Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

White House Increases Pressure to Pass Intelligence Reform; Bush to Pick Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security Secretary

Aired December 02, 2004 -   ET

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

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


ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Thursday, December 2. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening.

Now, the national Christmas tree is lighted, and the White House can turn its attention to Capitol Hill.

The White House is raising the pressure on Congress to pass the deadlocked intelligence reform bill. That legislation is stalled in Congress after the Senate refused to prevent the millions of illegal aliens in this country from obtaining driver's licenses.

Ed Henry has our report from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senior White House adviser Karl Rove called a top Republican senator Thursday to underscore President Bush wants to end the stalemate on intelligence reform.

Senator Susan Collins says, despite some claims the president hasn't pushed hard enough, Rove told her Mr. Bush wants Congress to finish the legislation next week.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: It's clear that the White House is working very hard to get this bill through. There is a full-court press on.

HENRY: That includes a new round of phone calls from the president and vice president to Capitol Hill. Those follow previous calls to Republicans Duncan Hunter and James Sensenbrenner, who have refused to endorse the deal now on the table.

Nine-eleven families who support Collins are holding vigils in major cities like this one in New York, to urge Congress to act during the end of its lame-duck session.

One idea floating to break the logjam: have the president commit to considering Sensenbrenner's immigration proposals next year. But Sensenbrenner aides say he's compromised enough, and 9/11 families who support him fear if immigration reform is dropped now, the president will not follow through. PETER GADIEL, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR SECURE AMERICA: We were very worried. We know that the president is supposedly supporting this defective bill, but again, that comports with his usual position of not securing the borders.

HENRY: Hunter isn't backing down on his contention a new director of national intelligence could slow key information from reaching military troops in the field.

But White House officials continue to lobby Hunter, and are hopeful of finding common ground. Collins believes with the president fully on board, the legislation will get done with or without the holdouts.

COLLINS: I hope it will pass with the support of Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Hunter, but I think it will pass regardless.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HENRY: Senior Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the president has staked enough of his credibility that he now needs to get a deal on this issue. These Republicans say the White House fears if Sensenbrenner and Hunter win, other lawmakers will be emboldened to buck the president on issues like Social Security and tax reform next year.

On the other hand, if the president rolls Sensenbrenner and Hunter, he could anger conservatives he will need to get that second- term agenda passed through Congress -- Lou.

DOBBS: Is the sense on Capitol Hill that Sensenbrenner and Hunter will roll for the president on these issues?

HENRY: Not at all. In fact, people close to Sensenbrenner and Hunter say they will not fold. The question will be whether or not the president will get the speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert, to fold. He is the person who ultimately has to decide whether he will go around Sensenbrenner and Hunter, and force this to the House floor next week.

DOBBS: And Ed, there are also, by some estimates, as many as 100 Republicans in the House have decided to stand with Hunter and Sensenbrenner. Do we know how strong that group is at this point?

HENRY: That is a very good question. I've actually heard there are more than 100 House Republicans who support Sensenbrenner and Hunter privately.

But some Republican strategists are saying, behind closed doors, that they're concerned that if this does go to the floor for a vote, some of those Republicans will be too afraid to vote against something called reform, and because of the public pressure, will vote for it, even though privately, they are with Hunter and Sensenbrenner.

That's the key. Can this bill get to the floor? DOBBS: Right. And if it does go to the floor, there's -- this also cuts the other way with the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to these open-border policies, the tacit open-border policies. It will be interesting if they're ready for an up and down vote on that very key issue, as well.

Ed Henry, thank you very much.

Let's go now to Elaine Quijano who is at the White House, White House correspondent Elaine Quijano.

How confident, Elaine, is the president that Congress will pass this reform legislation as it is being styled next week?

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, White House officials, anyway, publicly are saying that they are hopeful. They continue to maintain that this is a high priority, a top priority for the president. They say that he will be sending a letter to congressional leaders, outlining exactly what he wants to see in the intel reform bill.

They also say that senior White House staff members are continuing to press Republican leadership at their retreat that is going on. And they maintain that the president is, in fact, committed to this legislation, that he does want to get it passed as quickly as possible.

And also, we should tell you, Lou, on the issue of homeland security, two senior administration officials are telling CNN tonight that Bernard Kerik will be President Bush's nominee to succeed Tom Ridge, the homeland security chief, who announced his resignation earlier this week.

Now, Bernard Kerik, of course, a familiar face in the wake of the September 11 attacks, a former New York city police commissioner who was tapped by the White House to help build up Iraqi police forces.

Now, an administration official says that on at least two occasions, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani actually made a personal pitch to the White House on Kerik's behalf. Officials saying that a formal announcement, Lou, will come tomorrow.

DOBBS: Elaine, thank you very much. Elaine Quijano reporting from the White House.

The president's comments on the Iraqi election come amid a new wave of violence across the country. Insurgents today fired at least five mortars in central Baghdad. Two crashed into the heavily guarded Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials are based, where security is considered to be the highest in Baghdad.

Elsewhere, the U.S. embassy banned employees from traveling along the dangerous highway that leads to Baghdad's airport. Insurgents have launched several deadly attacks on that highway over the past several weeks. Also today, an American soldier killed in an insurgent attack in Mosul. Two Iraqi officials were killed, as well. Two others were wounded in an attack in Baqubah.

Late word tonight that the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, former Senator John Danforth, has resigned. Danforth had been named as a possible candidate for secretary of state before President Bush show's national security chose Condoleezza Rice for that position. Danforth spokesmen gave no reason for the ambassador's resignation.

President Bush today called for a full and honest appraisal of what happened in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. President Bush said an open accounting is critical if American taxpayers are to feel comfortable about supporting the United Nations.

President Bush did not comment on calls for U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan to resign.

However, the leaders of France and Germany made clear their position on the embattled U.N. leader. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder both telephoned Annan today to voice their support.

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw also praised Annan, saying he is doing an excellent job as secretary-general. And Russian and Chinese officials also expressing their support. Russia, China and France, of course, have all been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal.

New concerns tonight about Iran's nuclear ambitions. International weapons inspectors are asking to visit two secret military installations where they believe Iran may well be developing nuclear weapons. Iran recently agreed to suspend its nuclear program. But, tonight, experts are increasingly skeptical that Iran will keep its word.

Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, has said that Iran has a "confidence deficit" and needs to prove to the world it can be trusted.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Iran does not have a very good record, either when it comes to keeping international agreements or in being honest about its own nuclear ambitions.

For 20 years, it has had a very aggressive nuclear weapons program, and only now is it even admitting to a whole range of activities associated with that program, which the IAEA has since discovered.

And even today, the Iranians insist that these various facilities are for civilian purposes, for energy purposes, none of which really washes. PILGRIM: New worries have arisen that military installations not covered under the agreement may house nuclear programs. In the new mildly worded agreement, Iran had sought to keep its 20 centrifuges exempt. Europeans stood firm.

But experts say although that demonstrates an increase in resolve to hold Iran accountable, Iran was able to negotiate not having the centrifuges put under IAEA seal, but, rather, monitored by camera.

Gary Mulholland is a nuclear expert and editor of the new Web site iranwatch.org which monitors Iran's activities in nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technology.

GARY MULHOLLAND, EDITOR, IRAN WATCH: If Iran continues on its present course, it will acquire the ability to make nuclear weapons in probably two or three years, and that will mean that a country that actively supports terrorism in the Middle East will have the bomb.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: The biggest problem with the agreement in the eyes of U.S. experts is it doesn't have teeth. The agreement, negotiated among Iran, Britain, France and Germany, allows Tehran to avoid possible sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, and that is something the United States wanted very much -- Lou.

DOBBS: The idea that military installations would be ruled out of an inspection protocol, many critics are saying that makes this an absolute sham, this agreement.

PILGRIM: It makes it wide open. They could actually cheat on it already within the confines of how it's described.

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much.

Kitty Pilgrim.

Well, still ahead here tonight, Senator Joseph Lieberman is at the center of the intelligence reform negotiations that are now deadlocked in Congress. He's our guest here.

And tonight as well, our "Overmedicated Nation." A surge in imports of foreign drugs into this country, and a chilling warning from a drug safety scientist as the FDA. Dr. David Graham is the whistle-blower, and he says his agency is leaving dangerous drugs on the market. Dr. Graham will join us shortly.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: A new report today finds that nearly half of all Americans are taking at least one form of prescription drugs. That's a stunning increase of nearly 40 percent since 1988. In our special report, "Overmedicated Nation" tonight, there are also dramatic increases in the amount of prescription drugs being imported into this country.

