Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Capital Chaos; Nuke Provocation; Deadly Duty; Feathered Dinosaurs Provide Link to Modern Birds; Hillary Clinton to Work with Newt Gingrich
Aired May 11, 2005 - 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.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, capital chaos. An unidentified airplane flew into restricted airspace around the White House: Capitol Hill and the White House evacuated; F-16s scrambled to intercept the intruder. We'll have complete coverage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Also ahead on LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, nuclear provocation. North Korea escalates its nuclear challenge to the United States.
Bloody Iraq. A wave of deadly attacks, 60 people are killed. But Iraqi police and military recruits still defy the terrorists.
And identity crisis. Real I.D. will help protect this country from terrorists. So why are some states objecting? A special report.
This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Good evening.
A small aircraft today flew deep into restricted airspace around the capital and the White House, forcing thousands of people to evacuate the White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court. F-16 fighter jets and a Black Hawk helicopter intercepted the aircraft and forced it to land at an airfield in Maryland.
President Bush was not in the White House at the time. Vice President Cheney was. He was moved to a secure location.
Kimberly Osias has the report from Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It all started just before noon, 11:50, when Capitol Police knew something just wasn't right. A high-wing Cessna plane, a two-seater carrying student pilot Jim Shafer (ph) and another more experienced pilot, Troy Martin (ph). FAA radar detects a security breach.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Run! Run!
OSIAS: 11:59: White House security alert level at yellow. The plane now 15 miles north of the White House. Two F-16 fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to intercept.
BERNARD SHAW, FMR. CNN ANCHOR: I saw them fire two warning flares in the direction of the single-engine plane
OSIAS: The pilot didn't respond.
12:01: The White House raises the security alert level to orange.
12:03: The alert level now at red. The fixed wing single-engine Cessna three miles from the White House. For eight minutes in all, the alert level was at its highest.
President Bush never at risk. He was mountain biking offgrounds.
First lady Laura Bush and Vice President Cheney were ushered to safety. Former first lady Nancy Reagan was visiting and was moved as well.
12:11: The plane now traveling west, and the security level drops down to yellow. Security officials say everything went according to plan.
CHIEF TERRANCE GAINER, CAPITOL POLICE: We didn't know what it was. I mean, the whole air defense system in Washington is set up to keep people out who aren't supposed to be in the airspace. And the wonderful thing is that there's a layer of protection that starts with the local departments managing any of these buildings, whether it's the White House or other government buildings, and spreads out like an onion from there. And everybody played their part.
OSIAS: Fifteen minutes after it all began it ended. Black Hawk choppers escorted the errant plane, forcing a landing 40 miles north of downtown D.C. in Frederick, Maryland. Quite a different destination than the pilots originally planned.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OSIAS: Now, sources tell CNN that the plane was originally headed to an air show in Lumberton, North Carolina. Secret Service officials have questioned the two men and determined that the intrusion was purely accidental.
Now, Lou, there are no charges that are expected at this point. And also, law enforcement officials tell CNN that it appears that there are some kind of radio problems within the plane so far.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Kimberly Osias reporting from Washington.
I'm joined now by CNN security analyst Richard Falkenrath. He's President Bush's former deputy Homeland Security adviser.
Let's turn to the issue of first an aircraft penetrating airspace over the capital. A lot of laudatory, self-laudatory remarks from officials in Washington, but the fact is, this aircraft entered and stayed for a number of minutes in restricted airspace over the nation's capital.
How could that be tolerated?
RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, that's right, Lou. This is the most tightly-guarded airspace in the nation. And this is the deepest penetration into that airspace that we've had since 9/11. And it was not an acceptable outcome.
The system, the air defense system that is designed to protect Washington, basically worked as designed. The plane was intercepted, and it was taken out to another airfield to land. But this was a very bad mistake on the part of that -- of that pilot.
DOBBS: A bad mistake on the part of the pilot. Air traffic controllers monitoring, of course, all air traffic, and certainly that traffic that is penetrating that airspace. This looks like a very small margin of error of talking about what is 15.7 miles, a circle around the nation's capital.
In your judgment, should that be expanded?
FALKENRATH: Well, I don't -- I think it should probably not be expanded. This is -- this sort of thing happens a fair bit.
We've probably had about a dozen of these sorts of situations since 9/11. This one is the worst, but there have been prior incidents. And you need to strike a balance.
The main beneficiaries of this are, of course, the security officials in Washington, who need to prevent an attack like 9/11. But it also has a pretty serious impact on the aviation community, who needs to get through this area to go north and south.
This is all about striking a balance. And a lot of attention has gone into where we should draw these lines. We tried to do it the best we could.
DOBBS: I understand the accommodation issues, but the fact of the matter is that moving that restricted airspace out by even 15 miles could -- certainly that's very little in the way of inconvenience to aircraft, and it could be the margin of difference should this have been not a small, lightweight aircraft, but rather a jet or a more powerful propeller-driven aircraft armed with, say, a missile or an explosive that could have been dropped from the aircraft.
FALKENRATH: Well, it is a risk. And the general aviation community would probably have a difference of opinion with you on this.
There are a couple aspects of the system which we didn't see today that you should -- you should know about. There are missiles on the ground in Washington that could shoot down a plane if necessary. The interceptors for the F-16s are also armed with missiles that can shoot it down. Further, the Department of Defense has just deployed ground-based lasers which will illuminate any aircraft that comes too close into the no-fly zone so that they can see what's going on. It's a pretty complex system with some safeguards, but not foolproof, as you know.
DOBBS: As we all know, and an issue of -- again, the issue of accommodation and margin of safety for elected officials and for the -- for the nation's capital, the idea that people were told effectively, "Run," by the Capitol Hill Police. They are credited with handling this extremely well. But, in your judgment, again, were they given sufficient time to carry out an orderly evacuation?
FALKENRATH: Well, probably not. Time is very tight. And the evacuation was not entirely orderly.
We're talking about a matter of seconds here, really. When you are three miles out from downtown Washington and flying at 150 miles an hour, you have maybe 60 seconds before impact. So the timelines are extremely tight.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. We appreciate your sharing your insight.
FALKENRATH: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Stay with CNN for our special coverage of today's events this evening, "Defending the Skies," our special report. It will be hosted by Anderson Cooper, Paula Zahn, Larry King and Aaron Brown, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
The White House tonight is also focusing on a dangerous new nuclear provocation by North Korea. North Korea today declared it has finished extracting 8,000 fuel rods from a nuclear reactor. Those fuel rods could provide North Korea with sufficient plutonium to build another three nuclear weapons.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The satellite photos from Pyongyang gave the hint the steam stopped coming from the tower three-and-a-half weeks ago. North Korea's news agency today explained why.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea have successfully finished the unloading of 8,000 spent fuel rods from the five megawatt pilot nuclear plant."
Those rods can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium, enough for potentially three nuclear bombs. The White House today stating...
