Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Former Counterterrorism Official Testifies Before 9/11 Commission; Dramatic Standoff at Israeli Checkpoint
Aired March 24, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, extraordinary testimony to the 9/11 Commission from the government's former terrorism adviser.
RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.
PILGRIM: A dramatic standoff at an Israeli checkpoint. Soldiers stop a suicide bomber. He is one of the youngest ever.
CHILDREN: I pledge allegiance.
PILGRIM: A showdown at the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God." We will have two very different views in "Face-Off" tonight.
American animators made Disney famous. Now hundreds of animators' jobs could be exported to cheap overseas labor markets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you export the jobs, I think you export the soul.
PILGRIM: Tonight, we'll have a special report on this latest threat to American jobs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, March 24. Sitting in for Lou Dobbs for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening.
Dramatic testimony today to the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. President Bush's former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke said the Bush White House believed the al Qaeda threat was important, but not urgent. Clarke has written a controversial new book strongly criticizing the president's strategy in the war on terror.
Sean Callebs reports.
SEAN CALLEBS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And, Kitty, two days of finger- pointing, explanation, excuses and amid the testimony to that federal commission, some comments from that former White House counterterrorism chief that began with words for those who lost loved ones on 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARKE: Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. And for that failure, I would ask for your forgiveness.
CALLEBS (voice-over): So began the most awaited testimony of the week, Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, whose criticisms of the Bush administration's conduct in the war on terror has made his book "Against All Enemies" the talk of Washington, sat before the 9/11 Commission and leveled withering charges.
CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue. By invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.
CALLEBS: Clarke spent some time denying charges of political motives.
CLARKE: Let me say here as I am under oath that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one.
CALLEBS: But left to an ovation.
The constant from two days of testimony, missed opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The morning session found CIA Director George Tenet and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, veterans of the Clinton administration, differing on whether or not the CIA was permitted to kill Osama bin Laden prior to September 11. But both men took pains to make plain the terror threat remains very much in the present.
SAMUEL BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: When our administration ended, we alerted the incoming team to the terrorist threat and al Qaeda. During the transition, Bush administration officials received intensive briefings on this. As has been reported, I told my successor that she would be spending more time on terrorism and al Qaeda than any other issue.
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: It's coming. There's still going to try to do it and we need to sort of -- men and women here who have lost their families have to know that we have got to do a hell of a lot better.
CALLEBS: As they wound down, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was wound up. When pressed by commission members, Armitage was at a loss to explain how September 11 occurred.
RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: I just don't think we had the imagination required to consider a tragedy of this magnitude. (END VIDEOTAPE)
CALLEBS: And one person who remained conspicuous in her absence during this testimony, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Rice spent the beginning of the week as the administration's most visible first-responder to allegations that President Bush was simply obsessed with Saddam Hussein in the wake of 9/11, but Rice declined repeated efforts urging her to publicly testify before the commission -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Sean Callebs.
Well, tonight, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice directly challenged Clarke's testimony. She accused Clarke of -- quote -- "scurrilous behavior."
Senior White House correspondent John King has just come out of the briefing with Rice.
And, John, a very strong rebuttal tonight from Rice, not surprising.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A very strong rebuttal, Kitty, and at times an angry rebuttal.
Condoleezza Rice saying the American people deserve an answer to the scurrilous allegations, as she called them, that the president was somehow ignorant of the terrorist threat to the United States. And as Condoleezza Rice made her case that Dick Clarke's testimony today was simply fiction, she used e-mails written by Mr. Clarke.
Let me give you a bit of the history Condoleezza Rice gave us a short time ago. She said an July 5, 2001, a little more than two months before the September 11 attacks, she came out of a briefing with the president in which he was told that the threat level spike had been up quite dramatic. Now, those threats said were against U.S. interests overseas and against Israel as well.
But she said she and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card decided as a precaution to call Richard Clarke into her office and instruct him to put all domestic agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the FBI, the Coast Guard and others on a higher alert, to tell them there was a possibility of al Qaeda attacks here in the United States, even though the intelligence suggested those attacks would be overseas.
She also read an unclassified portion of an e-mail, this an e- mail to Condoleezza Rice from Richard Clarke. Four days after the September 11 attacks, he wrote her saying that he was worried that when the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that the intelligence about terrorist threats got to FAA and other domestic law enforcement authorities.
Dick Clarke then detailed what he had done. And he told Condoleezza Rice in this e-mail, again, this from the same Richard Clarke who today said the administration did nothing to prepare for the attacks, Richard Clarke wrote -- quote -- "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement, including FAA, knew that the CSG, the Counterterrorism Study Group, believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the United States and did ask that special measures be taken."
So I can tell you, Kitty, here at the White House tonight, they are red hot. They believe what Richard Clarke told this commission under oath today is pure fiction. And they say they will continue to present what they say are the facts and the evidence to rebut it.
PILGRIM: John, the finger-pointing has really been going on for quite a few days, though. There was a quite buildup to this. Do you think that this will put it to rest or do you think this will continue this debate?
KING: The administration says, if there are lingering questions, they will continue to provide the answers for two reasons.
No. 1, they say that Richard Clarke essentially said that the president of the United States because of his neglect, in Mr. Clarke's view, somehow contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people. They say that is a reckless allegation that they will rebut.
But we also need to honest and realize we are in the middle of a presidential election campaign and the president is running on his record post-9/11, saying that he has provided the country with steady leadership in the war on terrorism. If Mr. Clarke's assessment of the president as essentially asleep at the switch before 9/11 takes hold, that would hurt the president politically. The White House says the facts support that that is not the case, including, again, Mr. Clarke's own words. They say they will continue to make that case quite aggressively.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, John King reporting tonight from the White House -- thanks, John.
I'm joined now by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, Timothy Roemer. And he is president of the Center for National Policy. He's also a former Democratic congressman.
And thanks very much for taking the time to join us tonight.
TIMOTHY ROEMER, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY: My pleasure, Kitty.
PILGRIM: An extremely difficult, bitter and sobering day today in Washington. They say that Condoleezza Rice testifying before the commission would set a bad precedent. Do you agree with that? She certainly was very vocal tonight.
ROEMER: I absolutely disagree with that. I think she would be an excellent person to come publicly before the American people and the five Democrats and five Republicans on the commission and provide the answers to those questions that she outlined in your previous report from John King at the White House.
Listen, Dick Clarke, who I don't agree with on everything, came before the commission and the American people and swore to tell the truth. He did it in public. He didn't do it on sound bites. He didn't do it in sound clips. And we grilled him and we asked him a lot of tough questions. We're not asking Dr. Rice, who is extremely knowledgeable and eloquent and respected by everybody on the commission, to come so that we can point fingers at her.
We want to get this situation right. Al Qaeda's coming at us. They are more and more of a threat every day. We have to fix the existing problems.
PILGRIM: One of the most sobering moments for me in the testimony today was when Dick Clarke said that, unfortunately, the government requires body bags before they change the way they make decisions and allocate money for national security. Do you think that kind of strong statement will actually change the way government functions going forward, because that, after all, is the purpose of all this isn't it?
ROEMER: Kitty, what is so frustrating is many good commissions throughout the 90s have made recommendations to the Congress and to the White House and the American people to act on this terrorism threat. We have Aspin-Brown in the mid-'90s.
And we have Hart-Rudman that warned that Americans might be killed on our homeland if we didn't take some precautions. That was 1999. Now we have 3,000 people that are dead in the most horrific attack on our nation's homeland. We have been flown into the jaws of hell -- and that's where we are. Let us come together, as the American people can so often do, Republicans and Democrats, to find some solutions, go forward and work with the Congress and the president to fix the problem.
Let's not put this thing in the middle of a presidential election. Let's do what's right here and try to get this problem fixed.
PILGRIM: Well, as you mentioned, it's good to depoliticize this. We've heard a lot about institutional bureaucracy, dysfunctional decision-making. You've spent a lot of time on this. What exactly would you like to see done going forward?
ROEMER: Well, there are a host of recommendations that the commission is considering, along with some of the recommendations that Hart-Rudman and the Bremer commission and the Gilmore commission have recommended to the United States Congress, too. We need better human intelligence and not just to rely on satellites and birds in the sky.
And we need better jointness between our departments and we need to make sure that the FBI can get the right kind of translators and the right kind of culture and not be risk-adverse to get the right kind of information to do the domestic intelligence that we require if there are sleeper cells here. There are a host of things, Kitty, that are out there, some of which are already on the table. The joint inquiry made 19 recommendations to United States Congress, and I don't think three of those have been fully implemented. Let us move forward in a united and bipartisan way and not put this squarely in the political finger- pointing, partisan arena. We have a shining city on the hill here. Let's not degrade it and let it slip down into the swamp.
Let's answer these tough questions, not put a blame game forward and a witch-hunt, and move forward to try to get after this transnational threat.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much for joining us tonight, Timothy Roemer.
ROEMER: Kitty, thank you. I appreciate it.
PILGRIM: OK.