Louise Schiavone reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Add pharmaceuticals to the long list of products increasingly manufactured overseas and sold to U.S. consumers.

ALAN TOMELSON, U.S. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY COUNCIL: U.S.-based pharmaceutical producers have been steadily losing market share to pharmaceutical imports since 1992, and, in fact, the market share held by imports in the U.S. market has risen from just over 4 percent in 1992 to just under 18 percent in 2002.

SCHIAVONE: In search of a well-educated but cheaper workforce, plus foreign government enticements, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been shipping production jobs overseas only to reimport their goods back to the United States.

The most prolific source of pharmaceutical imports, Ireland, which shipped around $16 billion worth of pharmaceutical products to the U.S. in 2003, up from about $2 billion in 1997. Irish workers produce most of Pfizer's Lipitor and the active ingredient in Viagra.

Just behind Ireland is Britain, home of flu vaccine maker Chiron. Britain shipped about $6.5 billion worth of pharmaceuticals to the U.S. in 2003, up from $2.5 billion in 1997. For its part, the pharmaceutical industry notes that research and development dollars are actually growing in the United States.

LORI REILLY, DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, PHARMA: Not that we're an entirely American-based industry, that certainly isn't the case, but most new drugs are developed -- in fact, about seven out of 10 new medicines -- are developed in the United States as opposed to being developed anywhere else in the world.

SCHIAVONE: The FDA is in charge of certifying the safety of medicines from overseas. It inspects foreign manufacturers every two years. We wanted to talk to the FDA about how it regulates importers, but they declined to speak with us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHIAVONE: And, Lou, what drives all of these trends? Sheer profit. As long as drugmakers can secure FDA approval for factories making U.S.-bound products, they will invest in manufacturing in Europe, China, India and beyond, and consumer groups don't see a problem if it takes some of the bite out of prescription costs -- Lou.

DOBBS: And where are those consumer groups on this issue? This seems like a natural for them to be engaged in.

SCHIAVONE: You would think so, Lou. But don't forget, we're not looking at the sheer reimportation of drugs, people buying drugs over the Internet from other countries. We're looking at the issue of drugmakers making their products overseas, bringing them back and selling them through traditional channels.

These consumer groups really don't seem to have a problem with it. They did not raise a safety concern. They say they're still thinking about it, but what concerns them is the cost of the drugs and they say that it actually has a good effect on the cost.

DOBBS: In other words, they're on the horns of a dilemma, given their positions taken earlier on the cost of drugs.

Louise, thank you very much.

Louise Schiavone reporting from Washington.

Later here, I'll be talking with FDA whistle-blower and drug safety scientist Dr. David Graham. He's the one who blew the whistle on Vioxx, and he now says that agency is simply not doing enough to protect us from dangerous prescription drugs. Dr. David Graham will join us here shortly.

A health risk of a very different kind in Washington State. That state's top polluter is pumping out as much as 250 tons of sulfur dioxide every day, but that pollution is coming not from a power plant or a mill or anything else manmade, but rather from Mount St. Helens. The volcano is producing more than twice the amount of gas as all of that state's industry combined.

Coming up next, violence in Iraq intensifying as the Iraqi national elections near, and the U.S. plans to put more troops on the ground. General David Grange will join me to assess U.S. military strategy in Iraq.

And the White House pressuring Congress to pass intelligence reform legislation. Senator Joseph Lieberman is among those leading negotiations on the Hill. He says he's confident it will pass. And he's our guest here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Iraqi elections now less than two months away. The president reaffirming his commitment to those elections on January 30. And in an effort to control the violence ahead of that landmark occasion, the Pentagon will raise the number of troops in Iraq to 150,000 from the current level of 138,000, the most American troops in Iraq since the onset of hostilities against Saddam Hussein.

Joining me now to assess this war and the increase in troop strength, CNN Military Analyst General David Grange.

General, good to have you with us.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: This is the third time that deployments have been extended for troops in -- American troops in Iraq. Another 1,500 troops will be added to that number. Isn't it about time somebody said enough is enough and gets honest in the Pentagon about what we're doing with those American troops in Iraq?

GRANGE: Well, they're definitely need there right now. This is a watershed event. This election period is key to the transition process, and if the elections -- even if they should be -- if the elections are pushed back even further, in the eyes of the insurgents and those supporting insurgents walking the fence will look at that as a victory for the other side. They're never going to get perfect security, but they need to get the troops there to get enough security for the election.

DOBBS: General, I agree with you 100 percent that we need security, heightened security, improved, enhanced security for the Iraqis to hold that election, and, most importantly, from my perspective -- and I think yours -- for the American troops who are serving in Iraq.

But for the Pentagon to continue to deny that there is a lack of adequate troop strength in Iraq is mind-boggling, particularly as they extend, as I said, troop strength -- troop rotations for three times over the course of the past year, and now asking for another 1,500.

Why can the Pentagon not be straightforward and say we need a larger number of forces in Iraq?

GRANGE: Well, it looks like we're going to need a larger number of forces in Iraq, at least for the next several years, and the reason being it's going to take that long to train up a viable Iraqi security force.

Progress has been made, but it's slow and it's always going to be slow when you have a lack of leadership in the Iraqi military, and that's the hardest piece of it, and that takes time. And, until that's done, American troops are going to carry the heavy load.

DOBBS: In carrying that heavy load, one Iraqi minister today saying that he could not imagine American forces being there less than 10 years, given the performance of the Iraqi both police and National Guard that has been trained up to this point.

Given that and the acceptance that victory is the only option in Iraq, what is the institutional or political bias on the part of the top echelon of the Pentagon to saying we need more troops, let's put them there and be straightforward about it?

GRANGE: Lou, I'm not sure, but it's definitely -- I don't know if it's going to be 10 years, but it will probably be between five and 10, and what has to be stated is the strategy to conduct this war long term with sustainment of National Guard, Reserve and Active forces for the long haul. This is going to continue for a while. And so what is the strategy to do that? It's not a peak. It's a sustained requirement.

DOBBS: Right. And the very idea, General, that with 40 percent of the men and women in Iraq, National Guards and Reserve, what is, in your best judgment, the appropriate level of National Guards and Researchers that should be on duty over the course -- in Iraq over the course of the long haul?

GRANGE: I don't know if I could give you a good percentage, but what I could tell you is this, Lou, is that it's tough to keep an active-duty unit trained to standard when you have them 365 days a year.

So, when you take a citizen soldier, many, though, that have, you know, previous experience, and train them for deployment to Iraq and use them in the same manner you use active-duty forces is a tall order. It takes a lot of commitment.

So that may effect a little bit on the ratio because the whole -- the whole attitude to how we use the Reserves has changed.

DOBBS: General David Grange, as always, good to talk to you.

GRANGE: My pleasure.

DOBBS: Coming up next, the White House says it wants the sweeping intelligence reform legislation passed during this lame-duck session. Senator Joe Lieberman says that legislation will pass next week. He joins me here next.

And the drug safety scientist at the FDA, the man who blew the whistle on Vioxx, now says millions of our lives are at risk from prescription drugs still on the market. Dr. David Graham is my guest.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: I'll be talking with Senator Joe Lieberman in just a few moments. He is one of the lead negotiators on the conference on the intelligence reform legislation now stalled in Congress.

But, first, let's take a look at some of the top stories tonight.

Russian President Vladimir Putin today speaking out about the election in the Ukraine. Putin said if there is going to be another election in the Ukraine, it should be done from scratch, which would open the election to new candidates. Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko is demanding only a rematch between himself and opponent Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

More than 1,000 people are dead or missing in the Philippines where flash floods and mud slides struck three coastal towns. Rescue efforts there are being slowed by high winds and heavy rainfall from an approaching typhoon. More than 150,000 people have been evacuated from low-lying areas.

President Bush today nominated Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns as the new secretary of agriculture. Johanns will replace Ann Veneman who announced her resignation last month. President Bush said with Johanns in office, his administration plans to continue policies that are pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-farmer.

Well, the White House tonight is pressuring members of Congress to pass the massive intelligence reform legislation now stalled. Some lawmakers are calling for stronger immigration reforms to be included in the bill. Others are concerned about diluting the strength of intelligence for the Pentagon.

