and we quote -- "The bottom line is, as a country, we have to come to grips with the presence of eight to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status, some way, but also, as a country, decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it."

Joining me now, two members of Congress who have outspoken views on the issue of immigration reform, Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. He chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, joining us tonight from Denver.

Good to have you with us, Congressman.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Congressman Howard Berman of California, a member of the International Relations Committee. In September, he co-authored a bill giving illegal aliens permanent residency, joining us tonight from Los Angeles.

Congressman, good to have you with us.

This statement by Tom Ridge coming something of a bolt from the blue, Congressman Tancredo. What's your reaction?

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: Secretary Ridge is way, way, way out of line here.

First of all, the creation of immigration policy or changing immigration policy is the responsibility of the Congress, and the Congress alone. His responsibility is to enforce it. If he doesn't like the policy, if he thinks he can't enforce it because he doesn't have the resources, he has two choices.

He comes to the Congress and says, I need the resources to enforce the law, or, I choose not to enforce the law and I'm going to resign. His is not to make a determination as to which laws should be enforced and which should not. We have an immigration policy. It's now certainly imperfect in many ways, but the secretary should enforce the law or resign.

DOBBS: Congressman Berman, let me ask you, your reaction?

REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Tom Ridge is a former congressman. He knows full well that the Congress legislates our immigration policy.

What he was showing was leadership in recognizing the reality of the situation. We have a law. We haven't been able to enforce it. We've invested billions of dollars, massive expansion of Border Patrol, tremendous amount of new technologies, and we still haven't been able to enforce that border. What he's trying to do is come to grips with the reality of the situation, that there are probably eight to 12 million undocumented people in this country. And in a place like...

DOBBS: Congressman, can I ask you a question?

BERMAN: Sure. DOBBS: You just said undocumented people. Do you mean illegal aliens?

BERMAN: People who came here illegally, who crossed the border in violation of the law.

DOBBS: Where do we come up with this language? Who are we trying to protect or kid. Undocumented. They're illegal aliens.

BERMAN: You can call them a lot of different things. You can call most of them hard-working, taxpaying people trying to help our economy.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: They came here illegally. They're human beings. Because

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Congressman, I would not argue with you.

TANCREDO: They broke the law. You understand that they broke the law?

DOBBS: But we start with the first issue. They are illegal aliens.

Congressman?

BERMAN: All right.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I'm sorry. That wasn't particularly helpful, was it, to say, Congressman, to two congressmen? I apologize.

(LAUGHTER)

DOBBS: Congressman Tancredo, let me ask you this.

One of the things that -- and you as well, Congressman Berman. The fact is, Tom Ridge did say it. He said it out loud: Let's come up with a national immigration policy. We can argue about language. We can argue about numbers. We can't argue about one thing. We have a huge number of illegal aliens in the country. We don't have an immigration policy that either works, makes sense. And we don't have a party on either the side of the Democrats or the Republicans who seem to have the guts to deal with the issue.

What do we do here?

Congressman Berman, you first, please.

BERMAN: Well, Lou, I've listened to you for a while state the problem. It's the solution that's the difficulty. We have an immigration policy, but it hasn't been enforced. It's called our law. We allow a reasonable, generous amount of immigration through the legal system, based on family relationships, specific skills, and in keeping with the tradition of home for refugees and people who are fleeing from persecution.

The problem has been that we thought, in 1986, through the use of employer sanctions and a massively increased Border Patrol, that we would be able to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

DOBBS: And full amnesty. And full amnesty.

BERMAN: And it turned we gave a full amnesty to probably 2.5 to three million people at that time. But the fact is, we weren't able to.

The single most effective tool to stop the crossing of the border -- there are other forms of illegal immigration, people coming here on temporary visas.

DOBBS: Right.

BERMAN: But for crossing the border, the single most effective thing we could do is to engage Mexico as a full partner in patrolling that border and dealing with the interior areas where

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: My gosh, Congressman, I have got to stop you.

And, Congressman Tancredo, you're freezing there and I apologize. But I've got to ask the congressman this.