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Provocative comments and steps by North Korea only further isolate it from the international community. PILGRIM: North Korea is becoming aggressive. Satellite photos show activity that suggests North Korea may be preparing to test a nuclear bomb. North Korea test-fired a missile into the Sea of Japan on May 1 and declared itself a nuclear power three months ago.
The Bush administration is depending on China, which hosted six- party diplomatic talks in the past. But yesterday, the Chinese foreign ministry said it is not in favor of exerting pressure or imposing sanctions on North Korea.
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: This came as a shock to Washington, there's no question, which had hoped that they were getting a little more traction with the Chinese.
PILGRIM: China provides food and fuel to North Korea. Either could be used as leverage to pressure North Korea.
Today, the State Department spokesman expressed hope China would press North Korea to get back to diplomatic talks.
RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: These nations need to consider how best to encourage North Korea to come back to the talks. And I'm sure China will not only continue what it has been doing, an active effort to do that, but will also continue to consider what is necessary to accomplish that goal.
PILGRIM: The Chinese embassy spokesman said, "We don't try to solve problem through pressures or sanctions."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: It's been nearly a year since the last round of six- party talks, and North Korea is now arguably capable of increasing its nuclear arsenal by about three more bombs. Time seems to be on the side of the North Koreans -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, very little seems to be on the side of constraint here. The Chinese effectively saying that they're not going to use pressure, they're not going to use sanctions. Any suggestion as to what in the world they would use?
PILGRIM: It's been very frustrating, I'm sure, in Washington this week with the Chinese saying that they refuse to use pressure.
DOBBS: And with so much focus on the part of the national press included here on structure for talks and whether it should be bilateral, multilateral, six-party, the fact is that a number of apparatus exist for talks, but there's very little discussion about what should be contained within those talks, a structure to resolve the problem.
PILGRIM: The United States does have a proposal on the table for the talks, but it's important to note...
DOBBS: For the talks.
PHILLIPS: ... that the talks -- the talks have not gone on for more -- about a year now.
DOBBS: Right. We have a proposal for talks; we do not have a proposal for what would be talked about. And that seems to be, at least to some, a troubling omission from this overall discussion, and what looks like what is headed toward a confrontation.
Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
If North Korea were to fire a missile toward the United States, the U.S. military could have as little as three minutes in which to decide whether to shoot it down. The commander of U.S. Strategic Command, General James Cartwright, today told Congress that our missile defenses could identify a threat in the first three to four minutes of the flight of a missile. General Cartwright said that would leave only three minutes in which commanders could seek authorization to launch interceptors.
Still ahead here, a wave of deadly bombings killing more recruits in Iraq. The violence doesn't stop hundreds of Iraqis, however, determined to defend their country. We'll have that story.
And the battle over the latest so-called free trade agreement and why one leading lawmaker says CAFTA will only do further harm to the U.S. economy.
Those stories and a great deal more still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In Iraq, insurgents today killed 60 Iraqis. They wounded 100 others in a bomb and gun attacks in three cities.
One of the worst attacks was in the northern city of Tikrit. A car bomb there killed 30 people and wounded 40 others. That bomb exploded near a busy intersection where day laborers were waiting for jobs.
There were six attacks in Baghdad alone. In one of those attacks, a suicide bomber killed three Iraqis outside a police station. Eight others were wounded.
Insurgents also attacked Iraqi army recruits in a town west of Kirkuk. Twenty -- 20 recruits were killed, 40 others wounded in that attack.
That attack near Kirkuk is just the latest in a series of bombings that target Iraqi military and police recruits. More than a thousand have been killed, but the insurgents are failing to stop Iraqis from joining the Iraqi security services. Thousands of Iraqis continue to line up at recruiting stations, risking their lives, looking for jobs.
Ryan Chilcote reports from Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What these men are doing makes them among Iraq's most targeted citizens. Still, they came by the hundreds to apply for a place in the Iraqi army, filing through a maze of concertino wire and blast walls set up to protect them from insurgents attacks before they've even signed up.
The army service here is a matter of love and money. There is love of nation, of course, and the money, $300 per month, that comes with an entry-level army job in a country where the unemployment rate is 50 percent. But the risk is real. None of the men were allowed to show their faces for fear of becoming terrorist targets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I want to join the Iraqi army because our living conditions are very poor. There's no work, and I want to defend our country.
CHILCOTE: The recruits waited for five hours, using their applications to guard against the baking sun.
(on camera): This recruitment center may be one of the most dangerous places to be in Baghdad. It was attacked just last week.
The police saw the suicide bomber approaching the recruits and shot him, but he was still able to blow himself up.
(voice-over): At least 10 were killed in that attack. Twice that many died in another attack on a recruitment center on Wednesday.
Kamil Ahmed (ph) came here to collect compensation for the death of her son in a similar incident months ago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): My son was killed outside the recruitment center in the first bombing attack last year. I was told to come here to file the paperwork to get compensation.
CHILCOTE: Her story a stark reminder of what can happen to people who throw down their lot with the U.S.-backed government doesn't seem to phase anybody here. Recruitment officials set (ph) is on the rise.
(on camera): This 16-year-old boy told me his brother was killed by insurgents while working for the U.S. military. He wants to sign up. He was told to come back when he turns 18.
(voice-over): One official said a third of the recruits are Sunnis, the religious faction that ran the country under Saddam Hussein. This Sunni recruit was an artillery man in Saddam's army. He's looking for a fresh start.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We look for about a new life and justice.
CHILCOTE: Inside, the recruits go conveyor belt style through a battery of medical exams and paperwork. U.S. military needs these recruits trained and equipped before it can send its own soldiers home.
Ryan Chilcote, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: American troops in Afghanistan were today caught up in a riot in the eastern city of Jalalabad. The troops fired into the air, trying to keep the crowd under control before returning to their base.
Afghan police tried to keep order by opening fire at the demonstrators. Four of the demonstrators were killed.
The demonstrators were protesting reports that American interrogators desecrated copies of the Koran at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Pentagon said tonight it is investigating those rumors. Officials emphasize they do not know whether the allegations are true.
Coming up next here, identity crisis, why some states are blasting the Real I.D. Act just hours after it was passed by Congress. Our special report on that is next, as well as the CAFTA controversy. Businesses spending millions of dollars lobbying, pushing a free trade agreement that critics say will cost millions of Americans their jobs.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush tonight signed the Real I.D. Act into law. The legislation will make it much harder for illegal aliens and potential terrors to obtain U.S. driver's licenses. It will also tighten our border security.
President Bush signed the measure at the White House a short time ago. The Real I.D. law is attached to the $82 billion supplemental spending bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some states, however, are resisting Real I.D. Some of those state officials say they should have the right to regulate their own state driver's licenses.
Bill Tucker has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The privilege of driving is one granted and controlled by a state. And the initial reaction to the Real I.D. Act is an old-fashioned one.