Senator Joseph Lieberman says as far as he's concerned, the bill is no longer open for negotiation. Senator Lieberman is among those leading negotiations between the House and the Senate and joins us now from Capitol Hill. Senator, good to have you with us.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (D) CONNECTICUT: Lou, always good to be with you. Thank you.

DOBBS: Senator, the president, the word is that he is going to put on, what Susan Collins, Senator Collins, called a full-court press on this, do you think that will be adequate to change some minds or at least adequately twist some arms to pass this?

LIEBERMAN: I do think that the president's support, the vice president's support, the White House administration support will make the difference. And remember, when this bill was blocked a couple of weeks ago, pretty much everybody agreed that there were enough votes to pass it in the House, and more than enough in the Senate. But because of the opposition of a few leading members of the House Republican Caucus, Speaker Hastert wouldn't bring them to a vote.

I think the votes are still there. It's a good, strong, tough balance bill. It will make the American people safer. Tom Keen, the former governor of New Jersey, chairman of the 9/11 commission, said this bill will become law. The question is, will it become law now or after the next terrorist attack? And obviously, it's a lot better to have it happen now. I think it will.

DOBBS: One of the issues, obviously, on the part of Congressman Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee, is he truly believes that this is a negative in terms of supporting our troops with proper intelligence and breaking communication lines. The word is, he is not moving on this one inch. What do you think the impact will be of that kind of steadfast opposition?

LIEBERMAN: Lou, I'm a longtime member of the Armed Services Committee, a devoted supporter of the U.S. military. I would not support this bill if I felt it would reduce the security and intelligence available to America's war fighters one iota.

But forget me for a moment, the president of the United States, commander in chief, President Bush's clear record of devotion to our military is supporting the bill. And he wouldn't support it if it compromised our war fighters. The Pentagon is giving up a little bit of budget control. But it's totally in charge of tactical and joint military intelligence to our war fighters. And that's the way it ought to be.

DOBBS: Senator, wouldn't you say, then, in Washington, D.C., that if you're not in charge of the money, you're not in charge? Is that a fair general truism?

LIEBERMAN: Some witnesses said before our committee said in Washington, we follow the golden rule. Whoever has the gold rules.

DOBBS: And with that backdrop, as Congressman Hunter is considering it, let's turn to Congressman Sensenbrenner, opposing this reform legislation on the basis, the failure to follow recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

If I may share with you, which you're very familiar with, and our audience, from the 9/11 commission report, this reference, "the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. Suggesting at the end, necessary to ensure people who are who they say they are, and to check whether they are terrorists."

This legislation does not speak to that as it's presently constructed. Yet, if you will, the mantra that surrounds it is that this legislation needs to be passed because it's what the 9/11 commission recommended. This is also what is recommended by the 9/11 commission.

LIEBERMAN: Lou, there's a misunderstanding there. And the plain fact is that the Senate bill and the conference report does exactly what the 9/11 commission wants. We have tough standards for the issuance of driver's licenses, to protect them from being fraudulently obtained or tampered with, to cut down on fraud and state motor vehicle departments.

Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said earlier this week that our driver's license provision is not only tough, but exactly what they wanted. And what Jim Sensenbrenner is asking, which is to go one step further and prohibit states from granting licenses to unauthorized or illegal immigrants was not what they asked for.

It's a very serious proposal Jim Sensenbrenner is making, but it's a counterterrorist proposal, because every one of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on September 11 had, unfortunately, an outrageously legal right to be here. So they would have gotten their state driver's licenses even under Jim Sensenbrenner's proposal.

DOBBS: Senator, it would be -- I'm reluctant to argue on that issue. A number of them were here on visas that had expired and were in possession of driver's licenses, they were in clear violation of immigration laws, which obviously were not enforced.

LIEBERMAN: Lou, let me respond to that because they all had passports, so they could have gotten on those planes with their passports. They all came in with legal visas. As I understand it, two of them, while they were here, the visas expired. But when they got the driver's licenses -- and incidentally, they had 13 driver's licenses, not 63, they were legal. Otherwise the states wouldn't have given them those licenses.

So, look, I'm not saying immigration reform is not a critical and urgent problem in the U.S. I'm saying it is, but it ought not to be, on this bill, any more than it already is.

We've got very big provisions that Jim Sensenbrenner wanted us to put in to increase the number of border security guards inside the U.S. and immigration enforcement guards. And it's a tough bill that we need now to firm up our intelligence apparatus to protect the American people. We need it now.

DOBBS: Senator Joseph Lieberman, we thank you for being here.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: And that brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Do you believe Congress should pass the intelligence reform legislation without the immigration and border security provisions as recommended by the 9/11 commission? Please cast your vote at CNN.com/lou or loudobbs.com. We'll bring you the results later in the broadcast.

Coming up here next, dangerous drugs. Whether the FDA, in fact, can be trusted with our health and our lives. FDA whistle-blower Dr. David Graham is my guest.

And Enron, three years later, three years to the day. How one of the country's biggest companies created the biggest corporate scandal in history. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My next guest tonight sparked a wave of controversy surrounding the Food and Drug Administration and the deadly drug as it turns out, Vioxx. In his testimony before the Senate, Dr. David Graham said we are virtually defenseless, because the FDA simply cannot protect us from dangerous drugs.

Joining me now from Washington, D.C., is Dr. David Graham. And the attorney for Dr. David Graham, Tom Devine. He's also legal director of the Government Accountability Project. And I think it would be incumbent upon me, and I will ask you, Tom Devine, to correct me on this, Dr. David Graham, in addition to providing a tremendous public service through his act of conscience and courage, in exposing not only Vioxx but other drugs as well, is in a very difficult position as a government employee, as a whistle-blower. And you are here to provide, if you will, counsel to the doctor. Is that a fair statement of the situation?

TOM DEVINE, GRAHAM'S ATTORNEY: Yes. My job is to help him commit the truth and get away with it.

DOBBS: Well put. And I will try to facilitate that as best I can as well, and in any small way that I can.

First, Dr. David Graham, I want to say to you, the country, it seems to me, clearly owes you a great debt. It's remarkable that a man who is one of the drug safety scientists, an employee of the FDA, has to speak out against his own agency in order to assure the public safety and well-being, that you've done that, and I certainly want to express my congratulations and thanks to you.

DR. DAVID GRAHAM, FDA WHISTLE-BLOWER: Thank you.

DOBBS: That being the case, where does this leave you right now with this agency?

GRAHAM: I think my position is tenuous. I continue to do the work that I love, and I'm very effective at, but it's in an environment of hostility, environment of threats, an environment of intimidation, an environment where I think that if management had its way, had its chance, I'd be gone in a nanosecond, or transferred to some place where I wouldn't be effective.

DOBBS: The very idea -- because most of us look upon the FDA in this country as serving us, the consumers, the patients, those who require prescription drugs. We look upon the FDA -- we look upon ourselves as being their primary constituent.

That is clearly not the -- the reality, if they would lash out at you after providing truth and a public service, is it?

GRAHAM: I'd have to agree with you. I think it's important -- well, two things are important. First, that people understand I'm speaking for myself and not on behalf of the FDA. But I think that's obvious. The second is, is that most of the scientists who work at FDA are very conscientious, very dedicated, and are trying to do the right thing by the American people.

I think where the problem is is with the management of FDA and the culture that that management has created, that basically, at least in the Center for Drugs where I work, the industry is the client, first and foremost. And that the public, if they're a client at all, if they're a customer at all, it's kind of a distant second.

DOBBS: That being the case, you say this current management, is it simply the management brought in at the FDA under the Bush administration? I want to be clear about this. Or is it an institutional and longer term problem at the FDA?

GRAHAM: This is institutional, and it's long term, and it's taken a generation, probably, to develop. But the culture now is well established, and it feeds on itself.

DOBBS: Dr. Alastair Wood was here last night on this broadcast, as we are examining this issue. And he gave you great credit, Dr. Graham, saying that somewhere approaching 150,000 people have died of heart attacks as a result of Vioxx.

You have also raised, before the Senate committee, a list of other drugs about which you're very concerned. You talked with praise of your colleagues and the other scientists at the FDA.

Why, then, if that is the case, would not men and women of conscience and commitment to public service, besides yourself, step forward and say, we have great reservations about these drugs? We cannot speak with authority and certainty that they are safe for the general public?