A full partner? We couldn't have more of a full partner, could we? President Fox has the temerity to come to this country and, in three border states, tell people, governors, what they should be doing to provide benefits to simply state that he wants his people, that is, illegal aliens, provided for in this country, provided driver's licenses. That is one of the most remarkable statements I've ever heard from a head of state.

BERMAN: But we're not discussing -- Tom Ridge didn't talk about drivers' licenses and he didn't talk about providing

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: No, he didn't. He said, let's get an immigration policy.

BERMAN: What he said is, you have eight to 12 million people in this country without documents here illegally.

DOBBS: Right.

BERMAN: What are you going to do about it?

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Let's find out from Congressman Tom Tancredo, who is freezing out there.

And I apologize.

TANCREDO: Here's what you're going to do, Mr. Ridge. You are the secretary of homeland security. Your job is to enforce the law. That's what you're supposed to do. Don't ask questions about it. Enforce it.

If you can't do it, find somebody who will. Find somebody else who can. And I'll tell you another thing. This just drives me crazy, this idea that, oh, we've got 13 million people in here; the best way to actually deal with it is to just say that they all are legal and to essentially abandon the border. It's ridiculous. We can enforce the law if we choose to. We have the resources. What we don't have is the will.

I swear to you that we could employ both the technology and the human resources to both our northern and southern borders, so as to actually enforce our immigration laws and seal those borders effectively. No, could we make it so that every single person that wants to come across is stopped? No. But could we stop this massive flow of illegals into the country? Yes. We choose not to. We choose not to.

That's the whole issue here. We actually want, as a policy, illegal immigration, because it provides cheap labor.

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: You know it. I know it. Howard, let's go ahead admit it, because, if we want to stop it, we can.

And, if Secretary Ridge says that he can't, we've got to find somebody else who can.

BERMAN: Lou, this -- you can rant and rave all you want. I don't accept what Tom says.

TANCREDO: Well, thanks.

(LAUGHTER)

BERMAN: I don't think the secretary accepts what Tom says. We want to stop the illegal immigration.

TANCREDO: No, we don't, Howard. Oh, for heaven's sake.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: Tom, Tom, you can say it all you want. The illegal immigration...

TANCREDO: I shall. I'll continue to say it as far as I can, as long as I can.

BERMAN: All right. Can I just interject for a second here?

DOBBS: Please.

TANCREDO: Go ahead.

BERMAN: Talk about homeland security.

You have eight million to 12 million people operating under false identification. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they reside. That is a very threatening system. We know certain industries are relying almost totally on the employment by these -- of these people; 90 percent of the people who plant and prune and harvest our crops in the Western United States are here using false identifiers.

They're subject to exploitation. They represent

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: They're also subject to deportation.

DOBBS: I apologize.

Gentlemen, on...

BERMAN: Tremendous exploitation.

DOBBS: On the divide between exploitation and deportation, we are going to have to hold it. I hope you both will come back to discuss this issue.

TANCREDO: Will do.

DOBBS: Tom Tancredo, congressman of Colorado, thank you very much.

TANCREDO: You bet.

DOBBS: And Congressman Berman, thank you very much for being with us. Thanks, gentlemen.

It brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. The question: Do you believe the United States should legalize millions of illegal aliens already living in this country, yes or no? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show.

Next tonight, we'll share your thoughts about the exportation of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.

Also, our special report celebrating those Americans whose hard work keeps this country running. Tonight, a California garbage hauler whose workday begins well before dawn. Casey Wian has his story coming up next.

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: We continue to update our list of companies we've confirmed to be exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor marks. These are companies sending those jobs overseas or choosing to employ cheap foreign labor, instead of employing U.S. workers.

We're asking for your help in identify the companies still. We've received thousand of e-mail. And I have to tell you, it's going to be taking us weeks. We will be taking weeks and weeks to confirm these notifications.