MICHAEL BALBONI (R), NEW YORK STATE SENATE: The driver's license is the most basic interface between a citizen and its government, and it should reflect the different systems throughout the state. And it's a state issue, so the states should have been able to work it out.
TUCKER: The states have been working and developing standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and were three months away from a federally-directed deadline under the Intelligence Reform Bill. They now have three years, because that's the new deadline under Real I.D.
Forty states currently require some proof of legal status before granting a license. Ten states offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Utah and Tennessee provide illegal aliens driver's certificates which cannot be used as identification, which brings up a simple point...
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: The states are free, actually, to opt out of this law altogether. The only problem is, is that their citizens will be affected by not being able to use driver's licenses to, say, enter federal buildings or travel on airplanes. They will have to bring with them some other federally approved form of identification, like a passport.
TUCKER: A number of problems do need to be resolved, such as standards for document verification and developing a secure national network to allow states to check on the status of a license from another state.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: But states now have a directive to do so. However, they don't yet have a defined set of requirements and, Lou, therefore they have no way to know what the compliance is going to cost them.
DOBBS: No way to know what the compliance is going to cost, but we know what failure to insist on identification, proper identification, can cost the country. It seems hardly a significant concern on the part of states. You would think they would want to voluntarily meet these standards.
TUCKER: You would think so. And in many cases, like my home state where I live, in New Jersey, I know we already have a minimum set of standards that would be met. So...
DOBBS: Right. The so-called six points of identification.
TUCKER: Exactly.
DOBBS: Bill Tucker, thank you.
Coming up next, why big business is fighting so hard against passage -- for passage, rather, of CAFTA and against American workers. And what those businesses are hoping to gain if this latest so called free trade agreement were to become law.
Also ahead, tonight's "Face Off." I'll be debating the man leading the fight for illegal aliens to be granted in-state tuition in the state of North Carolina. He says it would be unfair to deny illegal aliens a privilege that is denied so many Americans.
And astonishing new discoveries that will change what we thought we knew about dinosaurs. Also, it might just change what we think we know about evolution and about creationism. I'll be talking with the country's leading authority on the feather dinosaur about the latest findings and how they could affect our understanding of not only dinosaurs but the world in which we live.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The U.S. trade deficit dropped significantly to its lowest level, in fact, in six months. That according to the Commerce Department today.
In March, the deficit was $55 billion. That's a decline of nine percent from the record $60 billion set in February.
One key reason for that decline, a smaller trade deficit with China. Imports of textiles from China, in fact, fell 21 percent. Those imports that initially soared after quotas limiting textile imports were lifted.
The monthly deficit with China still by far the biggest with any single country, $13 billion. For this year, the U.S. trade deficit is on track to reach a record $700 billion.
Our trade deficit could skyrocket if the Central American Free Trade Agreement is passed. That trade deal is at the center of a fierce battle on Capitol Hill.
On one side, labor groups are protesting against the trade deal. They say it will cost American jobs. On the other side, big business groups are using their financial might and lobbying power trying to push CAFTA through Congress.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Chamber of Commerce held a lavish reception for the Central American presidents. Corporate interests have been out in front lobbying for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which promises to be a boon for big business. In a news briefing, the chamber dodged the question on how much they are spending to promote CAFTA, simply saying millions.
JOHN MURPHY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: And we believe that we'll be able to -- to make the case effectively here in the next couple of weeks. They've -- they've been working on this for a while, and we think that we're within -- we're within reach of a vote now.
SYLVESTER: The business roundtable, a coalition of more than 200 corporations, tops the list of groups pushing trade issues on Capitol Hill. It has spent $90 million lobbying for free trade since 1998. And the roundtable gave $58 million in campaign contributions in 2000 during the last major trade fight, normalizing trade relations with China.
LARRY NOBLE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: I think the problem with lobbying, with this much money behind lobbying, is that it may distort the field. It may give the impression that the public is in support of something that the public may not be in support of. And it really tends to drown out other voices.
SYLVESTER: Congressman Adam Smith will vote no on CAFTA. But he expects plenty of arm-twisting by the Bush administration to pass the trade agreement.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D), WASHINGTON: At this point, they're going to have to try to, you know, use whatever means of persuasion they have for their own members to get the necessary votes.
CROWD: No, no. CAFTA, no.
SYLVESTER: CAFTA opponents may not be able to match corporations, dollar for dollar. But what they lack in money, they are trying to make up for with grass roots support.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The Central American presidents are getting lots of face time with the Bush administration during their pro-CAFTA trip. Today they met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- tomorrow President Bush will host them at the White House -- Lou.
DOBBS: Pretty good for a group of nations whose combined GDP amounts to just about that of New Haven, Connecticut.
Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much. My next guest is one of the most outspoken critics of CAFTA in Congress. Congresswomen Hilda Solis says, you just have to take one look at the 750,000 jobs lost because of NAFTA to understand why this so called free trade agreement won't work. The Congresswoman Solis joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Good to have you with us.
REP. HILDA SOLIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you so much.
DOBBS: Why do you -- why are you so opposed to this agreement?
SOLIS: Well, I've seen what has happened in the last 10 years in my own state of California where we've lost several thousand jobs. And in my own district about a thousand in the garment industry, in the textile industry, in light manufacturing. And also in the automotive industry, we were hit very hard. I have seen firsthand going down to the border in Suarez, visiting the maquillas there. And the circumstances that people have to work under, that is long hours, maybe 12 to 14 hours, pay may be $27 a week. And usually enticing young women to come into these jobs, who have really no formal training. Who come in from the interior of Mexico, and then are asked to live in squalor areas around the area.
And then five years later half of those makilas get up and leave and go to China. So, where is the growth in trade, in economy for the state of Mexico? I didn't see it and I know a lot of people in Mexico feel the same way.
DOBBS: In Mexico, and in point of fact, those jobs that are being held in some would say -- that are being exploited by U.S. multinationals, in point of fact that's costing American jobs, isn't it?
SOILS: Absolutely. And the fact of the matter is we should be ensuring that we have fair trade agreements, not ones that actually disadvantage the U.S. economy and our workers here. Right now we're outsourcing so many jobs in particular in the telecommunication industry, and now textile industry. We have a lot of agricultural businesses that are going to be affected, as well. Not only on our side, but as well as the small farmers in Central America who won't be able to sell their goods? Where are they are going to go? They're going to want to get up and leave and go somewhere.
DOBBS: Congresswoman Solis, our U.S. trade representative, Mr. Portman, says that we need to have this agreement, in his words, because it will allows us to compete with China. Interesting reasoning, is it reasoning that you ascribe to at all?
SOLIS: No, because as I said earlier in many cases, many of the Makilas that were once in Mexico are now in China. Ad I can see the same pattern occurring in Central America, when they will drive down as much as they can the wages in Central America. They can't go anywhere else. And they'll go to China or India.
DOBBS: Congresswoman Solis, we thank you very for being with us. We appreciate it.
SOLIS: Thank you. Thank you.