GRAHAM: I think you have to look back at the culture that we have at FDA. And I think one way to view it, at least in my experience, is management by terror. And what that involves, then, is that people become terrorized, they become threatened, they are afraid. They're afraid for their careers, they're afraid for their livelihood. They're afraid for their scientific credibility.

In my own example, FDA management did everything they could to destroy my credibility as a scientist, to destroy my personal livelihood, and to destroy my family life. And they did this to defend an indefensible position, which was that Vioxx was not safe, Vioxx probably should never have been approved, and Vioxx certainly should have been taken off the market long before it was. And that was FDA's responsibility and FDA's failing.

DOBBS: With that failing, and having the courage to step forward as a whistle-blower, Dr. Graham, you have also been assisted by Senator Charles Grassley. Give us a sense of how important his support, his relationship with you, how important that's been to you and your ability to speak straightforwardly.

GRAHAM: It's been absolutely indispensable. And I owe the senator a debt of gratitude that I'll never be able to repay. And when I met him, I told him that, and he just smiled and said "thank you." He's a very humble man. But he's very committed to what he does. And his staff are equally committed. And they know who they are, and they know how much they have helped me and the American people. And I'm very thankful for that.

DOBBS: How hopeful are you that we can get this very important agency, the FDA, straightened out, focused in such a way that its first constituency is the American people and not the drug industry in this country?

GRAHAM: In order for that to happen, external pressure, external imposition of change will be needed. FDA is incapable of reforming itself. FDA is incapable of changing its culture. The culture is part of the problem.

If you just sort of look at Vioxx right now, look at these spokespeople who have been the representatives of the agency. At the hearing, Dr. Sandra Kweder, in reference -- when I had testified that there were between 88,000 and 139,000 excess heart attacks because of Vioxx, her response was, during her testimony, "these aren't real deaths." And similarly, Dr. Woodcock has said that it's only a model, as if -- a statistical model, as if what the estimates we've come up with are somehow or another not real.

I think we have an agency in denial. It's denying that it failed the American people. It's denying that it's made a mistake. I think, in a sense, what it is saying is, is that if it had it to do over again, it would do everything exactly the way it did it before. And so, when I testified before the Senate Finance Committee that FDA is not able to protect the American people against another Vioxx, I think I was speaking quite accurately. DOBBS: And certainly bravely. And we thank you for the great public service that you've performed. And Tom Devine, I hope that you're satisfied that Dr. Graham has committed the truth, as you put it, without getting in trouble. We certainly don't want him to do that. We're also reassured that he has help in avoiding that.

DEVINE: The problem is he doesn't have any viable legal rights. Congress needs to give government workers the same serious free speech laws that corporate employees have. So it's not realistic to expect that government scientists will defend the public if they can't defend themselves. Not everybody has a political angel like Charles Grassley.

DOBBS: And Tom Devine, we thank you for being with us, as we have talked about these very important issues with a brave man, angel or no, in David Graham. Thank you, Dr. Graham.

GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Lou.

DOBBS: Tomorrow night, I'll be talking with Senator Charles Grassley, who has, as we pointed out, been a great supporter of Dr. Graham. And we've also invited the FDA's acting commissioner, Dr. Lester Crawford, to join us as well tomorrow evening. He declined.

Still ahead here, Enron, three years later. We take a look at who's in jail, who perhaps ought to be in jail, on the first of all of the great corporate scandals to unfold in this country.

And from a major cabinet makeover to a democratic election in Iraq. I'll be talking about the president's battles and the congressional positions on a host of issues with three of the country's top political journalists here next. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: 1,095 days since Enron went bankrupt three years ago. Christine Romans is here to bring us up to date on all of those people who have been sent to jail and punished appropriately for the worst financial scandal in corporate history.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Maybe not punished appropriately just yet, Lou. You still have Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, who are awaiting trial. They've been indicted. Interesting, some background, Ken Lay, the year before he was -- the collapse of Enron -- made $65 million. $65 million. Now he's fighting for his life.

DOBBS: Skilling was doing pretty well, too.

ROMANS: $42 million. This is a company that had 100 billion revenue, market cap that blew up of $43 billion.

DOBBS: Aided and abetted, although it's a legal term, it's also a descriptive term for what some of the investment banks were doing in New York City with Enron as well. ROMANS: And they've started paying for it. You've got Citigroup, JP Morgan, they've each paid at least $100 million in fines as settlements to the FDC. They put aside billions to make sure that they're going to be protected against lawsuits that are coming down the pike. You've got some Maryland employees who were convicted just a few weeks ago. This thing goes on and on. It's only been three years, but we'll be hearing this story for years to come.

DOBBS: Christine Romans thank you.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

DOBBS: Joining me now are three of the country's top political journalists. In Washington Karen Tumulty of "TIME," Roger Simon, "U.S. News and World Report." Here in New York, Mark Warren, "Esquire" magazine. Good to have you all here.

The president moving ahead apparently with Bernie Kerik as homeland security secretary. What's your reaction, Roger?

ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": Well, he's made a nonpolitical choice. Tom Ridge, Kerik's predecessor in the job, was a very political choice. He was a former governor of Pennsylvania. And a big supporter of George Bush. Kerik's entire background seems to be in police. He was commissioner of police in New York City. And he's been working in Iraq trying to train the Iraqi police force. The only downside seems to be we really need a good person in Iraq training the police force, and now we're bringing him back home to be chief of homeland security.

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: You know, I think this choice is very much going to be applauded by local law enforcement who have been very, very frustrated over the years over the fact that they don't think that the feds really share the kind of information that they need. And I think that Bernie Kerik is going to be somebody who's very sensitive to those concerns.

DOBBS: And Bernie Kerik -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

MARK WARREN, "ESQUIRE" MAGAZINE: He's been back for some time, actually, from Iraq. He spent only a few months, which is enough. And it remains to be seen how Iraq police force is going to pan out. But it will be his task, really, I think to finally find what it is this secretary does.

DOBBS: And Bernie Kerik is one of those people who is well respected by the men and women who work for him. His relationship with Rudy Giuliani in New York which is the stuff now, in point of fact, history. Let me turn to the intelligence reform legislation. Karen, beginning with you. Just heard Senator Joe Lieberman say this is going to happen, the White House saying it's going to push ahead. The Republicans in the House appear to be, however, steadfast. What do you think's going to happen?

TUMULTY: Well, that's right. Congressional Republicans just got back from a retreat, and we're hearing real mixed signals. The Senate Republicans seem to think that this bill is going to move forward pretty quickly. But sources in Denny Hastert's office are saying not so fast.

DOBBS: Roger?

SIMON: Either George Bush wins this fight or he becomes a prisoner of the congressional Republicans. Only in the last day or so has the criticism been focused where it should be focused on Dennis Hastert. Here's the speaker of the House who's got a majority of House members in favor of a bill the president wants, and he won't move it to the floor because it won't get a majority of Republican votes. Well, presidents find it very convenient to pass bills with both Democratic and Republican votes, so they aren't prisoners of their own party. And if George Bush gives up that principle or gives up that tactic, he's going to be in big trouble for the more important fights that he has coming up next year.

DOBBS: More important than intelligence reform, Mark?

WARREN: That's exactly right. I agree with Roger completely. I talked to someone who works and lives around the White House yesterday, who said that -- he used the image...

DOBBS: I take it this wasn't a gardener.

WARREN: No. No.

TUMULTY: They know a lot, Lou.

DOBBS: I'm sorry, go ahead.

WARREN: He used the image of a steamroller when it comes to the House Republicans, especially Congressman Hunter, who you talked about earlier on the show.

DOBBS: Well, we'll see. Mark Warren, we thank you very much. Karen Tumulty, Roger Simon, as always. We've used up all the time allotted. Thank you.

Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll and a preview of what's ahead tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results now of our poll tonight. 76 percent of you say Congress should not pass the intelligence reform bill without the immigration and border security provisions recommended by the September 11 commission. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate finance committee, one of the strongest supporters of FDA whistle-blower Dr. David Graham will be here.

And new Senate minority leader, Senator Harry Reid will be here to tell us how the Democrats are going to counter the Republican agenda, where they're going to work with the Republicans, and his view of the future of the Democratic party. And "Overmedicated Nation," our special report. Tomorrow we focus on what cutting off the supply of drugs from Canada would mean to millions of Americans. Please join us tomorrow evening. Thanks for being here tonight. For all of us here good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" 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 December 2, 2004 - News; International   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Thursday, December 2. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening.