Still to come, a teenage suicide bomber tries to enter Israel. We'll have the dramatic story next. And we'll also talk with terrorism expert Frank Gaffney.
President Bush's controversial guest worker program faces tough opposition in Congress. We'll have a special report.
And Commerce Secretary Don Evans faces a barrage of criticism on Capitol Hill over the export of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Israeli troops today stopped a suicide bomber from entering Israel from the West Bank. Suicide bombers are a constant threat in Israel. What makes this terrorist so different is his age. He was just a teenager.
ITN's Julian Manyon reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JULIAN MANYON, ITN REPORTER (voice-over): According to Israeli army spokesmen, this is a 14-year-old suicide bomber, said to be the youngest yet. He was stopped at an Israeli checkpoint near the West Bank city of Nablus and revealed an explosive belt strapped around his chest.
The Israelis say that the boy was sent to blow himself up next to their position. They sent a robot to bring him a pair of scissors to cut off the belt. A soldier warned him not to cut the white wire. The boy whose name is Hussam Abdo, struggled with the belt and said in Arabic, "I can't get the thing off." Then, as the cameraman changed position, he managed to free himself.
The army blew up the belt and then showed the boy to the press. The Israelis prevented journalists from asking questions. But the army insists that this was a deliberate Palestinian suicide attack.
CAPT. SHARON FEINGOLD, IDF SPOKESWOMAN: This is not the first time the Palestinians have been using men, women and children, especially women and children, and relying on the kindness and the humanity of our soldiers.
MANYON (on camera): The boy's family said tonight that he is mentally slow. And so far, we only have the Israeli army's word for it that this was a suicide attack, but it's clear that many Palestinian youngsters learn to hate Israel at an early age and it seems that there may now be terrorist organizers fanatical enough to use them as human bombs.
Julian Manyon, ITV News, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The threat of international terrorism today led to the temporary closure of U.S. embassies in four countries. Those countries are the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Mauritius. Diplomats said the closures were due to specific threats and anti-American demonstrations.
Well, I am joined now by one of the country's leading experts on global terrorism, Frank Gaffney. Frank Gaffney is the founder of the Center For Security Policy in Washington and he served as a senior official in the Defense Department during the Reagan administration.
Thanks for joining us tonight, Frank.
FRANK GAFFNEY, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Good evening, Kitty.
PILGRIM: We had the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin this week. That led to fears that there would be increased attacks against Israel and the United States. How do you assess that threat level?
GAFFNEY: I think that threat level is very high, with or without the assassination of the sheik.
The underlying reality, which I think your story of a moment ago about this 14-year-old kid in Israel, is that we are up against, as I think Lou Dobbs and this program have made very clear to the American people, is a threat from radical Islam, what they call Islamists that are promoting a culture of death, even at the very youngest of kids in places like the Palestinian refugee camps.
And those kids and their counterparts in Pakistan and Indonesia and even in, I'm afraid, our own country, as Congressman Roemer was suggesting a moment ago, sleeper cells are being cultivated, are being trained, are being indoctrinated to carry forth a war against those of us who, whether they're Muslims or non-Muslims, don't subscribe to this radical view of Islam.
That's I think what we're up against. And I'm hopeful that taking out people like bin Laden and Sheik Yassin will slow that, but we have to wage this war on the ideas level too, and we're not doing that very well, I'm afraid.
PILGRIM: You know, many have suggest that had this is a whole new situation, that this is not a network, that you have al Qaeda and radical Islamists forming ad hoc groups that are loosely affiliated and that it's a whole new level. How did you think that plays out? And how do you fight that kind of an effort?
GAFFNEY: Well, this is really the key point.
What we've seen in al Qaeda is sort of the outcropping of an investment that's been made over decades, most especially, I'm sorry to say, by our friends, so-called friends, in Saudi Arabia, who have been promoting the mosques, the imams, the indoctrination centers, the madrassas, these so-called schools, that have created really pipelines that extend well beyond the specific cadre of al Qaeda, the potential recruiting pool.
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: And I say potential recruiting pool because I'm not sure that all of them will, in fact, become jihadist cannon fodder.
But we need to actively going up against that, pushing back, trying to give them an alternative educational experience and opportunity and most especially saying to people like our friends, the Saudis, you must desist in this kind of hateful proselytizing and propagation of the enemies we may confront in the future.
PILGRIM: And, Frank, we have just a second, but I must ask you -- I'm sure you've been watching the 9/11 testimony.
And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified that taking out Osama bin Laden, he said this yesterday, wouldn't necessarily have stopped the 9/11 attacks. Do you agree with that statement?
GAFFNEY: It's technically, I'm sure, true, because I think the sleeper cells that were -- to prosecute that particular attack were already in place even if we had acted against bin Laden. But we need to do more than just take him out. As I said, we need to go after the culture of death that he is simply one manifestation of.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Frank Gaffney. Thanks for joining us, Frank.
GAFFNEY: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Just ahead, a look at the growing number of uninsured in the country. Their changing profile has insurance companies scrambling to sign them up.
And the Pledge of Allegiance is under fire. A California atheist says the phrase "one nation under God" is unconstitutional and offensive, and the Supreme Court hears his case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PILGRIM: Our series, "The Middle-Class Squeeze," health care in America, continues tonight with a look at the nation's uninsured. Now, it is a group that is growing in size and also in income and a group that insurance companies are surely noticing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (voice-over): Millions of people have no health coverage, some because they're out of work, and others because many small employers can't and don't pay for health care.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: My boss told me I had to start buying my own health insurance. You pick that up on your way home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: But insurers are recognizing that uninsured people are not always financially strapped. Of the 1.5 million who recently joined the ranks of the uninsured, nearly 60 percent have incomes of $75,000 or more.
ELIZABETH BIERBOWER, HUMANA: And sometimes they're not covering the dependents. So, sometimes you see the dependents falling through the cracks and these individual products can help there by offering that coverage for the dependents while the employee may in fact have coverage with their employer.
PILGRIM: Insurers say there is an information gap, especially if they lose health coverage when they lose their job.
WILLIAM ROTH, AETNA: I think it's a combination of not knowing about how to get insurance on an individual basis. Also, some people, frankly, have decided that they would rather spend their money elsewhere and made that financial decision.
PILGRIM: Insurers are pitching individual coverage directly to them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: Think you'll never need health care? Think again. Get Kaiser Permanente personal advantage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Aetna is running seminars for its insurance brokers on how to pitch the new products.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll go over a bunch of tools that Aetna has developed to help you sell this product.
PILGRIM: Rate plans are becoming more competitive as more insurers target this market. For Aetna, individual coverage for a man in his early 30s can run $64 a month and that man's family, $231 a month.
KAREN IGNAGNI, AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS: The common conclusion now is that one size doesn't fit all, that we need to have a solution with respect to the uninsured that really reflects the diversity of this population.
PILGRIM: The industry is also tailoring individual coverage in new ways to lure customers, such as catastrophic coverage only or specialized drug plans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Studies show that information is key, and one study shows that even among low-income families, about a quarter say they will still by the insurance if they had more information about the costs.
Coming up, tonight's "Face-Off." Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? The Supreme Court heard that case today. In just a minute, we'll hear two very different points of view on a very emotionally charged issue.
And then, the commerce secretary comes under fire for the exporting of American jobs. Also, an American icon drawing up plans to export its animators. Those stories up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: One of this country's longest-running traditions was the subject today a Supreme Court hearing. A California man is challenging the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God."
Bob Franken has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The session opened with many questions about the right of Michael Newdow to bring this case, questions that center around his custody of his daughter. The child's mother says she has no objections to the term "under God," but Newdow says it violates his rights.
MICHAEL NEWDOW, PLAINTIFF: I am a parent. I have an absolute right to know that when my child goes to the public schools, she is not going to be indoctrinated with any religious dogma. I'm not asking for them to say that there is no God. I want government to stay out of the religion business.
FRANKEN: And he was peppered with skeptical questions and comments from the various justices. Chief Justice William Rehnquist: "What if the school asked the child to sing 'God Bless America'?" Michael had no real answer for that. Justice Kennedy pointing out that his daughter is not required to say "under God." Newdow: "She is not required. She is coerced."
As far as the solicitor general's point, the solicitor general, Ted Olson representing the administration, in saying that it was purely ceremonial. It did not have constitutional problems. Justice Souter said -- quote -- "It is so tepid, so diluted, far from compulsory prayer."
And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made a telling point. She felt -- she made it repeatedly -- that the Supreme Court itself opens with the phrase "God save the United States and this honorable court." The justices will have to decide if that is different from the term "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob Franken, CNN, the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The controversy about the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God" are at the center of tonight's "Face-Off."
And joining me tonight is Jay Sekulow. And he is the chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice. And we're also joined by Barry Lynn, the executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
And welcome to you both. Thanks for joining us.
You know, a very important issue in one way and not to be trivialized at all. Barry, let me start with you. What is wrong with people acknowledging the sort of nation's religious heritage that the founding fathers wanted to acknowledge?