DOBBS: Tonight's "Quote of the Day" comes from Republican Congressman Robert Simmons of Connecticut. Congressman Simmons says, he's -- opposed to trade deals such as CAFTA, that "send American jobs overseas." The congressman said, "If we do not get serious about `Buy American' there will be nothing left in America to buy."
Congressman, we couldn't agree with you more here.
Some workers at two Daimler-Chrysler plants in Indiana might have to start walking to work under a new policy that takes effect this week. Daimler-Chrysler employees are no longer allowed to park any competitors cars in the company parking lot. A Chrysler spokesman told us that employees received what he called a significant discount on Daimler-Chrysler cars and trucks, still 10 percent of those Chrysler employees drive cars manufactured by other companies, their competitors. Perhaps this new policy will change that. Employees who do park a non-company car in a company lot will have the cars towed at the cost of $200.
And the United Auto Workers Union has a very similar policy, a little broader however. Members are not allowed to park foreign cars in United Auto Worker Union parking lots at all.
Later in the broadcast, I'll be talking with the author of a new book, an exciting book, and one of the most fascinating discoveries in science, the feathered dinosaur. The discovery has raised new questions about evolution, as the debate escalates on the origins of the universe and life itself. And that brings us to the subject of "Tonight's Poll." Do you believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll bring you those results, of course, later here in the broadcast.
Coming up next, lawmakers in one state working to help illegal aliens pay for college. I'll be talking with the support of that movement in our "Face Off" next.
And then a critical discovery to understanding evolution on the planet. A leading researcher is our guest -- next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In tonight's "Face Off" the battle over whether illegal aliens should be given opportunities to attend state colleges for greatly reduced tuition rates effectively in-state tuition rates. North Carolina is one of several states that could soon approve in- state tuition for illegal aliens.
My guest tonight is in favor of doing exactly that. Chris Fitzsimon is director of the North Carolina Policy Watch. He joins us tonight from Raleigh, North Carolina. Good to have you with us, Chris.
CHRIS FITZSIMON, DIR., NORTH CAROLINA POLICY WATCH: Glad to be here, Lou, thank you.
DOBBS: The first question has to be the 1996 immigration law that specifically says that if you provide these kinds of benefits they are to be provided to all those who attend universities in this case North Carolina from any state in the union. How do you square it all up?
FITZSIMON: Well, first of all there are nine states that are already doing that in the United States. And there's a lawsuit, obviously, in Kansas. But The other states have been doing this for years, and it hasn't been thrown out by any court. And it's the right thing to do.
DOBBS: Well, it hasn't been challenged either, Chris, as you know.
FITZSIMON: Right. Well, it's in the court now. I'm confident the court will do the right thing. I think it's important to remember that this really isn't an immigration issue as all. It's about education, it's about economic development. We're talking about people who have been in North Carolina for years, since they were one, two, or three years old and are excelling in our high school. So, we see it in North Carolina as about education and economic development and future of the state.
DOBBS: Now, That's an interesting argument because you concede that those who you would give in-state tuition to are in point of fact illegal aliens.
FITZSIMON: I would consider that they were undocumented -- they're undocumented...
DOBBS: Students in this case rather tan workers.
FITZSIMON: Right. Who's parents came here to work in North Carolina years ago. And the kids obviously had no choice whether they were going to come here or not. And these are kids who have grown up in the community, are part of the culture in their communities. There are a lot of safeguards in this bill. A child to get in-state tuition would have to have had attended a North Carolina high school for four years. Would have had to excel academically to get into one of our institutions. And would have to have proof that he or she was seeking legal citizenship in the United States. So, these are kids who are going to be here. They're here now, they're going to stay here. They want to be part of our community.
DOBBS: Now, that's an important statement you just made. They would have to show proof they are attempting to win citizenship, is that correct?
FITZSIMON: Right. They would have to have some documentation that they were in the process of trying to become legal citizens in North Carolina.
DOBBS: And that being the case, what do you say to those who, for example, who are supporting the Kansas challenge of precisely what you are attempting to do in North Carolina? That is that you're in violation first of all of the 1996 immigration law, right or wrong, the fact is the students you would be providing illegal -- providing tuition to are illegal. And you would be denying the same rights to American citizens. How do you square that up?
FITZSIMON: I think one difference that jumps right out at you, you can get in-state tuition in North Carolina if you live in any other state, if you move here and live here for one year. All you have to do if you live in South Carolina, is move to Raleigh, live here a year and then you're eligible for in-state tuition.
In this case, you have to live here four years and you have to have the documentation that I mentioned that you want to become a citizen. We have valedictorians in North Carolina, the smartest kids in their high school, who want to succeed, who want to contribute to the economy, who want to be leaders in the state and now are flipping hamburgers because they can't afford to go to one of our fine colleges and universities.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this, if North Carolina can do this, other states can do this, and ignore the clear -- in my judgment, we'll see what the courts say -- the clear intent of Congress in terms of the '96 immigration law, if you can ignore the fact, whether one is sympathetic and indeed I am sympathetic to those young people who are brought here and -- illegally by their parents -- whether they are working -- irrespective of the parent's situation. That's a tough situation.
The fact is you are creating effectively an amnesty program. You are ignoring federal law. And you are ignoring what is -- what would be helpful in terms of the nation that is responding -- seeking federal redress rather than acting on your own at the state level.
FITZSIMON: Well, I don't disagree that this is -- we need federal redress. I think this is a federal issue. I know there's going to be a bill introduced in Congress tomorrow that's going to try to attack immigration on the federal level where it needs to be handled.
Look, we have hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers and their children in North Carolina right now. They are not going to leave. Nobody is suggesting we deport 8 to 10 million Americans -- 400,000 people from North Carolina. So, we have to decide what the best thing to do is. And I think it's to give them an opportunity to get an education, succeed in our community.
DOBBS: You think that. It's interesting that you think that. A lot of people have a difference of opinion on this. But the fact of the matter is in this country right now, what you are advocating, what you are lobbying for and seeking is absolutely illegal.
FITZSIMON: Well, I would disagree with that. We'll see what the courts decide.
DOBBS: You can disagree with me. But let me ask you, I don't mind you disagreeing. I just got to understand it. You're talking about those that are in the country illegally. You are talking about providing them rights that are particularly proscribed by the 1996 immigration law. Disagree with me, but those are the facts.
FITZSIMON: Well, the court is going to have to interpret what that '96 law means. Does it mean that everybody who doesn't live in North Carolina has to have in-state tuition if the undocumented -- if children of undocumented workers do. Or is our one-year qualification come into play?
You know what's fascinating about this is the states that have done this, there's a lawsuit in Kansas, but there's been no huge, massive rush to these states by immigrants and their children just to go to college because of the restrictions in the bill, because people come here for work and for jobs.
DOBBS: Mr. Fizsimon, I think you would agree there has been that rush however across our borders: three million estimated last year, 20 million living here now.
FITZSIMON: That's an immigration issue. This is an education issue.