Now, the national Christmas tree is lighted, and the White House can turn its attention to Capitol Hill.

The White House is raising the pressure on Congress to pass the deadlocked intelligence reform bill. That legislation is stalled in Congress after the Senate refused to prevent the millions of illegal aliens in this country from obtaining driver's licenses.

Ed Henry has our report from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senior White House adviser Karl Rove called a top Republican senator Thursday to underscore President Bush wants to end the stalemate on intelligence reform.

Senator Susan Collins says, despite some claims the president hasn't pushed hard enough, Rove told her Mr. Bush wants Congress to finish the legislation next week.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: It's clear that the White House is working very hard to get this bill through. There is a full-court press on.

HENRY: That includes a new round of phone calls from the president and vice president to Capitol Hill. Those follow previous calls to Republicans Duncan Hunter and James Sensenbrenner, who have refused to endorse the deal now on the table.

Nine-eleven families who support Collins are holding vigils in major cities like this one in New York, to urge Congress to act during the end of its lame-duck session.

One idea floating to break the logjam: have the president commit to considering Sensenbrenner's immigration proposals next year. But Sensenbrenner aides say he's compromised enough, and 9/11 families who support him fear if immigration reform is dropped now, the president will not follow through. PETER GADIEL, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR SECURE AMERICA: We were very worried. We know that the president is supposedly supporting this defective bill, but again, that comports with his usual position of not securing the borders.

HENRY: Hunter isn't backing down on his contention a new director of national intelligence could slow key information from reaching military troops in the field.

But White House officials continue to lobby Hunter, and are hopeful of finding common ground. Collins believes with the president fully on board, the legislation will get done with or without the holdouts.

COLLINS: I hope it will pass with the support of Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Hunter, but I think it will pass regardless.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HENRY: Senior Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the president has staked enough of his credibility that he now needs to get a deal on this issue. These Republicans say the White House fears if Sensenbrenner and Hunter win, other lawmakers will be emboldened to buck the president on issues like Social Security and tax reform next year.

On the other hand, if the president rolls Sensenbrenner and Hunter, he could anger conservatives he will need to get that second- term agenda passed through Congress -- Lou.

DOBBS: Is the sense on Capitol Hill that Sensenbrenner and Hunter will roll for the president on these issues?

HENRY: Not at all. In fact, people close to Sensenbrenner and Hunter say they will not fold. The question will be whether or not the president will get the speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert, to fold. He is the person who ultimately has to decide whether he will go around Sensenbrenner and Hunter, and force this to the House floor next week.

DOBBS: And Ed, there are also, by some estimates, as many as 100 Republicans in the House have decided to stand with Hunter and Sensenbrenner. Do we know how strong that group is at this point?

HENRY: That is a very good question. I've actually heard there are more than 100 House Republicans who support Sensenbrenner and Hunter privately.

But some Republican strategists are saying, behind closed doors, that they're concerned that if this does go to the floor for a vote, some of those Republicans will be too afraid to vote against something called reform, and because of the public pressure, will vote for it, even though privately, they are with Hunter and Sensenbrenner.

That's the key. Can this bill get to the floor? DOBBS: Right. And if it does go to the floor, there's -- this also cuts the other way with the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to these open-border policies, the tacit open-border policies. It will be interesting if they're ready for an up and down vote on that very key issue, as well.

Ed Henry, thank you very much.

Let's go now to Elaine Quijano who is at the White House, White House correspondent Elaine Quijano.

How confident, Elaine, is the president that Congress will pass this reform legislation as it is being styled next week?

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, White House officials, anyway, publicly are saying that they are hopeful. They continue to maintain that this is a high priority, a top priority for the president. They say that he will be sending a letter to congressional leaders, outlining exactly what he wants to see in the intel reform bill.

They also say that senior White House staff members are continuing to press Republican leadership at their retreat that is going on. And they maintain that the president is, in fact, committed to this legislation, that he does want to get it passed as quickly as possible.

And also, we should tell you, Lou, on the issue of homeland security, two senior administration officials are telling CNN tonight that Bernard Kerik will be President Bush's nominee to succeed Tom Ridge, the homeland security chief, who announced his resignation earlier this week.

Now, Bernard Kerik, of course, a familiar face in the wake of the September 11 attacks, a former New York city police commissioner who was tapped by the White House to help build up Iraqi police forces.

Now, an administration official says that on at least two occasions, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani actually made a personal pitch to the White House on Kerik's behalf. Officials saying that a formal announcement, Lou, will come tomorrow.

DOBBS: Elaine, thank you very much. Elaine Quijano reporting from the White House.

The president's comments on the Iraqi election come amid a new wave of violence across the country. Insurgents today fired at least five mortars in central Baghdad. Two crashed into the heavily guarded Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials are based, where security is considered to be the highest in Baghdad.

Elsewhere, the U.S. embassy banned employees from traveling along the dangerous highway that leads to Baghdad's airport. Insurgents have launched several deadly attacks on that highway over the past several weeks. Also today, an American soldier killed in an insurgent attack in Mosul. Two Iraqi officials were killed, as well. Two others were wounded in an attack in Baqubah.

Late word tonight that the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, former Senator John Danforth, has resigned. Danforth had been named as a possible candidate for secretary of state before President Bush show's national security chose Condoleezza Rice for that position. Danforth spokesmen gave no reason for the ambassador's resignation.

President Bush today called for a full and honest appraisal of what happened in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. President Bush said an open accounting is critical if American taxpayers are to feel comfortable about supporting the United Nations.

President Bush did not comment on calls for U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan to resign.

However, the leaders of France and Germany made clear their position on the embattled U.N. leader. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder both telephoned Annan today to voice their support.

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw also praised Annan, saying he is doing an excellent job as secretary-general. And Russian and Chinese officials also expressing their support. Russia, China and France, of course, have all been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal.

New concerns tonight about Iran's nuclear ambitions. International weapons inspectors are asking to visit two secret military installations where they believe Iran may well be developing nuclear weapons. Iran recently agreed to suspend its nuclear program. But, tonight, experts are increasingly skeptical that Iran will keep its word.

Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, has said that Iran has a "confidence deficit" and needs to prove to the world it can be trusted.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Iran does not have a very good record, either when it comes to keeping international agreements or in being honest about its own nuclear ambitions.

For 20 years, it has had a very aggressive nuclear weapons program, and only now is it even admitting to a whole range of activities associated with that program, which the IAEA has since discovered.

And even today, the Iranians insist that these various facilities are for civilian purposes, for energy purposes, none of which really washes. PILGRIM: New worries have arisen that military installations not covered under the agreement may house nuclear programs. In the new mildly worded agreement, Iran had sought to keep its 20 centrifuges exempt. Europeans stood firm.

But experts say although that demonstrates an increase in resolve to hold Iran accountable, Iran was able to negotiate not having the centrifuges put under IAEA seal, but, rather, monitored by camera.

Gary Mulholland is a nuclear expert and editor of the new Web site iranwatch.org which monitors Iran's activities in nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technology.

GARY MULHOLLAND, EDITOR, IRAN WATCH: If Iran continues on its present course, it will acquire the ability to make nuclear weapons in probably two or three years, and that will mean that a country that actively supports terrorism in the Middle East will have the bomb.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: The biggest problem with the agreement in the eyes of U.S. experts is it doesn't have teeth. The agreement, negotiated among Iran, Britain, France and Germany, allows Tehran to avoid possible sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, and that is something the United States wanted very much -- Lou.

DOBBS: The idea that military installations would be ruled out of an inspection protocol, many critics are saying that makes this an absolute sham, this agreement.

PILGRIM: It makes it wide open. They could actually cheat on it already within the confines of how it's described.

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much.

Kitty Pilgrim.

Well, still ahead here tonight, Senator Joseph Lieberman is at the center of the intelligence reform negotiations that are now deadlocked in Congress. He's our guest here.

And tonight as well, our "Overmedicated Nation." A surge in imports of foreign drugs into this country, and a chilling warning from a drug safety scientist as the FDA. Dr. David Graham is the whistle-blower, and he says his agency is leaving dangerous drugs on the market. Dr. Graham will join us shortly.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: A new report today finds that nearly half of all Americans are taking at least one form of prescription drugs. That's a stunning increase of nearly 40 percent since 1988. In our special report, "Overmedicated Nation" tonight, there are also dramatic increases in the amount of prescription drugs being imported into this country.