BARRY LYNN, EXEC. DIR. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Well, you see, this is a national statement, in other words, Congress added these words "under god" in 1954 to a pledge of allegiance that had been purely secular, even though it had been written by a Baptist minister. So, this is an official declaration of the United States and an allegiance statement, not about loyalty to the country, which many of us can understand but also allegiance to a particular form of religion, that is one god.
You know, the pledge does not say one nation under god, gods or no god. It's not really inclusive. It excludes, not only people like Michael Newdow who believe in no god, but the many Buddhists, Hindus who believe in more than one god. As well as many people Christians who simply think it's inappropriate to mix government and God in the way it now exists in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
So, we don't have to get rid of the pledge just the word under god and we'll still be a responsible, patriotic people.
PILGRIM: My understanding is they were added at the time many atheist countries were emerging and it was to distance ourselves from countries that felt they had no higher authority than the state. Let me get Jay's opinion on this. Jay, what do you think?
JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Well, I mean historically you are correct, it was adopted in 1954 because they were in the midst of the cold war, Congress felt like they needed to draw distinction between our form of government and what our governmental principles are versus Communist Russia.
The interesting thing, though is, the phrase "under god" which actually originated with George Washington's orders to the Continental Army, he used the phrase under god in those orders, was commonly understood by our founding fathers and the founding generation to represent a very important truth about America. We believed that our rights, privileges and liberties did not derive from the king or government, but rather were a gift from god.
This is what John Locke talked about this in his history of mankind. In his civil treaties. And the idea there being very much a very much a historically accurate statement that in America, our founding generation believed that these rights and liberties derived from god to mankind and could not be removed by government, that's why we see in the Declaration of Independence the famous statement that says we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right. That's where this originated from the start.
LYNN: The religion doesn't derive from government, either. That I think is the important thing. In other words, those of us who choose to affirm god on a daily basis, have all the rights to do so. And school children can do that in private moments, in clubs before and after school, but once you have very impressionable young school children being taught by an authority figure and told this is the time to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and the pledge is not just an affirmation of love of country, but also a particular religious loyalty oath, I think that's downright unAmerican.
PILGRIM: Let me throw this out there. The crux of this entire argument this case, is that this is coercive in a school setting. Now, is there anything really wrong -- are children adversely affected by other children around them saying this? They do have the option to not say it. Is that not correct?
SEKULOW: They have a lot of options, one, is not saying it. Another is to not even being in the classroom or saying the pledge and not saying the pledge under god. More important than what Barry and I think, the sense at the Supreme Court of the United States. It was pretty clear that at least seven justices and maybe all eight that heard this case felt like the Pledge of Allegiance as an acknowledgement of the religious heritage of America was not a violation of the establishment clause.
The case was argued very well by both sides. I don't want to take anything away from Dr. Newdow. He presented a very good argument as did the school board lawyers. And Ted Olson, as always, did a phenomenal job. But the fact of the matter is Dr. Newdow did not get a sympathetic hearing. I think, you're report from Bob Franken clearly established the reality of what took place inside that court room. Which is what happens here, this was not a sympathetic court for the idea of striking down the pledge.
LYNN: Let me say something about under god, what in the world could the words under god mean if they are not an affirmation of religion. In other words, this is not some words that don't have meaning. These are words with some of the most powerful meaning expressed, literally, in the history of the world. Does one believe in god? What kind of god does one believe in? When Dwight Eisenhower signed the law that put "under god" into the pledge, this will acknowledge for all school children every day that this nation believes in god.
Well he's only partially right. It's just as wrong in my opinion to have young children be effectively coerced. Technically they could leave the classroom and face the ridicule of their peers or worse, but the truth is...
SEKULOW: People have been opting out of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools for 50 years without any difficulty. The author of Lee verses Wiseman which was of course the case that talked about the coercive effects of the player at a graduation ceremony. And no matter what you thought about that decision, I thought it was wrongly decided. Four justices agreed with me, unfortunately you needed five needed to carry the day.
But the author of that opinion, Justice Kennedy, was very clear today, that the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under god" is an acknowledgement of the religion heritage of American, it's not a prayer, it's not a religious exercise and it's not unconstitutional.
LYNN: Well, it's a religious loyalty oath, Jay.
SEKULOW: You don't have to take it.
LYNN: And I think one of the differences here is that every day Mr. Newdow's child and many children around the United States who share a minority religious belief or no religious belief do feel that they have no real choice. And I think it's astonishing to -- an 8- year-old could leave the classroom every day and that she or he would have ability without any problem.
SEKULOW: They do it every day without a problem.
LYNN: You want to preserve conscious, you have to take the words under god out of the pledge and allow that to be in the hearts.
PILGRIM: Well, I have two excellent legal minds at my disposal. Let me ask you this, and I don't mean to muddy the water, but if we do end up changing the pledge does that open the door for changing other phrases about god in this country? Is this the beginning.
SEKULOW: I think it would have dramatic impact. I cannot imagine after the argument today at the Supreme Court that that's going to happen. But if it did, I think clearly it would put in jeopardy references to religion, to god, in public facilities, in our national motto "In God We Trust." But interesting here, I think you've got to go back to what is really the issue and the impact.
If the Supreme Court were to say the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. Well, what if a school district decided in order to show it's patriotic expression each day instead of the pledge they were going to have the students say a portion of the "Declaration of Independence" or the entire "Declaration of Independence," which doesn't take that long to read. And in it, of course it says, "we hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal, endowed by the creator with these certain inalienable rights. I think Barry would say that's unconstitutional also. But that is historical fact, the same as the pledge.
LYNN: Let me jump in with the other legal mind here. I don't think that people really should worry too much about the so-called slippery slope, because the courts are all about drawing lines. And the fact you would remove "under god," which I still think is a likely result in this case does not mean every reference to god and in fact, plenty of references, including depictions of the ten commandments in the Supreme Court chamber, generally, genuinely, are acknowledgements of religious heritage. They are not promotions of religions, this is.
SEKULOW: I think you are going to see a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that says, just like we start our chamber with "god save the United States and this honorable court." I think you are going to see an 8-0, maybe 7-1 decision in favor of the pledge.
LYNN: No child has to say that, Jay, that's the difference.
PILGRIM: Gentlemen, we have made an attempt to sort it out. Thank you very much for helping us out. Jay Sekulow and Barry Lynn, thank you.
And that does it bring us to the topic of tonight's poll question. "Do you believe the phrase under god should be preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance." You can vote, yes or no. Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. And we will bring you the results later in the show.
Now, tonight's thought is on the Constitution. "Our constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." Those words by former U.S. Supreme Court justice Hugo Black.
Coming up next in "Exporting America," drawing Disney overseas. Disney looks to cut costs by creating its magic outside the United States. And Commerce Secretary Don Evans faces self criticism from democrats on the issue of lost jobs, outsourcing and the decline of manufacturing. We'll have that story in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In "Exporting America," yet another American icon is looking to ship work overseas. The Walt Disney company has, for decades, exported its movies and its theme parks. And now its animators could be next. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Not so for over a thousand animators at Disney. The house that Mickey built has slashed its animation staff and its president of Disney International who is now traveling in India, admits the company is looking at expanding in India as it looks for way to cut animation costs. It's as though the company is saying that it didn't make money from "Beauty and the Beast" or "Aladdin" or "Lion King" or "Lilo and Stitch," all of which made and still make Disney millions of dollars.
KEVIN KOCH, ANIMATORS GUILD: For me the analogy would be like doing "Pirates of Caribbean" except saying we don't need Johnny Depp, he's too expensive.
TUCKER: It's an idea foreign to Roy Disney as well who once ran the animation studios and who tells CNN that this is an example of the executives meddling in the creative process of the finest animators in the world. Remember Disney is a company built on cartoons. It's theme parks, worlds created by animators.
RUSSELL STOLL, FMR. DISNEY ANIMATOR: I live in a town of celebration that Disney built and there were people that have moved their entire families to that town just so their children could maybe one day be Disney animators. And that, to me is pretty amazing.
TUCKER: But Disney has now closed its animation studios in Florida, and in the opinion of some, Mickey, Mini and Donald could be in grave danger.
STEVE HULET, ANIMATORS GUILD: When you export the jobs I think you export the soul of the art form.
TUCKER: Could it be that Disney is about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Well, any potential offshoring of those jobs is a concern that's on the radar of the New York State Employees Pension Fund and it along with five other Pension Fund shareholders in Disney have requested a direct meeting with Disney's board of directors -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Bill Tucker.
On Capitol Hill today Commerce Secretary Don Evans fielded some pretty tough questions on the same issue. The staggering loss of American manufacturing jobs. A panel of Democrats charged the Bush administration has not done enough to protect American workers. Peter Viles reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On Capitol Hill the commerce secretary learned about a new growth industry, auctioning off closed factories.
REP. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: From Pittsburgh, a plant closed, everything sells. From Mansfield (ph), Ohio, two complete stamping and machine tool shops being dismantled and sold. From Charlotte, North Carolina, plant closing, everything must sell. VILES: Tough questions from Democrats on the issues of lost jobs, outsourcing and the decline of manufacturing.