DOBBS: It's a national issue. I think would you agree. It may, in this case, be related to education but it's a national issue.
We thank you very much for being here, Chris Fitzsimon. Let's talk again soon.
FITZSIMON: Thanks for having me.
DOBBS: Coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, our special coverage of today's security scare in Washington. That special report is entitled "Defending the Skies." And Anderson Cooper will be leading the coverage -- Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Lou, good evening. We're going to be looking at the 24 minutes of fear in the skies over Washington, D.C. today. How did the plane get so close to the White House? Three miles at one point before it was turned away. Was someone letting down their guard? Or was this an operation that ran as smoothly as it possibly could?
We're also going to look at the two pilots. Who were these men and why were they flying on this day? And why weren't they responding to authorities who are trying to reach them.
We're going to look at that and a lot more, Lou.
DOBBS: And we'll be watching, Anderson. Thank you very much, Anderson Cooper. As I said, he'll be leading our coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. Eastern at the top of the hour right here on CNN.
In the meantime, those of you who like me are fascinated by the contention between evolutionists and creationists, a new discovery that could dramatically change our perception of not only dinosaurs but even something called intelligent design. I'll be talking with the head of the paleontology department at the American Museum of Natural History, the country's leading expert on the feathered dinosaur. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: An astonishing discovery that will forever change what we thought we knew, at least what some of us thought we knew, about dinosaurs. A new exhibit entitled "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries" opening this week at the American Museum of Natural History. It features fossils and models of the so-called feathered dinosaurs recently discovered in China.
My guest tonight, the leading U.S. researcher of the feather dinosaur, the author of the book "Unearthing the Dragon: the Great Feather Dinosaur Discovery." Mark is also the chair and curator of the paleontology division at the American Museum of Natural History. He's our guest tonight. It's terrific to have the opportunity to sit down and talk with you.
NORELL: It's great being here.
DOBBS: A fascinating book. A wonderful book. A wonderful new exhibit. All about something called a feathered dinosaur. Now, there's been speculation that there was a relationship between birds and the dinosaurs for years. What is the connection? And what is revealed by this feathered dinosaur that was discovered?
NORELL: Well, it's not just one feathered dinosaur, it's a series of feathered dinosaurs that have been found. And one of the great things about this is it's something that a lot of us predicted that would be out there several years ago. And as a scientist, one of the great things is to actually find pieces of evidence and data that conform with your predictions.
DOBBS: And in China, the discovery was made by some of the leading anthropologists and researchers -- no, it wasn't.
NORELL: Well, it's like a lot of paleontologists, a lot of serendipity involved. And local farmers have actually collected most of this stuff.
DOBBS: Let's hear it for the farmers. They've got a place here.
NORELL: Brought them to the attention of the people in the Chinese Academy of Sciences who have been my great colleagues through all of this.
DOBBS: Colleagues. And in fact, it's taken a while for the news of this discovery to move to the popular -- at least and I think sometime for the academic consciousness -- but certainly to the popular consciousness.
NORELL: Well, I think in all things, if science is done correctly, it takes quite a while to do it. Because you just don't go out with a press release immediately after you found it. There's a review process. It takes a while for things to appear in the reviewed scientific literature.
DOBBS: This discovery, how does it really alter what we thought we knew in your mind, the fact that we found the feathered dinosaur?
NORELL: Well, I don't think it really alters so much what we thought. I think it conforms a lot with our predictions. But it is really hard evidence of those predictions.
One of the things I think it really shown is that feathers have been tied to the origin of flight for as long as people have been studying birds. Now all of a sudden we have to come up for another reason for their evolution.
DOBBS: Is it your sense that these feathered dinosaurs are more closely related, to say the crane or the Dodo bird?
NORELL: Well, not necessarily those birds. All living birds are more closely related to one an other than any of them are specifically to these dinosaurs. But just as with humans, for we have living humans in this wonderful series of things like Australopithecene and Homo erectus as sequentially become further and further closely related. These animals are like that.
DOBBS: And like that -- just like that -- in sequence comes the debate between creationism and evolutionism. Darwin is on trial, sort of in abstentia now in Kansas as -- as the debate is raging there. Give us -- first let me ask you, do you believe that evolution and creationism can co-exist? Or are they absolutely mutually exclusive?
NORELL: Well, to me, in my own mind, I don't believe.
DOBBS: But I'm asking you as a scientist. NORELL: Right, in my own mind, I don't believe much. I think a lot, and I think that that's really the difference. I mean, I have no problem with things like intelligent design being taught in schools. However, they should be taught in religion classes and not science classes. I mean, science exists, by its very nature, in the sense that we have to, with each set of new evidence, be able to throw out everything that we thought the day before yesterday.
DOBBS: It is -- it is -- and I love the way you put that, because the real issue is, we all talk somewhat, occasionally, too much about what we believe rather than what we know. And, of course, scientists are supposed to be focusing, not always successfully, on what they know. In your field, in paleontology, it's so difficult to know because there are so many inductive and deductive processes from what is scant evidence, really, against eons ago -- life that canvassed the earth with tremendous number of species and forms.
NORELL: Well, I think that the vagueries of the fossil record are real. Fossil record is -- very difficult to study. However, incorporating things that we know from electro-genetics and DNA sequencing, from animals that are alive today, that we can test some aspect of the fossil record, and that every new piece of evidence we find really conforms with the general view we have of the -- how life diversified in the evolutionary process -- through the evolutionary process.
DOBBS: When you talk about evolutionary processes, as the years are continuing to be pushed back when we originally -- and I say originally because of course I -- when I say originally -- back, eons ago when I was in college, when we thought man had first moved forward, that the first time that the primates actually stood erect, keeps being pushed back.
NORELL: Right.
DOBBS: Remarkable discoveries. You said something interesting. You thought creationism should only be in religion and not in science, yet you move to the issue of cosmology, which is the origin of the universe itself. And, we supplant, "and on the seventh day god rested," with Stephen Hawking and the big bang. Both require some faith in the incipient point, don't they?
NORELL: Perhaps, yes, and it's so out -- sorry (ph). It's not something that I deal with on a day-to-day basis.
DOBBS: Oh, nor me. (INAUDIBLE)
NORELL: I'm more focused as a scientist -- yes, as a scientist -- specifically on narrow sets of issues that we study in my own laboratory. However, I do think that a, you know, religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are two very different ways of looking at the world, and they're not necessarily incongruent with one another. They're just very different ways in that they can't be conflated.
DOBBS: Well, "Unearthing the Dragon" is a terrific book. It is a beautiful book on top of that, and there it is. It is available in bookstores worldwide, and the web, worldwide, is that fair enough to put it? And the American Museum of Natural History, a terrific exhibit, and worth everyone's -- everyone's time, notice and attention.
Mark, thanks for being with us.
NORELL: Thanks for having me.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll: do you believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive? Yes or no, cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We're going to settle this -- this debate about evolution and creationism right here on this broadcast, tonight. Help us do it. We'll have the results for you coming up.