Louise Schiavone reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Add pharmaceuticals to the long list of products increasingly manufactured overseas and sold to U.S. consumers.

ALAN TOMELSON, U.S. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY COUNCIL: U.S.-based pharmaceutical producers have been steadily losing market share to pharmaceutical imports since 1992, and, in fact, the market share held by imports in the U.S. market has risen from just over 4 percent in 1992 to just under 18 percent in 2002.

SCHIAVONE: In search of a well-educated but cheaper workforce, plus foreign government enticements, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been shipping production jobs overseas only to reimport their goods back to the United States.

The most prolific source of pharmaceutical imports, Ireland, which shipped around $16 billion worth of pharmaceutical products to the U.S. in 2003, up from about $2 billion in 1997. Irish workers produce most of Pfizer's Lipitor and the active ingredient in Viagra.

Just behind Ireland is Britain, home of flu vaccine maker Chiron. Britain shipped about $6.5 billion worth of pharmaceuticals to the U.S. in 2003, up from $2.5 billion in 1997. For its part, the pharmaceutical industry notes that research and development dollars are actually growing in the United States.

LORI REILLY, DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, PHARMA: Not that we're an entirely American-based industry, that certainly isn't the case, but most new drugs are developed -- in fact, about seven out of 10 new medicines -- are developed in the United States as opposed to being developed anywhere else in the world.

SCHIAVONE: The FDA is in charge of certifying the safety of medicines from overseas. It inspects foreign manufacturers every two years. We wanted to talk to the FDA about how it regulates importers, but they declined to speak with us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHIAVONE: And, Lou, what drives all of these trends? Sheer profit. As long as drugmakers can secure FDA approval for factories making U.S.-bound products, they will invest in manufacturing in Europe, China, India and beyond, and consumer groups don't see a problem if it takes some of the bite out of prescription costs -- Lou.

DOBBS: And where are those consumer groups on this issue? This seems like a natural for them to be engaged in.

SCHIAVONE: You would think so, Lou. But don't forget, we're not looking at the sheer reimportation of drugs, people buying drugs over the Internet from other countries. We're looking at the issue of drugmakers making their products overseas, bringing them back and selling them through traditional channels.

These consumer groups really don't seem to have a problem with it. They did not raise a safety concern. They say they're still thinking about it, but what concerns them is the cost of the drugs and they say that it actually has a good effect on the cost.

DOBBS: In other words, they're on the horns of a dilemma, given their positions taken earlier on the cost of drugs.

Louise, thank you very much.

Louise Schiavone reporting from Washington.

Later here, I'll be talking with FDA whistle-blower and drug safety scientist Dr. David Graham. He's the one who blew the whistle on Vioxx, and he now says that agency is simply not doing enough to protect us from dangerous prescription drugs. Dr. David Graham will join us here shortly.

A health risk of a very different kind in Washington State. That state's top polluter is pumping out as much as 250 tons of sulfur dioxide every day, but that pollution is coming not from a power plant or a mill or anything else manmade, but rather from Mount St. Helens. The volcano is producing more than twice the amount of gas as all of that state's industry combined.

Coming up next, violence in Iraq intensifying as the Iraqi national elections near, and the U.S. plans to put more troops on the ground. General David Grange will join me to assess U.S. military strategy in Iraq.

And the White House pressuring Congress to pass intelligence reform legislation. Senator Joseph Lieberman is among those leading negotiations on the Hill. He says he's confident it will pass. And he's our guest here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Iraqi elections now less than two months away. The president reaffirming his commitment to those elections on January 30. And in an effort to control the violence ahead of that landmark occasion, the Pentagon will raise the number of troops in Iraq to 150,000 from the current level of 138,000, the most American troops in Iraq since the onset of hostilities against Saddam Hussein.

Joining me now to assess this war and the increase in troop strength, CNN Military Analyst General David Grange.

General, good to have you with us.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: This is the third time that deployments have been extended for troops in -- American troops in Iraq. Another 1,500 troops will be added to that number. Isn't it about time somebody said enough is enough and gets honest in the Pentagon about what we're doing with those American troops in Iraq?

GRANGE: Well, they're definitely need there right now. This is a watershed event. This election period is key to the transition process, and if the elections -- even if they should be -- if the elections are pushed back even further, in the eyes of the insurgents and those supporting insurgents walking the fence will look at that as a victory for the other side. They're never going to get perfect security, but they need to get the troops there to get enough security for the election.

DOBBS: General, I agree with you 100 percent that we need security, heightened security, improved, enhanced security for the Iraqis to hold that election, and, most importantly, from my perspective -- and I think yours -- for the American troops who are serving in Iraq.

But for the Pentagon to continue to deny that there is a lack of adequate troop strength in Iraq is mind-boggling, particularly as they extend, as I said, troop strength -- troop rotations for three times over the course of the past year, and now asking for another 1,500.

Why can the Pentagon not be straightforward and say we need a larger number of forces in Iraq?

GRANGE: Well, it looks like we're going to need a larger number of forces in Iraq, at least for the next several years, and the reason being it's going to take that long to train up a viable Iraqi security force.

Progress has been made, but it's slow and it's always going to be slow when you have a lack of leadership in the Iraqi military, and that's the hardest piece of it, and that takes time. And, until that's done, American troops are going to carry the heavy load.

DOBBS: In carrying that heavy load, one Iraqi minister today saying that he could not imagine American forces being there less than 10 years, given the performance of the Iraqi both police and National Guard that has been trained up to this point.

Given that and the acceptance that victory is the only option in Iraq, what is the institutional or political bias on the part of the top echelon of the Pentagon to saying we need more troops, let's put them there and be straightforward about it?

GRANGE: Lou, I'm not sure, but it's definitely -- I don't know if it's going to be 10 years, but it will probably be between five and 10, and what has to be stated is the strategy to conduct this war long term with sustainment of National Guard, Reserve and Active forces for the long haul. This is going to continue for a while. And so what is the strategy to do that? It's not a peak. It's a sustained requirement.

DOBBS: Right. And the very idea, General, that with 40 percent of the men and women in Iraq, National Guards and Reserve, what is, in your best judgment, the appropriate level of National Guards and Researchers that should be on duty over the course -- in Iraq over the course of the long haul?

GRANGE: I don't know if I could give you a good percentage, but what I could tell you is this, Lou, is that it's tough to keep an active-duty unit trained to standard when you have them 365 days a year.

So, when you take a citizen soldier, many, though, that have, you know, previous experience, and train them for deployment to Iraq and use them in the same manner you use active-duty forces is a tall order. It takes a lot of commitment.

So that may effect a little bit on the ratio because the whole -- the whole attitude to how we use the Reserves has changed.

DOBBS: General David Grange, as always, good to talk to you.

GRANGE: My pleasure.

DOBBS: Coming up next, the White House says it wants the sweeping intelligence reform legislation passed during this lame-duck session. Senator Joe Lieberman says that legislation will pass next week. He joins me here next.

And the drug safety scientist at the FDA, the man who blew the whistle on Vioxx, now says millions of our lives are at risk from prescription drugs still on the market. Dr. David Graham is my guest.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: I'll be talking with Senator Joe Lieberman in just a few moments. He is one of the lead negotiators on the conference on the intelligence reform legislation now stalled in Congress.

But, first, let's take a look at some of the top stories tonight.

Russian President Vladimir Putin today speaking out about the election in the Ukraine. Putin said if there is going to be another election in the Ukraine, it should be done from scratch, which would open the election to new candidates. Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko is demanding only a rematch between himself and opponent Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

More than 1,000 people are dead or missing in the Philippines where flash floods and mud slides struck three coastal towns. Rescue efforts there are being slowed by high winds and heavy rainfall from an approaching typhoon. More than 150,000 people have been evacuated from low-lying areas.

President Bush today nominated Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns as the new secretary of agriculture. Johanns will replace Ann Veneman who announced her resignation last month. President Bush said with Johanns in office, his administration plans to continue policies that are pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-farmer.

Well, the White House tonight is pressuring members of Congress to pass the massive intelligence reform legislation now stalled. Some lawmakers are calling for stronger immigration reforms to be included in the bill. Others are concerned about diluting the strength of intelligence for the Pentagon.