BROWN: These shop owners overwhelming Republican, overwhelming voted for George Bush, they told me. They don't think you get it.
REP. MIKE DOYLE (D), PENNSYLVANIA: This administration has been bad for the economy and terrible for jobs. And yet I'm not sure what the administration plans to do to address these issues?
VILES: Evans came to Capitol Hill with what is now a standard administration response.
DON EVANS, U.S. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: America cannot turn back from a global market place of goods and services. Engagement with the world creates jobs and growth while a policy of economic isolationism destroys them.
VILES: He dodged most tough questions from Democrats, no opinion on what to do about tax breaks that encourage outsourcing, on whether to extend unemployment insurance, or to give tax credits to companies that manufacture in America. Republicans generally supported Evans, sometimes with some odd logic, though. Listen carefully to John Shimkus of Illinois.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS (R), ILLINOIS: When I mentioned the numbers, that we've got more people employed in this country than in the history of the country, people really don't believe me. We do have a perception issue out there.
TUCKER: Maybe people don't believe him because he's wrong according to the payroll survey, the one favored by Alan Greenspan which shows the economy has lost 2.3 million jobs in the past three years.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Evans also asked today, what is going on with the search that is going on for the manufacturing czar. That is the job President Bush first proposed six months ago. Evans said he has been looking for someone since January when Congress approved the job and he is still working on it -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Pete Viles.
Among those Democrats questioning Secretary Evans was Congressman Mike Doyle and he represents Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the surrounding areas and Pittsburgh's unemployment rate is over 6 percent. That is well above the national average. Congressman Doyle joins me tonight from our Washington bureau. Thanks for joining us. You know in watching the testimony today I think the only way to characterize your reaction to this was outrage, but there's a lot of outrage out there and especially people who lost their jobs. What can be done, is the real question.
REP. MIKE DOYLE (D), PENNSYLVANIA: As I was listening to Secretary Evans speak I closed my eyes and I was asking myself, what America does this administration live in? Secretary Evans and the president have been to Pennsylvania, many, many times. It's a battleground state. That's why they've been there. Yet we've lost 154,700 jobs in manufacturing since this administration took office. And they simply don't get it. If we don't change our trade policy in this country, two things are going to happen in the next decade. One, we're going to wake up and find out we don't build anything in America anymore. And, second, you're going to see the middle class in this country disappear. I think people are starting to come out of the ether in western Pennsylvania and all across the country and they realize something dramatic has to be done and this administration needs to get it and they don't.
PILGRIM: One of the points you made today was the loss of manufacturing is an issue for national security. Why is that?
DOYLE: Just think about America without a domestic steel industry. When we had cheap steel being dumped over in this country, put 18 steel companies out of business before action was taken. Can you imagine America without the ability to make steel that we would depend on other countries for that? It is a matter of national security. Americans have to ask their-self (ph), are we willing to pay a couple of dollars more to guarantee basic industries here in this country and the American way of life we all grew up, with a middle class we grew up with or is this a race to the bottom where we continue to exploit countries like China with their cheap labor and say there's a benefit to the country. We're getting goods a little bit cheaper but we're losing our jobs and middle class. I think if you put that to the American people that they have economic patriotism and they would say we'll pay a few more dollars to keep the middle class in this country and to protect basic industries that are critical to our national security.
PILGRIM: How can we keep jobs here? Erecting protectionist barriers most economists agree is not the answer, so how do we do this? How do we keep jobs here? What would you like to see done?
DOYLE: What I want to see is a level playing field. What people need to understand, there is not a level playing field as we speak today. We can complete with trade, if it's fair trade. It's not fair trade right now. China, India, Japan, all these countries, Europe, they are cleaning our clocks because we are playing by the rules and they are not. We saw that in the steel industry where these countries were over producing steel, dumping it over here below the cost of production. Putting our basic industries out of business.
We have to demand level playing fields. We don't have it right now. I'm tired of hearing from this administration, we go first all the time. We let our barriers down. We do the free trade agreements and we never hold anybody else to the standards. It's not working, we see the imports surging in China. The trade imbalance of this country is at an all-time high and getting higher. Until we have a level playing field, we're never going to have a trade policy that is going to create the America we grew up in. We're watching the middle class being eroded in this country and our losing our ability to manufacture anything in America because of these policies. They need to change. PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much. Representative Mike Doyle, thank you. A reminder now to vote in tonight's poll question, which was, "do you believe the phrase 'under God' should be preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance, vote yes or no. Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll bring you the results a little bit later in the show.
Still to come, in "Broken Borders," Americans are losing jobs, while foreign-born workers are getting hired. We'll have more on the debate over the president's proposed guest worker program and its impact on U.S. employment.
Plus an agreement between a Los Angeles school district and the government of Mexico will bring books and cultural programs into the United States. We'll have the details when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In the last three years more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs, but employment for foreign born workers has increased by more than 1.5 million. Now this disparity is fueling the debate over whether immigrants, particularly illegal aliens are taking jobs from American. Today a Congressional Subcommittee looked at the impact a guest worker program would have on U.S. employment.
Lisa Sylvester has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Bush wants to create a guest worker program that will give temporary legal status to us millions of illegal aliens working in the United States. The plan allows additional foreign workers to enter as long as no American wants to job and there is an employer willing to sponsor them. Today Congressional lawmakers including several Republicans criticized the proposal for rewarding law breakers at the expense of working Americans.
REP. LAMAR SMITH (R), TEXAS: Well, say every month our house is broken into, well, we can leave the front door unlocked or we can pass out keys to the would-be burglars or we can get better locks and ask the police to patrol the neighborhood a bit little more frequently. I think we should do the latter.
SYLVESTER: There are eight to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States. Those who favor guest worker programs want to bring those workers out of the shadows.
MUZAFFAR CHISHI, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE: It's a pipe dream for anyone to believe that we can deport this large of population. Even if we had -- even if we had the moral will to do this, it's simply we just do not have the resources to do this.
SYLVESTER: But critics say that is no reason to open the door for more foreign workers. American workers could be displaced and their wages pushed down by the surge in the labor pool. The poorest Americans and those with the least education would be hurt the most. But they are not the only ones vulnerable.
ROY BECK, NUMBERUSA: Most guest worker proposals would open every American occupation up and down the economic ladder. Nearly every American would have to compete with every working in the world.
SYLVESTER: Opponents say there's another group that would be hurt, the millions of immigrants who followed the rules and entered the country legally.
(on camera): President Bush's plan is not likely to go anywhere this year. It's been difficult mustering support this election season. In fact, it may be hard to pass the proposal at all with some lawmakers feeling the plan goes too far, others feeling it does not go far enough.
Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, a look at some of your thoughts on exporting America and the efforts to curb outsourcing.
We have Richard of Abilene, Texas, and he writes, "If trying to save our way of life for our children and grandchildren is now called isolationism, well sign me up."
And Faith Gagne, South Yarmouth, Massachusetts of writes, "My blood boils every time I hear concerned Americans called 'Economic Isolationists" because they object to the outsourcing of American jobs when actually it is exactly the other way around.
We do love hearing from you. E-mail us loudobbs@cnn.com.
And in our next piece, the government of Mexico has agreed to provide books, cultural awareness programs and even teachers to school children and their parents in Los Angeles. It's part of the Mexican President Vincente Fox program to reach out to Mexicans living abroad.
Casey Wian has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Los Angeles Unified School District has three quarters of a million students. More than 70 percent are Latino. District officials say a looming shortage of Spanish speaking teachers, so they plan to find some in Mexico.
JOSE HUIZAR, PRES. L.A. UNIFIED SCHOOL BOARD: In the next six years we will open up anywhere between 120 to 130 new schools. We are severely overcrowded and we haven't built schools for the past three years. We are now doing that and we will need teachers to fill those positions.
What better area to recruit and ask for a labor force to teachers than Mexico? WIAN: It's part after new partnership between the district and the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles. It expands the Mexican government sponsorship of cultural awareness programs, Spanish language books donated to parents in efforts to urge Latino parents to become more involved in their children's education. Also planned are more so-called community plazas or on campus education centers for parents.
(on camera): One is already opening here at North Hollywood High. School officials initially agreed to talk to us about he program and show us how it works, but they backed out saying they are too busy.
(voice-over): The school partnership is one example of Mexican President Vincente Fox effort to improve the lives of Mexican nationals living in the United States. L.A. Unified says it has received some complaints from citizens concerned about Mexican government influence in local schools.
RUBEN BELTRAN, MEXICAN CONSULATE GENERAL: The Mexican government is very respectful of the United States educational system and we are not interfering. We are offering a communication, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the system. We are offering vehicle of communication. We are offering our shoulder.
WIAN: To a school district that slashed $800 million from its budget in the past two years. School board president Huizar recently returned from Mexico City. He says Mexico plans to offer similar problems in other U.S. Cities.
Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: We'll be return in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Now the results of "Tonight's Poll" question. Forty- six percent of you believe the phrase under god should be preserved under the Pledge of Allegiance, 54 percent do not.
That is our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us.
Tomorrow House minority leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will be our guest.