And we'll have a preview of what is ahead tomorrow. Also, a look at Washington's new political odd couple. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWT GINGRICH, FMR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It is a genuine thrill to be here...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Well, it doesn't get much better than this. Two once- bitter political rivals have formed what would be at least an unlikely alliance. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich today came together, together to promote new legislation aimed at improving the healthcare system of this country.
Senior political analyst Bill Schneider has this unlikely story from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SR POLITICAL ANALYST: 1993, Newt Gingrich attacks the Clinton health care plan.
NEWT GINGRICH (R), FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, the essence of the Clinton bill is an enormous centralized government bureaucracy with much higher taxes and much bigger bureaucracy.
SCHNEIDER: 1996, the Democrats run scare ads.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if Dole wins and Gingrich runs Congress, there will be nobody there to stop them.
SCHNEIDER: Two of the leading antagonists from the '90s were back on stage, singing a different tune.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: I know, it's a bit of an odd fellow or odd woman mix, but...
SCHNEIDER: What's changed? Both Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich are thinking about running for president in 2008. Moreover, healthcare has re-emerged as a problem. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last month asked people to rate issues they regard as extremely important. Healthcare costs came in second, right behind terrorism, just ahead of the economy and gas prices, and way ahead of the two issues Washington is obsessed with, Social Security and the way federal courts handle moral issues.
Gingrich and Clinton are showcasing themselves as practical politicians trying to solve a real problem: the cost of out-moded healthcare information technology, in lives as well as dollars.
GINGRICH: Paper kills. This is not complicated. If you see paper in the health system it risks killing you.
SCHNEIDER: In 2000, President Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. So did John Kerry last year.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am a uniter, not a divider.
SCHNEIDER: Gingrich and Clinton are trying to do what Bush and Kerry failed to do. What's that?
GINGRICH: ...that it is a genuine thrill to be here in this bipartisan effort.
CLINTON: At our first meeting, when we were agreeing so much with each other, I thought people thought the end is near. It's a sign of the end times.
SCHNEIDER: They are trying to depolarize the political environment.
Bill Schneider, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: We'll see how it works out.
The results of our poll tonight: 58 percent of you say evolution and creationism are somehow linked, or at least not mutually exclusive, and 42 percent of you say they are mutually exclusive.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts -- Richard Sutton in Morganton, North Carolina: "Why doesn't the U.S. government sue the Mexican government in International Court for the cost of keeping illegals?"
David Whitmire in Watkinsville, Georgia: "If there were 3 million lawyers entering the U.S. illegally each year, I bet you would see Congress act and act fast."
Austin Keegan in Aptos, California: "Can a lawsuit be brought against Mexico through NAFTA for illegal trade policies towards the United States? Mexico isn't dumping computer chips or apparel. It's dumping humans."
Those are you thoughts. Send us yours at LouDobbs.com. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. We'll be debating the origins of our universe, and the role of education. We'll have a special report on the latest to date on evolution, creationism, the newest approach and theory -- intelligent design. I'll be talking with three leading experts in science and religion. Please be with us. For all of us here, thanks for being here tonight. Good night from New York. ANDERSON COOPER 360 starts right now.
Those are your thoughts. Send us yours at loudobbs.com. Please join us here tomorrow. We'll be debating the origins of our universe and the role of education. We'll have a SPECIAL REPORT on the latest debate. The newest approach in their of intelligent design. Please be with us. For all of us here, thanks for being here tonight. Goodnight from New York. ANDERSON COOPER 360 starts right now.
END
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 May 11, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, capital chaos. An unidentified airplane flew into restricted airspace around the White House: Capitol Hill and the White House evacuated; F-16s scrambled to intercept the intruder. We'll have complete coverage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Also ahead on LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, nuclear provocation. North Korea escalates its nuclear challenge to the United States.
Bloody Iraq. A wave of deadly attacks, 60 people are killed. But Iraqi police and military recruits still defy the terrorists.
And identity crisis. Real I.D. will help protect this country from terrorists. So why are some states objecting? A special report.
This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Good evening.
A small aircraft today flew deep into restricted airspace around the capital and the White House, forcing thousands of people to evacuate the White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court. F-16 fighter jets and a Black Hawk helicopter intercepted the aircraft and forced it to land at an airfield in Maryland.
President Bush was not in the White House at the time. Vice President Cheney was. He was moved to a secure location.
Kimberly Osias has the report from Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It all started just before noon, 11:50, when Capitol Police knew something just wasn't right. A high-wing Cessna plane, a two-seater carrying student pilot Jim Shafer (ph) and another more experienced pilot, Troy Martin (ph). FAA radar detects a security breach.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Run! Run!
OSIAS: 11:59: White House security alert level at yellow. The plane now 15 miles north of the White House. Two F-16 fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to intercept.
BERNARD SHAW, FMR. CNN ANCHOR: I saw them fire two warning flares in the direction of the single-engine plane
OSIAS: The pilot didn't respond.
12:01: The White House raises the security alert level to orange.
12:03: The alert level now at red. The fixed wing single-engine Cessna three miles from the White House. For eight minutes in all, the alert level was at its highest.
President Bush never at risk. He was mountain biking offgrounds.
First lady Laura Bush and Vice President Cheney were ushered to safety. Former first lady Nancy Reagan was visiting and was moved as well.
12:11: The plane now traveling west, and the security level drops down to yellow. Security officials say everything went according to plan.
CHIEF TERRANCE GAINER, CAPITOL POLICE: We didn't know what it was. I mean, the whole air defense system in Washington is set up to keep people out who aren't supposed to be in the airspace. And the wonderful thing is that there's a layer of protection that starts with the local departments managing any of these buildings, whether it's the White House or other government buildings, and spreads out like an onion from there. And everybody played their part.
OSIAS: Fifteen minutes after it all began it ended. Black Hawk choppers escorted the errant plane, forcing a landing 40 miles north of downtown D.C. in Frederick, Maryland. Quite a different destination than the pilots originally planned.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OSIAS: Now, sources tell CNN that the plane was originally headed to an air show in Lumberton, North Carolina. Secret Service officials have questioned the two men and determined that the intrusion was purely accidental.
Now, Lou, there are no charges that are expected at this point. And also, law enforcement officials tell CNN that it appears that there are some kind of radio problems within the plane so far.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Kimberly Osias reporting from Washington.
I'm joined now by CNN security analyst Richard Falkenrath. He's President Bush's former deputy Homeland Security adviser.
Let's turn to the issue of first an aircraft penetrating airspace over the capital. A lot of laudatory, self-laudatory remarks from officials in Washington, but the fact is, this aircraft entered and stayed for a number of minutes in restricted airspace over the nation's capital.
How could that be tolerated?
RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, that's right, Lou. This is the most tightly-guarded airspace in the nation. And this is the deepest penetration into that airspace that we've had since 9/11. And it was not an acceptable outcome.