Tonight, we're adding to the list of companies. Again, all of these we have confirmed to be exporting America. And here we go. And bear with us. It's a huge list, and, in yellow, the new additions, 3M, Adaptec. That's a computer networking company in Milpitas, California, Advanced Micro Devices, Alcoa, Bechtel, Charles Schwab, ChevronTexaco, Cooper Tools. That manufactures assembly equipment. It's based in Lexington, South Carolina. Covad Communications, an Internet and online service provider based in Santa Clara, California. Ford Motor, JDS Uniphase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Motorola, New York Life insurance company, Otis Elevator, the nation's No. 1 maker of elevators and a subsidiary of United Technologies, SBC Communications, Solectron Corporation, a contracts electronic manufacturer again based in Milpitas, California.

Well, please continue sending us the names of those companies you know to be exporting America." Send them to us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. We'll continue to report on them, as we confirm each one of those companies each evening right here.

Taking a look now at some of your thoughts on "Exporting America."

From Willits, California: "It amazes me that the majority of people can see what the politicians and economic advisers can't. We see our borders be invaded by illegals and our jobs being sent to other countries. Yet the people who could and should stop it refuse to do anything" -- Rose Lewis Foster.

From Newmarket, New Hampshire: "Your show on exporting America is long overdue and greatly appreciated by those who make an honest effort to buy American. When shopping, I always look for the made-in- America label" -- Bill Blank.

From Chicago, Illinois: "Lou, I was quite surprised to see your show, 'Exporting America,' whining and whining about how Americans lose jobs to foreign countries, but did not even mention the underlying reason. Foreign goods are simply and cheaper. Foreigners work much harder and they're better educated in high-tech industries. It all boils down to competition. And the United States is losing" -- Sean Lee.

From Carmel, New York: "Why is it good to expert U.S. jobs overseas in the name of free trade, but bad for U.S. citizens to buy drugs from Canada and overseas at lower prices than are available in the United States? Is free trade only good when it benefits large corporations and executives?" -- Rick Boehme.

And from Forestville, California: "Lou, how you talk about 'Exporting America," then the following ad is from Deutsche Bank asking us to give them our money? How about a Miller Beer ad or something American, anyway?" -- George Quarles.

Well, actually, George, South African Breweries bought Miller Brewing in July of last year. So Miller is technically no longer truly an American company. But we get your point.

We love hearing from you. E-mail us at LouDobbs@CNN.com.

Just ahead here, the current state of U.S.-China relations. Two experts face off tonight about a wide range of issues, including the escalating trade deficit, the exportation of jobs to China, strategic competition, and partners in diplomacy -- next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The president of Taiwan today refused to back down in the controversy about his plans to hold a referendum demanding China reduce its military threat against the island. Yesterday, President Bush called upon the Taiwanese leader to avoid any actions that could upset the relationship between Taiwan and China.

Mike Chinoy reports from Taipei.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE CHINOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): George Bush has spoken, but Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian doesn't appear to be listening. Appearing before an enthusiastic crowd of workers from his ruling party, Chen declared he would go ahead with a controversial referendum to coincide with presidential elections next March.

CHEN SHUI-BIAN, TAIWANESE PRESIDENT (through translator): Referendum is a normal practice in democratic countries and a basic right of the people that they cannot be deprived of.

CHINOY: The referendum will ask Taiwan's people to demand that China remove its missiles aimed at the island. Many diplomats and political analysts here, the Bush administration, and the government in Beijing suspect it's actually designed to stir up anti-China sentiment, boost Chen's reelection bid, and set a precedent for future referendums that could lead to Taiwan independence.

Mainland China has said it will use force to prevent that, which is why President Bush, who doesn't want another crisis, when he's preoccupied with Iraq, North Korea and his own reelection campaign, used such strong language.

But Chen's supporters said they were puzzled by Mr. Bush's warning. HSIAO BI-KHIM, TAIWANESE LEGISLATOR: We also find it very hard to comprehend why an action to maintain peace and to maintain the status quo would be seen as provocative, while Chinese missiles are taken for granted and not condemned.

CHINOY: And, in a meeting with a visiting American congressman, Chen shrugged off the criticism.