And for all of us here good night from New York. Anderson Cooper is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired March 24, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, extraordinary testimony to the 9/11 Commission from the government's former terrorism adviser.
RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.
PILGRIM: A dramatic standoff at an Israeli checkpoint. Soldiers stop a suicide bomber. He is one of the youngest ever.
CHILDREN: I pledge allegiance.
PILGRIM: A showdown at the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God." We will have two very different views in "Face-Off" tonight.
American animators made Disney famous. Now hundreds of animators' jobs could be exported to cheap overseas labor markets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you export the jobs, I think you export the soul.
PILGRIM: Tonight, we'll have a special report on this latest threat to American jobs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, March 24. Sitting in for Lou Dobbs for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening.
Dramatic testimony today to the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. President Bush's former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke said the Bush White House believed the al Qaeda threat was important, but not urgent. Clarke has written a controversial new book strongly criticizing the president's strategy in the war on terror.
Sean Callebs reports.
SEAN CALLEBS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And, Kitty, two days of finger- pointing, explanation, excuses and amid the testimony to that federal commission, some comments from that former White House counterterrorism chief that began with words for those who lost loved ones on 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARKE: Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. And for that failure, I would ask for your forgiveness.
CALLEBS (voice-over): So began the most awaited testimony of the week, Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, whose criticisms of the Bush administration's conduct in the war on terror has made his book "Against All Enemies" the talk of Washington, sat before the 9/11 Commission and leveled withering charges.
CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue. By invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.
CALLEBS: Clarke spent some time denying charges of political motives.
CLARKE: Let me say here as I am under oath that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one.
CALLEBS: But left to an ovation.
The constant from two days of testimony, missed opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The morning session found CIA Director George Tenet and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, veterans of the Clinton administration, differing on whether or not the CIA was permitted to kill Osama bin Laden prior to September 11. But both men took pains to make plain the terror threat remains very much in the present.
SAMUEL BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: When our administration ended, we alerted the incoming team to the terrorist threat and al Qaeda. During the transition, Bush administration officials received intensive briefings on this. As has been reported, I told my successor that she would be spending more time on terrorism and al Qaeda than any other issue.
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: It's coming. There's still going to try to do it and we need to sort of -- men and women here who have lost their families have to know that we have got to do a hell of a lot better.
CALLEBS: As they wound down, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was wound up. When pressed by commission members, Armitage was at a loss to explain how September 11 occurred.
RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: I just don't think we had the imagination required to consider a tragedy of this magnitude. (END VIDEOTAPE)
CALLEBS: And one person who remained conspicuous in her absence during this testimony, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Rice spent the beginning of the week as the administration's most visible first-responder to allegations that President Bush was simply obsessed with Saddam Hussein in the wake of 9/11, but Rice declined repeated efforts urging her to publicly testify before the commission -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Sean Callebs.
Well, tonight, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice directly challenged Clarke's testimony. She accused Clarke of -- quote -- "scurrilous behavior."
Senior White House correspondent John King has just come out of the briefing with Rice.
And, John, a very strong rebuttal tonight from Rice, not surprising.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A very strong rebuttal, Kitty, and at times an angry rebuttal.
Condoleezza Rice saying the American people deserve an answer to the scurrilous allegations, as she called them, that the president was somehow ignorant of the terrorist threat to the United States. And as Condoleezza Rice made her case that Dick Clarke's testimony today was simply fiction, she used e-mails written by Mr. Clarke.
Let me give you a bit of the history Condoleezza Rice gave us a short time ago. She said an July 5, 2001, a little more than two months before the September 11 attacks, she came out of a briefing with the president in which he was told that the threat level spike had been up quite dramatic. Now, those threats said were against U.S. interests overseas and against Israel as well.
But she said she and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card decided as a precaution to call Richard Clarke into her office and instruct him to put all domestic agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the FBI, the Coast Guard and others on a higher alert, to tell them there was a possibility of al Qaeda attacks here in the United States, even though the intelligence suggested those attacks would be overseas.
She also read an unclassified portion of an e-mail, this an e- mail to Condoleezza Rice from Richard Clarke. Four days after the September 11 attacks, he wrote her saying that he was worried that when the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that the intelligence about terrorist threats got to FAA and other domestic law enforcement authorities.
Dick Clarke then detailed what he had done. And he told Condoleezza Rice in this e-mail, again, this from the same Richard Clarke who today said the administration did nothing to prepare for the attacks, Richard Clarke wrote -- quote -- "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement, including FAA, knew that the CSG, the Counterterrorism Study Group, believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the United States and did ask that special measures be taken."
So I can tell you, Kitty, here at the White House tonight, they are red hot. They believe what Richard Clarke told this commission under oath today is pure fiction. And they say they will continue to present what they say are the facts and the evidence to rebut it.
PILGRIM: John, the finger-pointing has really been going on for quite a few days, though. There was a quite buildup to this. Do you think that this will put it to rest or do you think this will continue this debate?
KING: The administration says, if there are lingering questions, they will continue to provide the answers for two reasons.
No. 1, they say that Richard Clarke essentially said that the president of the United States because of his neglect, in Mr. Clarke's view, somehow contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people. They say that is a reckless allegation that they will rebut.
But we also need to honest and realize we are in the middle of a presidential election campaign and the president is running on his record post-9/11, saying that he has provided the country with steady leadership in the war on terrorism. If Mr. Clarke's assessment of the president as essentially asleep at the switch before 9/11 takes hold, that would hurt the president politically. The White House says the facts support that that is not the case, including, again, Mr. Clarke's own words. They say they will continue to make that case quite aggressively.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, John King reporting tonight from the White House -- thanks, John.
I'm joined now by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, Timothy Roemer. And he is president of the Center for National Policy. He's also a former Democratic congressman.
And thanks very much for taking the time to join us tonight.
TIMOTHY ROEMER, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY: My pleasure, Kitty.
PILGRIM: An extremely difficult, bitter and sobering day today in Washington. They say that Condoleezza Rice testifying before the commission would set a bad precedent. Do you agree with that? She certainly was very vocal tonight.
ROEMER: I absolutely disagree with that. I think she would be an excellent person to come publicly before the American people and the five Democrats and five Republicans on the commission and provide the answers to those questions that she outlined in your previous report from John King at the White House.
Listen, Dick Clarke, who I don't agree with on everything, came before the commission and the American people and swore to tell the truth. He did it in public. He didn't do it on sound bites. He didn't do it in sound clips. And we grilled him and we asked him a lot of tough questions. We're not asking Dr. Rice, who is extremely knowledgeable and eloquent and respected by everybody on the commission, to come so that we can point fingers at her.
We want to get this situation right. Al Qaeda's coming at us. They are more and more of a threat every day. We have to fix the existing problems.
PILGRIM: One of the most sobering moments for me in the testimony today was when Dick Clarke said that, unfortunately, the government requires body bags before they change the way they make decisions and allocate money for national security. Do you think that kind of strong statement will actually change the way government functions going forward, because that, after all, is the purpose of all this isn't it?
ROEMER: Kitty, what is so frustrating is many good commissions throughout the 90s have made recommendations to the Congress and to the White House and the American people to act on this terrorism threat. We have Aspin-Brown in the mid-'90s.
And we have Hart-Rudman that warned that Americans might be killed on our homeland if we didn't take some precautions. That was 1999. Now we have 3,000 people that are dead in the most horrific attack on our nation's homeland. We have been flown into the jaws of hell -- and that's where we are. Let us come together, as the American people can so often do, Republicans and Democrats, to find some solutions, go forward and work with the Congress and the president to fix the problem.
Let's not put this thing in the middle of a presidential election. Let's do what's right here and try to get this problem fixed.
PILGRIM: Well, as you mentioned, it's good to depoliticize this. We've heard a lot about institutional bureaucracy, dysfunctional decision-making. You've spent a lot of time on this. What exactly would you like to see done going forward?
ROEMER: Well, there are a host of recommendations that the commission is considering, along with some of the recommendations that Hart-Rudman and the Bremer commission and the Gilmore commission have recommended to the United States Congress, too. We need better human intelligence and not just to rely on satellites and birds in the sky.
And we need better jointness between our departments and we need to make sure that the FBI can get the right kind of translators and the right kind of culture and not be risk-adverse to get the right kind of information to do the domestic intelligence that we require if there are sleeper cells here. There are a host of things, Kitty, that are out there, some of which are already on the table. The joint inquiry made 19 recommendations to United States Congress, and I don't think three of those have been fully implemented. Let us move forward in a united and bipartisan way and not put this squarely in the political finger- pointing, partisan arena. We have a shining city on the hill here. Let's not degrade it and let it slip down into the swamp.
Let's answer these tough questions, not put a blame game forward and a witch-hunt, and move forward to try to get after this transnational threat.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much for joining us tonight, Timothy Roemer.
ROEMER: Kitty, thank you. I appreciate it.
PILGRIM: OK.
Still to come, a teenage suicide bomber tries to enter Israel. We'll have the dramatic story next. And we'll also talk with terrorism expert Frank Gaffney.