The system, the air defense system that is designed to protect Washington, basically worked as designed. The plane was intercepted, and it was taken out to another airfield to land. But this was a very bad mistake on the part of that -- of that pilot.
DOBBS: A bad mistake on the part of the pilot. Air traffic controllers monitoring, of course, all air traffic, and certainly that traffic that is penetrating that airspace. This looks like a very small margin of error of talking about what is 15.7 miles, a circle around the nation's capital.
In your judgment, should that be expanded?
FALKENRATH: Well, I don't -- I think it should probably not be expanded. This is -- this sort of thing happens a fair bit.
We've probably had about a dozen of these sorts of situations since 9/11. This one is the worst, but there have been prior incidents. And you need to strike a balance.
The main beneficiaries of this are, of course, the security officials in Washington, who need to prevent an attack like 9/11. But it also has a pretty serious impact on the aviation community, who needs to get through this area to go north and south.
This is all about striking a balance. And a lot of attention has gone into where we should draw these lines. We tried to do it the best we could.
DOBBS: I understand the accommodation issues, but the fact of the matter is that moving that restricted airspace out by even 15 miles could -- certainly that's very little in the way of inconvenience to aircraft, and it could be the margin of difference should this have been not a small, lightweight aircraft, but rather a jet or a more powerful propeller-driven aircraft armed with, say, a missile or an explosive that could have been dropped from the aircraft.
FALKENRATH: Well, it is a risk. And the general aviation community would probably have a difference of opinion with you on this.
There are a couple aspects of the system which we didn't see today that you should -- you should know about. There are missiles on the ground in Washington that could shoot down a plane if necessary. The interceptors for the F-16s are also armed with missiles that can shoot it down. Further, the Department of Defense has just deployed ground-based lasers which will illuminate any aircraft that comes too close into the no-fly zone so that they can see what's going on. It's a pretty complex system with some safeguards, but not foolproof, as you know.
DOBBS: As we all know, and an issue of -- again, the issue of accommodation and margin of safety for elected officials and for the -- for the nation's capital, the idea that people were told effectively, "Run," by the Capitol Hill Police. They are credited with handling this extremely well. But, in your judgment, again, were they given sufficient time to carry out an orderly evacuation?
FALKENRATH: Well, probably not. Time is very tight. And the evacuation was not entirely orderly.
We're talking about a matter of seconds here, really. When you are three miles out from downtown Washington and flying at 150 miles an hour, you have maybe 60 seconds before impact. So the timelines are extremely tight.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. We appreciate your sharing your insight.
FALKENRATH: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Stay with CNN for our special coverage of today's events this evening, "Defending the Skies," our special report. It will be hosted by Anderson Cooper, Paula Zahn, Larry King and Aaron Brown, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
The White House tonight is also focusing on a dangerous new nuclear provocation by North Korea. North Korea today declared it has finished extracting 8,000 fuel rods from a nuclear reactor. Those fuel rods could provide North Korea with sufficient plutonium to build another three nuclear weapons.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The satellite photos from Pyongyang gave the hint the steam stopped coming from the tower three-and-a-half weeks ago. North Korea's news agency today explained why.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea have successfully finished the unloading of 8,000 spent fuel rods from the five megawatt pilot nuclear plant."
Those rods can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium, enough for potentially three nuclear bombs. The White House today stating...
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Provocative comments and steps by North Korea only further isolate it from the international community. PILGRIM: North Korea is becoming aggressive. Satellite photos show activity that suggests North Korea may be preparing to test a nuclear bomb. North Korea test-fired a missile into the Sea of Japan on May 1 and declared itself a nuclear power three months ago.
The Bush administration is depending on China, which hosted six- party diplomatic talks in the past. But yesterday, the Chinese foreign ministry said it is not in favor of exerting pressure or imposing sanctions on North Korea.
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: This came as a shock to Washington, there's no question, which had hoped that they were getting a little more traction with the Chinese.
PILGRIM: China provides food and fuel to North Korea. Either could be used as leverage to pressure North Korea.
Today, the State Department spokesman expressed hope China would press North Korea to get back to diplomatic talks.
RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: These nations need to consider how best to encourage North Korea to come back to the talks. And I'm sure China will not only continue what it has been doing, an active effort to do that, but will also continue to consider what is necessary to accomplish that goal.
PILGRIM: The Chinese embassy spokesman said, "We don't try to solve problem through pressures or sanctions."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: It's been nearly a year since the last round of six- party talks, and North Korea is now arguably capable of increasing its nuclear arsenal by about three more bombs. Time seems to be on the side of the North Koreans -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, very little seems to be on the side of constraint here. The Chinese effectively saying that they're not going to use pressure, they're not going to use sanctions. Any suggestion as to what in the world they would use?
PILGRIM: It's been very frustrating, I'm sure, in Washington this week with the Chinese saying that they refuse to use pressure.
DOBBS: And with so much focus on the part of the national press included here on structure for talks and whether it should be bilateral, multilateral, six-party, the fact is that a number of apparatus exist for talks, but there's very little discussion about what should be contained within those talks, a structure to resolve the problem.
PILGRIM: The United States does have a proposal on the table for the talks, but it's important to note...
DOBBS: For the talks.
PHILLIPS: ... that the talks -- the talks have not gone on for more -- about a year now.
DOBBS: Right. We have a proposal for talks; we do not have a proposal for what would be talked about. And that seems to be, at least to some, a troubling omission from this overall discussion, and what looks like what is headed toward a confrontation.
Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
If North Korea were to fire a missile toward the United States, the U.S. military could have as little as three minutes in which to decide whether to shoot it down. The commander of U.S. Strategic Command, General James Cartwright, today told Congress that our missile defenses could identify a threat in the first three to four minutes of the flight of a missile. General Cartwright said that would leave only three minutes in which commanders could seek authorization to launch interceptors.
Still ahead here, a wave of deadly bombings killing more recruits in Iraq. The violence doesn't stop hundreds of Iraqis, however, determined to defend their country. We'll have that story.
And the battle over the latest so-called free trade agreement and why one leading lawmaker says CAFTA will only do further harm to the U.S. economy.
Those stories and a great deal more still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In Iraq, insurgents today killed 60 Iraqis. They wounded 100 others in a bomb and gun attacks in three cities.
One of the worst attacks was in the northern city of Tikrit. A car bomb there killed 30 people and wounded 40 others. That bomb exploded near a busy intersection where day laborers were waiting for jobs.
There were six attacks in Baghdad alone. In one of those attacks, a suicide bomber killed three Iraqis outside a police station. Eight others were wounded.
Insurgents also attacked Iraqi army recruits in a town west of Kirkuk. Twenty -- 20 recruits were killed, 40 others wounded in that attack.
That attack near Kirkuk is just the latest in a series of bombings that target Iraqi military and police recruits. More than a thousand have been killed, but the insurgents are failing to stop Iraqis from joining the Iraqi security services. Thousands of Iraqis continue to line up at recruiting stations, risking their lives, looking for jobs.