CHEN (through translator): The defensive referendum is aimed at preventing war, removing a menace to the people, and preserving Taiwan's current status. We are not looking to change the current status of Taiwan.

CHINOY: On the streets, reactions to the controversy was mixed.

"We have been a democracy for years," says this man. "The U.S. is a democracy, too. We have the right to choose. So I support President Chen."

"I think the U.S. stand is good," this man says. "We want to peace. China shouldn't terrorize us, but we shouldn't provoke them."

Provoking China, though, appears to be exactly what Chen is doing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHINOY: So, if President Bush thought that his extraordinary personal rebuke directed at Taiwan's leader would prompt President Chen to change his tune, the message does not appear to be getting through -- Lou.

DOBBS: Mike, thank you very much -- Mike Chinoy reporting from Taipei.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is our guest here tomorrow evening in an exclusive interview. It's his first, in fact, on American television.

Earlier today, I talked with Premier Wen about the record U.S. trade deficit with China, the exportation of American jobs to China and, of course, Taiwan. In that interview, Premier Wen drew a sharp distinction between the pursuit of democracy on Taiwan and the pursuit of independence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEN JIABAO, CHINESE PREMIER (through translator): We respect the desire of the Taiwan people to develop and pursue democracy. However, we firmly oppose the attempt by certain separatist fores on Taiwan to pursue independence under the disguise of promoting democracy in an attempt to cut off Taiwan from the mainland. So, we have expressed our firm determination and strengths to safeguard state unity. That is exactly designed to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits area.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: We will have the full interview here with Premier Wen tomorrow even, 6:00 p.m. Eastern, 3:00 p.m. Pacific. Please join us.

China's relationship with the United States and indeed the rest of the world is at the center of our "Face-Off" tonight.

Joining me now is Banning Garrett. He is the director of Asia programs at the Atlantic Council of the United States, who says China wants peace and stability. On the other side, the author of "The Coming Collapse of China," Gordon Chang, who says China's goals are not the same as our own, especially on the area of trade.

Welcome to you both.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: First, if I may, Gordon, this issue with Taiwan, strategic ambiguity, it seems to be becoming a lot less ambiguous.

GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR, "THE COMING COLLAPSE OF CHINA": Well, certainly.

President Bush, who some say was provoked, but other people say is going off the range, certainly feels that it is necessary to prevent a crisis, in order to make both parties clearly aware of what American policy is. And I suspect that he has certainly achieved that goal.

DOBBS: Your thoughts?

BANNING GARRETT, ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES: I agree with that.

I think that President Bush had to sort of lay out where American interests lie and lay out American concern about what is clearly, as Mike Chinoy said in that piece you just ran, there is a whole electioneering part of this for Chen Shui-bian, trying to provoke the PRC, hoping that that would win votes in Taiwan.

And there's a bigger game afoot for the United States. We have much larger strategic interests at stake. And I think President Bush is recognizing that in his effort to draw distinction between the move towards independence and support for Taiwan's democracy.

DOBBS: The idea of strategic ambiguity, that will not ultimately be satisfying to either the Taiwanese or to the Chinese governments. Where do you think we're headed?

GARRETT: I think that, although President Chen said that he will go ahead with the referendum, I think the fact that President Bush has made so clear where the United States stands on this, even if the referendum goes ahead, it's a very clear message to the PRC of where the United States stands on this and that the United States does not want to see instability in the Taiwan Strait. And I think that's a positive message to the PRC, even if it fails to deter the President Chen from going ahead with the referendum.

DOBBS: Premier Wen today told me that he and the president met and saw eye to eye on a host of elements in the resolving trade issues and creating ultimately a trade balance. Are you hopeful?

CHANG: Not really. I think that there are some economic forces at work.

But also, I think that China essentially does not want to comply with WTO. What we have seen over the last two years is foot-dragging on many of its promises. But the most important thing, though, is not just the specific promises that China made to join the WTO, but really the subsidies that China gives to its state-owned enterprises and to the banks.

Those are an integral part of the system. And I don't think that they -- certainly, they're not compliant with WTO. And, certainly, the Chinese government can't get rid of them.