Senator Joseph Lieberman says as far as he's concerned, the bill is no longer open for negotiation. Senator Lieberman is among those leading negotiations between the House and the Senate and joins us now from Capitol Hill. Senator, good to have you with us.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (D) CONNECTICUT: Lou, always good to be with you. Thank you.

DOBBS: Senator, the president, the word is that he is going to put on, what Susan Collins, Senator Collins, called a full-court press on this, do you think that will be adequate to change some minds or at least adequately twist some arms to pass this?

LIEBERMAN: I do think that the president's support, the vice president's support, the White House administration support will make the difference. And remember, when this bill was blocked a couple of weeks ago, pretty much everybody agreed that there were enough votes to pass it in the House, and more than enough in the Senate. But because of the opposition of a few leading members of the House Republican Caucus, Speaker Hastert wouldn't bring them to a vote.

I think the votes are still there. It's a good, strong, tough balance bill. It will make the American people safer. Tom Keen, the former governor of New Jersey, chairman of the 9/11 commission, said this bill will become law. The question is, will it become law now or after the next terrorist attack? And obviously, it's a lot better to have it happen now. I think it will.

DOBBS: One of the issues, obviously, on the part of Congressman Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee, is he truly believes that this is a negative in terms of supporting our troops with proper intelligence and breaking communication lines. The word is, he is not moving on this one inch. What do you think the impact will be of that kind of steadfast opposition?

LIEBERMAN: Lou, I'm a longtime member of the Armed Services Committee, a devoted supporter of the U.S. military. I would not support this bill if I felt it would reduce the security and intelligence available to America's war fighters one iota.

But forget me for a moment, the president of the United States, commander in chief, President Bush's clear record of devotion to our military is supporting the bill. And he wouldn't support it if it compromised our war fighters. The Pentagon is giving up a little bit of budget control. But it's totally in charge of tactical and joint military intelligence to our war fighters. And that's the way it ought to be.

DOBBS: Senator, wouldn't you say, then, in Washington, D.C., that if you're not in charge of the money, you're not in charge? Is that a fair general truism?

LIEBERMAN: Some witnesses said before our committee said in Washington, we follow the golden rule. Whoever has the gold rules.

DOBBS: And with that backdrop, as Congressman Hunter is considering it, let's turn to Congressman Sensenbrenner, opposing this reform legislation on the basis, the failure to follow recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

If I may share with you, which you're very familiar with, and our audience, from the 9/11 commission report, this reference, "the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. Suggesting at the end, necessary to ensure people who are who they say they are, and to check whether they are terrorists."

This legislation does not speak to that as it's presently constructed. Yet, if you will, the mantra that surrounds it is that this legislation needs to be passed because it's what the 9/11 commission recommended. This is also what is recommended by the 9/11 commission.

LIEBERMAN: Lou, there's a misunderstanding there. And the plain fact is that the Senate bill and the conference report does exactly what the 9/11 commission wants. We have tough standards for the issuance of driver's licenses, to protect them from being fraudulently obtained or tampered with, to cut down on fraud and state motor vehicle departments.

Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said earlier this week that our driver's license provision is not only tough, but exactly what they wanted. And what Jim Sensenbrenner is asking, which is to go one step further and prohibit states from granting licenses to unauthorized or illegal immigrants was not what they asked for.

It's a very serious proposal Jim Sensenbrenner is making, but it's a counterterrorist proposal, because every one of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on September 11 had, unfortunately, an outrageously legal right to be here. So they would have gotten their state driver's licenses even under Jim Sensenbrenner's proposal.

DOBBS: Senator, it would be -- I'm reluctant to argue on that issue. A number of them were here on visas that had expired and were in possession of driver's licenses, they were in clear violation of immigration laws, which obviously were not enforced.

LIEBERMAN: Lou, let me respond to that because they all had passports, so they could have gotten on those planes with their passports. They all came in with legal visas. As I understand it, two of them, while they were here, the visas expired. But when they got the driver's licenses -- and incidentally, they had 13 driver's licenses, not 63, they were legal. Otherwise the states wouldn't have given them those licenses.

So, look, I'm not saying immigration reform is not a critical and urgent problem in the U.S. I'm saying it is, but it ought not to be, on this bill, any more than it already is.

We've got very big provisions that Jim Sensenbrenner wanted us to put in to increase the number of border security guards inside the U.S. and immigration enforcement guards. And it's a tough bill that we need now to firm up our intelligence apparatus to protect the American people. We need it now.

DOBBS: Senator Joseph Lieberman, we thank you for being here.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: And that brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Do you believe Congress should pass the intelligence reform legislation without the immigration and border security provisions as recommended by the 9/11 commission? Please cast your vote at CNN.com/lou or loudobbs.com. We'll bring you the results later in the broadcast.

Coming up here next, dangerous drugs. Whether the FDA, in fact, can be trusted with our health and our lives. FDA whistle-blower Dr. David Graham is my guest.

And Enron, three years later, three years to the day. How one of the country's biggest companies created the biggest corporate scandal in history. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My next guest tonight sparked a wave of controversy surrounding the Food and Drug Administration and the deadly drug as it turns out, Vioxx. In his testimony before the Senate, Dr. David Graham said we are virtually defenseless, because the FDA simply cannot protect us from dangerous drugs.

Joining me now from Washington, D.C., is Dr. David Graham. And the attorney for Dr. David Graham, Tom Devine. He's also legal director of the Government Accountability Project. And I think it would be incumbent upon me, and I will ask you, Tom Devine, to correct me on this, Dr. David Graham, in addition to providing a tremendous public service through his act of conscience and courage, in exposing not only Vioxx but other drugs as well, is in a very difficult position as a government employee, as a whistle-blower. And you are here to provide, if you will, counsel to the doctor. Is that a fair statement of the situation?

TOM DEVINE, GRAHAM'S ATTORNEY: Yes. My job is to help him commit the truth and get away with it.

DOBBS: Well put. And I will try to facilitate that as best I can as well, and in any small way that I can.

First, Dr. David Graham, I want to say to you, the country, it seems to me, clearly owes you a great debt. It's remarkable that a man who is one of the drug safety scientists, an employee of the FDA, has to speak out against his own agency in order to assure the public safety and well-being, that you've done that, and I certainly want to express my congratulations and thanks to you.

DR. DAVID GRAHAM, FDA WHISTLE-BLOWER: Thank you.

DOBBS: That being the case, where does this leave you right now with this agency?

GRAHAM: I think my position is tenuous. I continue to do the work that I love, and I'm very effective at, but it's in an environment of hostility, environment of threats, an environment of intimidation, an environment where I think that if management had its way, had its chance, I'd be gone in a nanosecond, or transferred to some place where I wouldn't be effective.

DOBBS: The very idea -- because most of us look upon the FDA in this country as serving us, the consumers, the patients, those who require prescription drugs. We look upon the FDA -- we look upon ourselves as being their primary constituent.

That is clearly not the -- the reality, if they would lash out at you after providing truth and a public service, is it?

GRAHAM: I'd have to agree with you. I think it's important -- well, two things are important. First, that people understand I'm speaking for myself and not on behalf of the FDA. But I think that's obvious. The second is, is that most of the scientists who work at FDA are very conscientious, very dedicated, and are trying to do the right thing by the American people.

I think where the problem is is with the management of FDA and the culture that that management has created, that basically, at least in the Center for Drugs where I work, the industry is the client, first and foremost. And that the public, if they're a client at all, if they're a customer at all, it's kind of a distant second.

DOBBS: That being the case, you say this current management, is it simply the management brought in at the FDA under the Bush administration? I want to be clear about this. Or is it an institutional and longer term problem at the FDA?

GRAHAM: This is institutional, and it's long term, and it's taken a generation, probably, to develop. But the culture now is well established, and it feeds on itself.

DOBBS: Dr. Alastair Wood was here last night on this broadcast, as we are examining this issue. And he gave you great credit, Dr. Graham, saying that somewhere approaching 150,000 people have died of heart attacks as a result of Vioxx.

You have also raised, before the Senate committee, a list of other drugs about which you're very concerned. You talked with praise of your colleagues and the other scientists at the FDA.

Why, then, if that is the case, would not men and women of conscience and commitment to public service, besides yourself, step forward and say, we have great reservations about these drugs? We cannot speak with authority and certainty that they are safe for the general public?