President Bush's controversial guest worker program faces tough opposition in Congress. We'll have a special report.
And Commerce Secretary Don Evans faces a barrage of criticism on Capitol Hill over the export of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Israeli troops today stopped a suicide bomber from entering Israel from the West Bank. Suicide bombers are a constant threat in Israel. What makes this terrorist so different is his age. He was just a teenager.
ITN's Julian Manyon reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JULIAN MANYON, ITN REPORTER (voice-over): According to Israeli army spokesmen, this is a 14-year-old suicide bomber, said to be the youngest yet. He was stopped at an Israeli checkpoint near the West Bank city of Nablus and revealed an explosive belt strapped around his chest.
The Israelis say that the boy was sent to blow himself up next to their position. They sent a robot to bring him a pair of scissors to cut off the belt. A soldier warned him not to cut the white wire. The boy whose name is Hussam Abdo, struggled with the belt and said in Arabic, "I can't get the thing off." Then, as the cameraman changed position, he managed to free himself.
The army blew up the belt and then showed the boy to the press. The Israelis prevented journalists from asking questions. But the army insists that this was a deliberate Palestinian suicide attack.
CAPT. SHARON FEINGOLD, IDF SPOKESWOMAN: This is not the first time the Palestinians have been using men, women and children, especially women and children, and relying on the kindness and the humanity of our soldiers.
MANYON (on camera): The boy's family said tonight that he is mentally slow. And so far, we only have the Israeli army's word for it that this was a suicide attack, but it's clear that many Palestinian youngsters learn to hate Israel at an early age and it seems that there may now be terrorist organizers fanatical enough to use them as human bombs.
Julian Manyon, ITV News, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The threat of international terrorism today led to the temporary closure of U.S. embassies in four countries. Those countries are the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Mauritius. Diplomats said the closures were due to specific threats and anti-American demonstrations.
Well, I am joined now by one of the country's leading experts on global terrorism, Frank Gaffney. Frank Gaffney is the founder of the Center For Security Policy in Washington and he served as a senior official in the Defense Department during the Reagan administration.
Thanks for joining us tonight, Frank.
FRANK GAFFNEY, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Good evening, Kitty.
PILGRIM: We had the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin this week. That led to fears that there would be increased attacks against Israel and the United States. How do you assess that threat level?
GAFFNEY: I think that threat level is very high, with or without the assassination of the sheik.
The underlying reality, which I think your story of a moment ago about this 14-year-old kid in Israel, is that we are up against, as I think Lou Dobbs and this program have made very clear to the American people, is a threat from radical Islam, what they call Islamists that are promoting a culture of death, even at the very youngest of kids in places like the Palestinian refugee camps.
And those kids and their counterparts in Pakistan and Indonesia and even in, I'm afraid, our own country, as Congressman Roemer was suggesting a moment ago, sleeper cells are being cultivated, are being trained, are being indoctrinated to carry forth a war against those of us who, whether they're Muslims or non-Muslims, don't subscribe to this radical view of Islam.
That's I think what we're up against. And I'm hopeful that taking out people like bin Laden and Sheik Yassin will slow that, but we have to wage this war on the ideas level too, and we're not doing that very well, I'm afraid.
PILGRIM: You know, many have suggest that had this is a whole new situation, that this is not a network, that you have al Qaeda and radical Islamists forming ad hoc groups that are loosely affiliated and that it's a whole new level. How did you think that plays out? And how do you fight that kind of an effort?
GAFFNEY: Well, this is really the key point.
What we've seen in al Qaeda is sort of the outcropping of an investment that's been made over decades, most especially, I'm sorry to say, by our friends, so-called friends, in Saudi Arabia, who have been promoting the mosques, the imams, the indoctrination centers, the madrassas, these so-called schools, that have created really pipelines that extend well beyond the specific cadre of al Qaeda, the potential recruiting pool.
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: And I say potential recruiting pool because I'm not sure that all of them will, in fact, become jihadist cannon fodder.
But we need to actively going up against that, pushing back, trying to give them an alternative educational experience and opportunity and most especially saying to people like our friends, the Saudis, you must desist in this kind of hateful proselytizing and propagation of the enemies we may confront in the future.
PILGRIM: And, Frank, we have just a second, but I must ask you -- I'm sure you've been watching the 9/11 testimony.
And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified that taking out Osama bin Laden, he said this yesterday, wouldn't necessarily have stopped the 9/11 attacks. Do you agree with that statement?
GAFFNEY: It's technically, I'm sure, true, because I think the sleeper cells that were -- to prosecute that particular attack were already in place even if we had acted against bin Laden. But we need to do more than just take him out. As I said, we need to go after the culture of death that he is simply one manifestation of.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Frank Gaffney. Thanks for joining us, Frank.
GAFFNEY: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Just ahead, a look at the growing number of uninsured in the country. Their changing profile has insurance companies scrambling to sign them up.
And the Pledge of Allegiance is under fire. A California atheist says the phrase "one nation under God" is unconstitutional and offensive, and the Supreme Court hears his case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PILGRIM: Our series, "The Middle-Class Squeeze," health care in America, continues tonight with a look at the nation's uninsured. Now, it is a group that is growing in size and also in income and a group that insurance companies are surely noticing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (voice-over): Millions of people have no health coverage, some because they're out of work, and others because many small employers can't and don't pay for health care.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: My boss told me I had to start buying my own health insurance. You pick that up on your way home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: But insurers are recognizing that uninsured people are not always financially strapped. Of the 1.5 million who recently joined the ranks of the uninsured, nearly 60 percent have incomes of $75,000 or more.
ELIZABETH BIERBOWER, HUMANA: And sometimes they're not covering the dependents. So, sometimes you see the dependents falling through the cracks and these individual products can help there by offering that coverage for the dependents while the employee may in fact have coverage with their employer.
PILGRIM: Insurers say there is an information gap, especially if they lose health coverage when they lose their job.
WILLIAM ROTH, AETNA: I think it's a combination of not knowing about how to get insurance on an individual basis. Also, some people, frankly, have decided that they would rather spend their money elsewhere and made that financial decision.
PILGRIM: Insurers are pitching individual coverage directly to them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: Think you'll never need health care? Think again. Get Kaiser Permanente personal advantage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Aetna is running seminars for its insurance brokers on how to pitch the new products.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll go over a bunch of tools that Aetna has developed to help you sell this product.
PILGRIM: Rate plans are becoming more competitive as more insurers target this market. For Aetna, individual coverage for a man in his early 30s can run $64 a month and that man's family, $231 a month.
KAREN IGNAGNI, AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS: The common conclusion now is that one size doesn't fit all, that we need to have a solution with respect to the uninsured that really reflects the diversity of this population.
PILGRIM: The industry is also tailoring individual coverage in new ways to lure customers, such as catastrophic coverage only or specialized drug plans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Studies show that information is key, and one study shows that even among low-income families, about a quarter say they will still by the insurance if they had more information about the costs.
Coming up, tonight's "Face-Off." Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? The Supreme Court heard that case today. In just a minute, we'll hear two very different points of view on a very emotionally charged issue.
And then, the commerce secretary comes under fire for the exporting of American jobs. Also, an American icon drawing up plans to export its animators. Those stories up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: One of this country's longest-running traditions was the subject today a Supreme Court hearing. A California man is challenging the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God."
Bob Franken has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The session opened with many questions about the right of Michael Newdow to bring this case, questions that center around his custody of his daughter. The child's mother says she has no objections to the term "under God," but Newdow says it violates his rights.
MICHAEL NEWDOW, PLAINTIFF: I am a parent. I have an absolute right to know that when my child goes to the public schools, she is not going to be indoctrinated with any religious dogma. I'm not asking for them to say that there is no God. I want government to stay out of the religion business.
FRANKEN: And he was peppered with skeptical questions and comments from the various justices. Chief Justice William Rehnquist: "What if the school asked the child to sing 'God Bless America'?" Michael had no real answer for that. Justice Kennedy pointing out that his daughter is not required to say "under God." Newdow: "She is not required. She is coerced."
As far as the solicitor general's point, the solicitor general, Ted Olson representing the administration, in saying that it was purely ceremonial. It did not have constitutional problems. Justice Souter said -- quote -- "It is so tepid, so diluted, far from compulsory prayer."
And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made a telling point. She felt -- she made it repeatedly -- that the Supreme Court itself opens with the phrase "God save the United States and this honorable court." The justices will have to decide if that is different from the term "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob Franken, CNN, the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The controversy about the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God" are at the center of tonight's "Face-Off."
And joining me tonight is Jay Sekulow. And he is the chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice. And we're also joined by Barry Lynn, the executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
And welcome to you both. Thanks for joining us.
You know, a very important issue in one way and not to be trivialized at all. Barry, let me start with you. What is wrong with people acknowledging the sort of nation's religious heritage that the founding fathers wanted to acknowledge?
BARRY LYNN, EXEC. DIR. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Well, you see, this is a national statement, in other words, Congress added these words "under god" in 1954 to a pledge of allegiance that had been purely secular, even though it had been written by a Baptist minister. So, this is an official declaration of the United States and an allegiance statement, not about loyalty to the country, which many of us can understand but also allegiance to a particular form of religion, that is one god.