DOBBS: Let's go to the issue, a huge nation, 1.3 billion people. Their economy is growing at 8 percent a year. It's a powerhouse. It is truly the miracle of Asia.

Now, do you see China in our future as a strategic competitor, as the president articulated at the beginning of his administration, or are they indeed possibly a partner?

GARRETT: I would say the latter. Now, any predictions of the future have to be tempered, because you don't know.

But I think the possibility of China emerging as a strategic partner is very real. And I think China sees its own interests in a way that are increasingly compatible with ourselves. And China is aware, for example, over the last decade, while China has grown so strong, it's done it in an era of American hegemony. And American hegemony, American dominance in the world has not been threatened by China's growth. So that could go on into the future.

DOBBS: Gordon, you have the final thought.

CHANG: Well, it's cheer that China certainly has come a long way, but that's not saying very much.

They have openly said they want to reduce American influence, not only in Asia, and around the world. You've got to remember that they still have relationships with bad regimes. And they are the king of proliferation. So we don't need to use emotionally-laden termed. We just have to point to the facts. This is going to be a very troubled relationship.

DOBBS: Gordon, Banning, thank you both very much. We will be continuing this issue, obviously, for some time. We hope you'll participate. Thanks. GARRETT: Thanks, Lou.

CHANG: Thank you.

DOBBS: Tonight's thought is on diplomacy. And it is actually one of my favorite thoughts on diplomacy: "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way" -- that from author Daniel Vare.

Coming up next, "America Works." We'll introduce you to a California man who's worked his way up in the trash-hauling business over the past 18 years. Casey Wian has his story.

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Now the results of tonight's poll; 19 percent of you said the United States should legalize the millions of illegal aliens already living in this country; 81 percent said we should not.

Now "America Works" -- tonight, a garbage collector who is on the job hours before most of us are even beginning to think about waking up.

Casey Wian has his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Robin morning begins before 4:00 with goodbyes to his sleeping family. Then it's off to works as a trash hauler. He started at 18, with seven years of lifting residential garbage cans. Now 37, his route is commercial.

ROBIN SAUCEDO, TRASH COLLECTOR: You've got to put your time in. And, eventually, you'll get your turn.

WIAN: After safety check on his truck, by 5:00, he begins his jam-packed route.

SAUCEDO: The toughest part is when you're out there and you have to roll these bins 20 feet, 150 feet. That after a while, that gets -- you get tired.

WIAN: Try keying up with Saucedo for a day if you want to appreciate your job. Besides the physical challenges and smell, Saucedo has to dodge cars, power lines, even people.

SAUCEDO: A lot of homeless people, they like to sleep in containers. Since the whole time I've been here, out of 18 years, I've dumped one homeless person in there. And he had hurt his arm really bad.

WIAN: One of Saucedo's newest tool is a digital camera for photographing overflowing bins. The customer gets a copy and a letter. Once the truck is full, it's off to the landfill or the recycling station. (on camera): It's only 11:00 in the morning and Saucedo has already made more than 70 stops, picked up more than 100 containers and dumped two full truckloads of garbage.

(voice-over): Most days, lunch is in the truck. With overtime and a half day on Saturday, Saucedo earns about $50,000 a year.

His father, Marcos (ph), has been a waste management trash hauler for 33 years.

SAUCEDO: I just had a baby and I was looking for something stable. So my father had just told me, why don't you try it out? I said, I'll try it for about a year.

WIAN: Eighteen years later, another workday ends, after 116 stops.

SAUCEDO: I'm back. How was your day?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

SAUCEDO: OK?

WIAN: Saucedo comes home to wife, Michelle (ph), a school bus driver, grown daughter Stephanie (ph), and 6-year-old son Manuel (ph), who wants to drive a trash truck, too.

SAUCEDO: I think my son would make a good living at it.

WIAN: That would make three generations of proud trash haulers.

Casey Wian, CNN, Santa Ana, California.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: And that's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us.

For all of us here, 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





States Says No Business Contracts For Opponents of Iraq War>