GRAHAM: I think you have to look back at the culture that we have at FDA. And I think one way to view it, at least in my experience, is management by terror. And what that involves, then, is that people become terrorized, they become threatened, they are afraid. They're afraid for their careers, they're afraid for their livelihood. They're afraid for their scientific credibility.

In my own example, FDA management did everything they could to destroy my credibility as a scientist, to destroy my personal livelihood, and to destroy my family life. And they did this to defend an indefensible position, which was that Vioxx was not safe, Vioxx probably should never have been approved, and Vioxx certainly should have been taken off the market long before it was. And that was FDA's responsibility and FDA's failing.

DOBBS: With that failing, and having the courage to step forward as a whistle-blower, Dr. Graham, you have also been assisted by Senator Charles Grassley. Give us a sense of how important his support, his relationship with you, how important that's been to you and your ability to speak straightforwardly.

GRAHAM: It's been absolutely indispensable. And I owe the senator a debt of gratitude that I'll never be able to repay. And when I met him, I told him that, and he just smiled and said "thank you." He's a very humble man. But he's very committed to what he does. And his staff are equally committed. And they know who they are, and they know how much they have helped me and the American people. And I'm very thankful for that.

DOBBS: How hopeful are you that we can get this very important agency, the FDA, straightened out, focused in such a way that its first constituency is the American people and not the drug industry in this country?

GRAHAM: In order for that to happen, external pressure, external imposition of change will be needed. FDA is incapable of reforming itself. FDA is incapable of changing its culture. The culture is part of the problem.

If you just sort of look at Vioxx right now, look at these spokespeople who have been the representatives of the agency. At the hearing, Dr. Sandra Kweder, in reference -- when I had testified that there were between 88,000 and 139,000 excess heart attacks because of Vioxx, her response was, during her testimony, "these aren't real deaths." And similarly, Dr. Woodcock has said that it's only a model, as if -- a statistical model, as if what the estimates we've come up with are somehow or another not real.

I think we have an agency in denial. It's denying that it failed the American people. It's denying that it's made a mistake. I think, in a sense, what it is saying is, is that if it had it to do over again, it would do everything exactly the way it did it before. And so, when I testified before the Senate Finance Committee that FDA is not able to protect the American people against another Vioxx, I think I was speaking quite accurately. DOBBS: And certainly bravely. And we thank you for the great public service that you've performed. And Tom Devine, I hope that you're satisfied that Dr. Graham has committed the truth, as you put it, without getting in trouble. We certainly don't want him to do that. We're also reassured that he has help in avoiding that.

DEVINE: The problem is he doesn't have any viable legal rights. Congress needs to give government workers the same serious free speech laws that corporate employees have. So it's not realistic to expect that government scientists will defend the public if they can't defend themselves. Not everybody has a political angel like Charles Grassley.

DOBBS: And Tom Devine, we thank you for being with us, as we have talked about these very important issues with a brave man, angel or no, in David Graham. Thank you, Dr. Graham.

GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Lou.

DOBBS: Tomorrow night, I'll be talking with Senator Charles Grassley, who has, as we pointed out, been a great supporter of Dr. Graham. And we've also invited the FDA's acting commissioner, Dr. Lester Crawford, to join us as well tomorrow evening. He declined.

Still ahead here, Enron, three years later. We take a look at who's in jail, who perhaps ought to be in jail, on the first of all of the great corporate scandals to unfold in this country.

And from a major cabinet makeover to a democratic election in Iraq. I'll be talking about the president's battles and the congressional positions on a host of issues with three of the country's top political journalists here next. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: 1,095 days since Enron went bankrupt three years ago. Christine Romans is here to bring us up to date on all of those people who have been sent to jail and punished appropriately for the worst financial scandal in corporate history.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Maybe not punished appropriately just yet, Lou. You still have Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, who are awaiting trial. They've been indicted. Interesting, some background, Ken Lay, the year before he was -- the collapse of Enron -- made $65 million. $65 million. Now he's fighting for his life.

DOBBS: Skilling was doing pretty well, too.

ROMANS: $42 million. This is a company that had 100 billion revenue, market cap that blew up of $43 billion.

DOBBS: Aided and abetted, although it's a legal term, it's also a descriptive term for what some of the investment banks were doing in New York City with Enron as well. ROMANS: And they've started paying for it. You've got Citigroup, JP Morgan, they've each paid at least $100 million in fines as settlements to the FDC. They put aside billions to make sure that they're going to be protected against lawsuits that are coming down the pike. You've got some Maryland employees who were convicted just a few weeks ago. This thing goes on and on. It's only been three years, but we'll be hearing this story for years to come.

DOBBS: Christine Romans thank you.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

DOBBS: Joining me now are three of the country's top political journalists. In Washington Karen Tumulty of "TIME," Roger Simon, "U.S. News and World Report." Here in New York, Mark Warren, "Esquire" magazine. Good to have you all here.

The president moving ahead apparently with Bernie Kerik as homeland security secretary. What's your reaction, Roger?

ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": Well, he's made a nonpolitical choice. Tom Ridge, Kerik's predecessor in the job, was a very political choice. He was a former governor of Pennsylvania. And a big supporter of George Bush. Kerik's entire background seems to be in police. He was commissioner of police in New York City. And he's been working in Iraq trying to train the Iraqi police force. The only downside seems to be we really need a good person in Iraq training the police force, and now we're bringing him back home to be chief of homeland security.

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: You know, I think this choice is very much going to be applauded by local law enforcement who have been very, very frustrated over the years over the fact that they don't think that the feds really share the kind of information that they need. And I think that Bernie Kerik is going to be somebody who's very sensitive to those concerns.

DOBBS: And Bernie Kerik -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

MARK WARREN, "ESQUIRE" MAGAZINE: He's been back for some time, actually, from Iraq. He spent only a few months, which is enough. And it remains to be seen how Iraq police force is going to pan out. But it will be his task, really, I think to finally find what it is this secretary does.

DOBBS: And Bernie Kerik is one of those people who is well respected by the men and women who work for him. His relationship with Rudy Giuliani in New York which is the stuff now, in point of fact, history. Let me turn to the intelligence reform legislation. Karen, beginning with you. Just heard Senator Joe Lieberman say this is going to happen, the White House saying it's going to push ahead. The Republicans in the House appear to be, however, steadfast. What do you think's going to happen?

TUMULTY: Well, that's right. Congressional Republicans just got back from a retreat, and we're hearing real mixed signals. The Senate Republicans seem to think that this bill is going to move forward pretty quickly. But sources in Denny Hastert's office are saying not so fast.

DOBBS: Roger?

SIMON: Either George Bush wins this fight or he becomes a prisoner of the congressional Republicans. Only in the last day or so has the criticism been focused where it should be focused on Dennis Hastert. Here's the speaker of the House who's got a majority of House members in favor of a bill the president wants, and he won't move it to the floor because it won't get a majority of Republican votes. Well, presidents find it very convenient to pass bills with both Democratic and Republican votes, so they aren't prisoners of their own party. And if George Bush gives up that principle or gives up that tactic, he's going to be in big trouble for the more important fights that he has coming up next year.

DOBBS: More important than intelligence reform, Mark?

WARREN: That's exactly right. I agree with Roger completely. I talked to someone who works and lives around the White House yesterday, who said that -- he used the image...

DOBBS: I take it this wasn't a gardener.

WARREN: No. No.

TUMULTY: They know a lot, Lou.

DOBBS: I'm sorry, go ahead.

WARREN: He used the image of a steamroller when it comes to the House Republicans, especially Congressman Hunter, who you talked about earlier on the show.

DOBBS: Well, we'll see. Mark Warren, we thank you very much. Karen Tumulty, Roger Simon, as always. We've used up all the time allotted. Thank you.

Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll and a preview of what's ahead tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results now of our poll tonight. 76 percent of you say Congress should not pass the intelligence reform bill without the immigration and border security provisions recommended by the September 11 commission. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate finance committee, one of the strongest supporters of FDA whistle-blower Dr. David Graham will be here.

And new Senate minority leader, Senator Harry Reid will be here to tell us how the Democrats are going to counter the Republican agenda, where they're going to work with the Republicans, and his view of the future of the Democratic party. And "Overmedicated Nation," our special report. Tomorrow we focus on what cutting off the supply of drugs from Canada would mean to millions of Americans. Please join us tomorrow evening. Thanks for being here tonight. For all of us here good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" 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