You know, the pledge does not say one nation under god, gods or no god. It's not really inclusive. It excludes, not only people like Michael Newdow who believe in no god, but the many Buddhists, Hindus who believe in more than one god. As well as many people Christians who simply think it's inappropriate to mix government and God in the way it now exists in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
So, we don't have to get rid of the pledge just the word under god and we'll still be a responsible, patriotic people.
PILGRIM: My understanding is they were added at the time many atheist countries were emerging and it was to distance ourselves from countries that felt they had no higher authority than the state. Let me get Jay's opinion on this. Jay, what do you think?
JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Well, I mean historically you are correct, it was adopted in 1954 because they were in the midst of the cold war, Congress felt like they needed to draw distinction between our form of government and what our governmental principles are versus Communist Russia.
The interesting thing, though is, the phrase "under god" which actually originated with George Washington's orders to the Continental Army, he used the phrase under god in those orders, was commonly understood by our founding fathers and the founding generation to represent a very important truth about America. We believed that our rights, privileges and liberties did not derive from the king or government, but rather were a gift from god.
This is what John Locke talked about this in his history of mankind. In his civil treaties. And the idea there being very much a very much a historically accurate statement that in America, our founding generation believed that these rights and liberties derived from god to mankind and could not be removed by government, that's why we see in the Declaration of Independence the famous statement that says we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right. That's where this originated from the start.
LYNN: The religion doesn't derive from government, either. That I think is the important thing. In other words, those of us who choose to affirm god on a daily basis, have all the rights to do so. And school children can do that in private moments, in clubs before and after school, but once you have very impressionable young school children being taught by an authority figure and told this is the time to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and the pledge is not just an affirmation of love of country, but also a particular religious loyalty oath, I think that's downright unAmerican.
PILGRIM: Let me throw this out there. The crux of this entire argument this case, is that this is coercive in a school setting. Now, is there anything really wrong -- are children adversely affected by other children around them saying this? They do have the option to not say it. Is that not correct?
SEKULOW: They have a lot of options, one, is not saying it. Another is to not even being in the classroom or saying the pledge and not saying the pledge under god. More important than what Barry and I think, the sense at the Supreme Court of the United States. It was pretty clear that at least seven justices and maybe all eight that heard this case felt like the Pledge of Allegiance as an acknowledgement of the religious heritage of America was not a violation of the establishment clause.
The case was argued very well by both sides. I don't want to take anything away from Dr. Newdow. He presented a very good argument as did the school board lawyers. And Ted Olson, as always, did a phenomenal job. But the fact of the matter is Dr. Newdow did not get a sympathetic hearing. I think, you're report from Bob Franken clearly established the reality of what took place inside that court room. Which is what happens here, this was not a sympathetic court for the idea of striking down the pledge.
LYNN: Let me say something about under god, what in the world could the words under god mean if they are not an affirmation of religion. In other words, this is not some words that don't have meaning. These are words with some of the most powerful meaning expressed, literally, in the history of the world. Does one believe in god? What kind of god does one believe in? When Dwight Eisenhower signed the law that put "under god" into the pledge, this will acknowledge for all school children every day that this nation believes in god.
Well he's only partially right. It's just as wrong in my opinion to have young children be effectively coerced. Technically they could leave the classroom and face the ridicule of their peers or worse, but the truth is...
SEKULOW: People have been opting out of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools for 50 years without any difficulty. The author of Lee verses Wiseman which was of course the case that talked about the coercive effects of the player at a graduation ceremony. And no matter what you thought about that decision, I thought it was wrongly decided. Four justices agreed with me, unfortunately you needed five needed to carry the day.
But the author of that opinion, Justice Kennedy, was very clear today, that the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under god" is an acknowledgement of the religion heritage of American, it's not a prayer, it's not a religious exercise and it's not unconstitutional.
LYNN: Well, it's a religious loyalty oath, Jay.
SEKULOW: You don't have to take it.
LYNN: And I think one of the differences here is that every day Mr. Newdow's child and many children around the United States who share a minority religious belief or no religious belief do feel that they have no real choice. And I think it's astonishing to -- an 8- year-old could leave the classroom every day and that she or he would have ability without any problem.
SEKULOW: They do it every day without a problem.
LYNN: You want to preserve conscious, you have to take the words under god out of the pledge and allow that to be in the hearts.
PILGRIM: Well, I have two excellent legal minds at my disposal. Let me ask you this, and I don't mean to muddy the water, but if we do end up changing the pledge does that open the door for changing other phrases about god in this country? Is this the beginning.
SEKULOW: I think it would have dramatic impact. I cannot imagine after the argument today at the Supreme Court that that's going to happen. But if it did, I think clearly it would put in jeopardy references to religion, to god, in public facilities, in our national motto "In God We Trust." But interesting here, I think you've got to go back to what is really the issue and the impact.
If the Supreme Court were to say the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. Well, what if a school district decided in order to show it's patriotic expression each day instead of the pledge they were going to have the students say a portion of the "Declaration of Independence" or the entire "Declaration of Independence," which doesn't take that long to read. And in it, of course it says, "we hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal, endowed by the creator with these certain inalienable rights. I think Barry would say that's unconstitutional also. But that is historical fact, the same as the pledge.
LYNN: Let me jump in with the other legal mind here. I don't think that people really should worry too much about the so-called slippery slope, because the courts are all about drawing lines. And the fact you would remove "under god," which I still think is a likely result in this case does not mean every reference to god and in fact, plenty of references, including depictions of the ten commandments in the Supreme Court chamber, generally, genuinely, are acknowledgements of religious heritage. They are not promotions of religions, this is.
SEKULOW: I think you are going to see a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that says, just like we start our chamber with "god save the United States and this honorable court." I think you are going to see an 8-0, maybe 7-1 decision in favor of the pledge.
LYNN: No child has to say that, Jay, that's the difference.
PILGRIM: Gentlemen, we have made an attempt to sort it out. Thank you very much for helping us out. Jay Sekulow and Barry Lynn, thank you.
And that does it bring us to the topic of tonight's poll question. "Do you believe the phrase under god should be preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance." You can vote, yes or no. Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. And we will bring you the results later in the show.
Now, tonight's thought is on the Constitution. "Our constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." Those words by former U.S. Supreme Court justice Hugo Black.
Coming up next in "Exporting America," drawing Disney overseas. Disney looks to cut costs by creating its magic outside the United States. And Commerce Secretary Don Evans faces self criticism from democrats on the issue of lost jobs, outsourcing and the decline of manufacturing. We'll have that story in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In "Exporting America," yet another American icon is looking to ship work overseas. The Walt Disney company has, for decades, exported its movies and its theme parks. And now its animators could be next. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Not so for over a thousand animators at Disney. The house that Mickey built has slashed its animation staff and its president of Disney International who is now traveling in India, admits the company is looking at expanding in India as it looks for way to cut animation costs. It's as though the company is saying that it didn't make money from "Beauty and the Beast" or "Aladdin" or "Lion King" or "Lilo and Stitch," all of which made and still make Disney millions of dollars.
KEVIN KOCH, ANIMATORS GUILD: For me the analogy would be like doing "Pirates of Caribbean" except saying we don't need Johnny Depp, he's too expensive.
TUCKER: It's an idea foreign to Roy Disney as well who once ran the animation studios and who tells CNN that this is an example of the executives meddling in the creative process of the finest animators in the world. Remember Disney is a company built on cartoons. It's theme parks, worlds created by animators.
RUSSELL STOLL, FMR. DISNEY ANIMATOR: I live in a town of celebration that Disney built and there were people that have moved their entire families to that town just so their children could maybe one day be Disney animators. And that, to me is pretty amazing.
TUCKER: But Disney has now closed its animation studios in Florida, and in the opinion of some, Mickey, Mini and Donald could be in grave danger.
STEVE HULET, ANIMATORS GUILD: When you export the jobs I think you export the soul of the art form.
TUCKER: Could it be that Disney is about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Well, any potential offshoring of those jobs is a concern that's on the radar of the New York State Employees Pension Fund and it along with five other Pension Fund shareholders in Disney have requested a direct meeting with Disney's board of directors -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Bill Tucker.
On Capitol Hill today Commerce Secretary Don Evans fielded some pretty tough questions on the same issue. The staggering loss of American manufacturing jobs. A panel of Democrats charged the Bush administration has not done enough to protect American workers. Peter Viles reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On Capitol Hill the commerce secretary learned about a new growth industry, auctioning off closed factories.
REP. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: From Pittsburgh, a plant closed, everything sells. From Mansfield (ph), Ohio, two complete stamping and machine tool shops being dismantled and sold. From Charlotte, North Carolina, plant closing, everything must sell. VILES: Tough questions from Democrats on the issues of lost jobs, outsourcing and the decline of manufacturing.
BROWN: These shop owners overwhelming Republican, overwhelming voted for George Bush, they told me. They don't think you get it.
REP. MIKE DOYLE (D), PENNSYLVANIA: This administration has been bad for the economy and terrible for jobs. And yet I'm not sure what the administration plans to do to address these issues?
VILES: Evans came to Capitol Hill with what is now a standard administration response.
DON EVANS, U.S. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: America cannot turn back from a global market place of goods and services. Engagement with the world creates jobs and growth while a policy of economic isolationism destroys them.
VILES: He dodged most tough questions from Democrats, no opinion on what to do about tax breaks that encourage outsourcing, on whether to extend unemployment insurance, or to give tax credits to companies that manufacture in America. Republicans generally supported Evans, sometimes with some odd logic, though. Listen carefully to John Shimkus of Illinois.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS (R), ILLINOIS: When I mentioned the numbers, that we've got more people employed in this country than in the history of the country, people really don't believe me. We do have a perception issue out there.
TUCKER: Maybe people don't believe him because he's wrong according to the payroll survey, the one favored by Alan Greenspan which shows the economy has lost 2.3 million jobs in the past three years.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Evans also asked today, what is going on with the search that is going on for the manufacturing czar. That is the job President Bush first proposed six months ago. Evans said he has been looking for someone since January when Congress approved the job and he is still working on it -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Pete Viles.
Among those Democrats questioning Secretary Evans was Congressman Mike Doyle and he represents Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the surrounding areas and Pittsburgh's unemployment rate is over 6 percent. That is well above the national average. Congressman Doyle joins me tonight from our Washington bureau. Thanks for joining us. You know in watching the testimony today I think the only way to characterize your reaction to this was outrage, but there's a lot of outrage out there and especially people who lost their jobs. What can be done, is the real question.
REP. MIKE DOYLE (D), PENNSYLVANIA: As I was listening to Secretary Evans speak I closed my eyes and I was asking myself, what America does this administration live in? Secretary Evans and the president have been to Pennsylvania, many, many times. It's a battleground state. That's why they've been there. Yet we've lost 154,700 jobs in manufacturing since this administration took office. And they simply don't get it. If we don't change our trade policy in this country, two things are going to happen in the next decade. One, we're going to wake up and find out we don't build anything in America anymore. And, second, you're going to see the middle class in this country disappear. I think people are starting to come out of the ether in western Pennsylvania and all across the country and they realize something dramatic has to be done and this administration needs to get it and they don't.
PILGRIM: One of the points you made today was the loss of manufacturing is an issue for national security. Why is that?
DOYLE: Just think about America without a domestic steel industry. When we had cheap steel being dumped over in this country, put 18 steel companies out of business before action was taken. Can you imagine America without the ability to make steel that we would depend on other countries for that? It is a matter of national security. Americans have to ask their-self (ph), are we willing to pay a couple of dollars more to guarantee basic industries here in this country and the American way of life we all grew up, with a middle class we grew up with or is this a race to the bottom where we continue to exploit countries like China with their cheap labor and say there's a benefit to the country. We're getting goods a little bit cheaper but we're losing our jobs and middle class. I think if you put that to the American people that they have economic patriotism and they would say we'll pay a few more dollars to keep the middle class in this country and to protect basic industries that are critical to our national security.
PILGRIM: How can we keep jobs here? Erecting protectionist barriers most economists agree is not the answer, so how do we do this? How do we keep jobs here? What would you like to see done?
DOYLE: What I want to see is a level playing field. What people need to understand, there is not a level playing field as we speak today. We can complete with trade, if it's fair trade. It's not fair trade right now. China, India, Japan, all these countries, Europe, they are cleaning our clocks because we are playing by the rules and they are not. We saw that in the steel industry where these countries were over producing steel, dumping it over here below the cost of production. Putting our basic industries out of business.
We have to demand level playing fields. We don't have it right now. I'm tired of hearing from this administration, we go first all the time. We let our barriers down. We do the free trade agreements and we never hold anybody else to the standards. It's not working, we see the imports surging in China. The trade imbalance of this country is at an all-time high and getting higher. Until we have a level playing field, we're never going to have a trade policy that is going to create the America we grew up in. We're watching the middle class being eroded in this country and our losing our ability to manufacture anything in America because of these policies. They need to change. PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much. Representative Mike Doyle, thank you. A reminder now to vote in tonight's poll question, which was, "do you believe the phrase 'under God' should be preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance, vote yes or no. Cast your vote at CNN.com/lou. We'll bring you the results a little bit later in the show.
Still to come, in "Broken Borders," Americans are losing jobs, while foreign-born workers are getting hired. We'll have more on the debate over the president's proposed guest worker program and its impact on U.S. employment.
Plus an agreement between a Los Angeles school district and the government of Mexico will bring books and cultural programs into the United States. We'll have the details when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In the last three years more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs, but employment for foreign born workers has increased by more than 1.5 million. Now this disparity is fueling the debate over whether immigrants, particularly illegal aliens are taking jobs from American. Today a Congressional Subcommittee looked at the impact a guest worker program would have on U.S. employment.
Lisa Sylvester has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Bush wants to create a guest worker program that will give temporary legal status to us millions of illegal aliens working in the United States. The plan allows additional foreign workers to enter as long as no American wants to job and there is an employer willing to sponsor them. Today Congressional lawmakers including several Republicans criticized the proposal for rewarding law breakers at the expense of working Americans.
REP. LAMAR SMITH (R), TEXAS: Well, say every month our house is broken into, well, we can leave the front door unlocked or we can pass out keys to the would-be burglars or we can get better locks and ask the police to patrol the neighborhood a bit little more frequently. I think we should do the latter.
SYLVESTER: There are eight to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States. Those who favor guest worker programs want to bring those workers out of the shadows.
MUZAFFAR CHISHI, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE: It's a pipe dream for anyone to believe that we can deport this large of population. Even if we had -- even if we had the moral will to do this, it's simply we just do not have the resources to do this.
SYLVESTER: But critics say that is no reason to open the door for more foreign workers. American workers could be displaced and their wages pushed down by the surge in the labor pool. The poorest Americans and those with the least education would be hurt the most. But they are not the only ones vulnerable.
ROY BECK, NUMBERUSA: Most guest worker proposals would open every American occupation up and down the economic ladder. Nearly every American would have to compete with every working in the world.
SYLVESTER: Opponents say there's another group that would be hurt, the millions of immigrants who followed the rules and entered the country legally.
(on camera): President Bush's plan is not likely to go anywhere this year. It's been difficult mustering support this election season. In fact, it may be hard to pass the proposal at all with some lawmakers feeling the plan goes too far, others feeling it does not go far enough.
Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, a look at some of your thoughts on exporting America and the efforts to curb outsourcing.
We have Richard of Abilene, Texas, and he writes, "If trying to save our way of life for our children and grandchildren is now called isolationism, well sign me up."
And Faith Gagne, South Yarmouth, Massachusetts of writes, "My blood boils every time I hear concerned Americans called 'Economic Isolationists" because they object to the outsourcing of American jobs when actually it is exactly the other way around.
We do love hearing from you. E-mail us loudobbs@cnn.com.
And in our next piece, the government of Mexico has agreed to provide books, cultural awareness programs and even teachers to school children and their parents in Los Angeles. It's part of the Mexican President Vincente Fox program to reach out to Mexicans living abroad.
Casey Wian has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Los Angeles Unified School District has three quarters of a million students. More than 70 percent are Latino. District officials say a looming shortage of Spanish speaking teachers, so they plan to find some in Mexico.
JOSE HUIZAR, PRES. L.A. UNIFIED SCHOOL BOARD: In the next six years we will open up anywhere between 120 to 130 new schools. We are severely overcrowded and we haven't built schools for the past three years. We are now doing that and we will need teachers to fill those positions.
What better area to recruit and ask for a labor force to teachers than Mexico? WIAN: It's part after new partnership between the district and the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles. It expands the Mexican government sponsorship of cultural awareness programs, Spanish language books donated to parents in efforts to urge Latino parents to become more involved in their children's education. Also planned are more so-called community plazas or on campus education centers for parents.
(on camera): One is already opening here at North Hollywood High. School officials initially agreed to talk to us about he program and show us how it works, but they backed out saying they are too busy.
(voice-over): The school partnership is one example of Mexican President Vincente Fox effort to improve the lives of Mexican nationals living in the United States. L.A. Unified says it has received some complaints from citizens concerned about Mexican government influence in local schools.
RUBEN BELTRAN, MEXICAN CONSULATE GENERAL: The Mexican government is very respectful of the United States educational system and we are not interfering. We are offering a communication, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the system. We are offering vehicle of communication. We are offering our shoulder.
WIAN: To a school district that slashed $800 million from its budget in the past two years. School board president Huizar recently returned from Mexico City. He says Mexico plans to offer similar problems in other U.S. Cities.
Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: We'll be return in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Now the results of "Tonight's Poll" question. Forty- six percent of you believe the phrase under god should be preserved under the Pledge of Allegiance, 54 percent do not.
That is our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us.
Tomorrow House minority leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will be our guest.
And for all of us here good night from New York. Anderson Cooper is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