Ryan Chilcote reports from Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What these men are doing makes them among Iraq's most targeted citizens. Still, they came by the hundreds to apply for a place in the Iraqi army, filing through a maze of concertino wire and blast walls set up to protect them from insurgents attacks before they've even signed up.
The army service here is a matter of love and money. There is love of nation, of course, and the money, $300 per month, that comes with an entry-level army job in a country where the unemployment rate is 50 percent. But the risk is real. None of the men were allowed to show their faces for fear of becoming terrorist targets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I want to join the Iraqi army because our living conditions are very poor. There's no work, and I want to defend our country.
CHILCOTE: The recruits waited for five hours, using their applications to guard against the baking sun.
(on camera): This recruitment center may be one of the most dangerous places to be in Baghdad. It was attacked just last week.
The police saw the suicide bomber approaching the recruits and shot him, but he was still able to blow himself up.
(voice-over): At least 10 were killed in that attack. Twice that many died in another attack on a recruitment center on Wednesday.
Kamil Ahmed (ph) came here to collect compensation for the death of her son in a similar incident months ago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): My son was killed outside the recruitment center in the first bombing attack last year. I was told to come here to file the paperwork to get compensation.
CHILCOTE: Her story a stark reminder of what can happen to people who throw down their lot with the U.S.-backed government doesn't seem to phase anybody here. Recruitment officials set (ph) is on the rise.
(on camera): This 16-year-old boy told me his brother was killed by insurgents while working for the U.S. military. He wants to sign up. He was told to come back when he turns 18.
(voice-over): One official said a third of the recruits are Sunnis, the religious faction that ran the country under Saddam Hussein. This Sunni recruit was an artillery man in Saddam's army. He's looking for a fresh start.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We look for about a new life and justice.
CHILCOTE: Inside, the recruits go conveyor belt style through a battery of medical exams and paperwork. U.S. military needs these recruits trained and equipped before it can send its own soldiers home.
Ryan Chilcote, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: American troops in Afghanistan were today caught up in a riot in the eastern city of Jalalabad. The troops fired into the air, trying to keep the crowd under control before returning to their base.
Afghan police tried to keep order by opening fire at the demonstrators. Four of the demonstrators were killed.
The demonstrators were protesting reports that American interrogators desecrated copies of the Koran at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Pentagon said tonight it is investigating those rumors. Officials emphasize they do not know whether the allegations are true.
Coming up next here, identity crisis, why some states are blasting the Real I.D. Act just hours after it was passed by Congress. Our special report on that is next, as well as the CAFTA controversy. Businesses spending millions of dollars lobbying, pushing a free trade agreement that critics say will cost millions of Americans their jobs.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush tonight signed the Real I.D. Act into law. The legislation will make it much harder for illegal aliens and potential terrors to obtain U.S. driver's licenses. It will also tighten our border security.
President Bush signed the measure at the White House a short time ago. The Real I.D. law is attached to the $82 billion supplemental spending bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some states, however, are resisting Real I.D. Some of those state officials say they should have the right to regulate their own state driver's licenses.
Bill Tucker has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The privilege of driving is one granted and controlled by a state. And the initial reaction to the Real I.D. Act is an old-fashioned one.
MICHAEL BALBONI (R), NEW YORK STATE SENATE: The driver's license is the most basic interface between a citizen and its government, and it should reflect the different systems throughout the state. And it's a state issue, so the states should have been able to work it out.
TUCKER: The states have been working and developing standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and were three months away from a federally-directed deadline under the Intelligence Reform Bill. They now have three years, because that's the new deadline under Real I.D.
Forty states currently require some proof of legal status before granting a license. Ten states offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Utah and Tennessee provide illegal aliens driver's certificates which cannot be used as identification, which brings up a simple point...
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: The states are free, actually, to opt out of this law altogether. The only problem is, is that their citizens will be affected by not being able to use driver's licenses to, say, enter federal buildings or travel on airplanes. They will have to bring with them some other federally approved form of identification, like a passport.
TUCKER: A number of problems do need to be resolved, such as standards for document verification and developing a secure national network to allow states to check on the status of a license from another state.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: But states now have a directive to do so. However, they don't yet have a defined set of requirements and, Lou, therefore they have no way to know what the compliance is going to cost them.
DOBBS: No way to know what the compliance is going to cost, but we know what failure to insist on identification, proper identification, can cost the country. It seems hardly a significant concern on the part of states. You would think they would want to voluntarily meet these standards.
TUCKER: You would think so. And in many cases, like my home state where I live, in New Jersey, I know we already have a minimum set of standards that would be met. So...
DOBBS: Right. The so-called six points of identification.
TUCKER: Exactly.
DOBBS: Bill Tucker, thank you.
Coming up next, why big business is fighting so hard against passage -- for passage, rather, of CAFTA and against American workers. And what those businesses are hoping to gain if this latest so called free trade agreement were to become law.
Also ahead, tonight's "Face Off." I'll be debating the man leading the fight for illegal aliens to be granted in-state tuition in the state of North Carolina. He says it would be unfair to deny illegal aliens a privilege that is denied so many Americans.
And astonishing new discoveries that will change what we thought we knew about dinosaurs. Also, it might just change what we think we know about evolution and about creationism. I'll be talking with the country's leading authority on the feather dinosaur about the latest findings and how they could affect our understanding of not only dinosaurs but the world in which we live.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The U.S. trade deficit dropped significantly to its lowest level, in fact, in six months. That according to the Commerce Department today.
In March, the deficit was $55 billion. That's a decline of nine percent from the record $60 billion set in February.
One key reason for that decline, a smaller trade deficit with China. Imports of textiles from China, in fact, fell 21 percent. Those imports that initially soared after quotas limiting textile imports were lifted.
The monthly deficit with China still by far the biggest with any single country, $13 billion. For this year, the U.S. trade deficit is on track to reach a record $700 billion.
Our trade deficit could skyrocket if the Central American Free Trade Agreement is passed. That trade deal is at the center of a fierce battle on Capitol Hill.
On one side, labor groups are protesting against the trade deal. They say it will cost American jobs. On the other side, big business groups are using their financial might and lobbying power trying to push CAFTA through Congress.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Chamber of Commerce held a lavish reception for the Central American presidents. Corporate interests have been out in front lobbying for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which promises to be a boon for big business. In a news briefing, the chamber dodged the question on how much they are spending to promote CAFTA, simply saying millions.
JOHN MURPHY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: And we believe that we'll be able to -- to make the case effectively here in the next couple of weeks. They've -- they've been working on this for a while, and we think that we're within -- we're within reach of a vote now.
SYLVESTER: The business roundtable, a coalition of more than 200 corporations, tops the list of groups pushing trade issues on Capitol Hill. It has spent $90 million lobbying for free trade since 1998. And the roundtable gave $58 million in campaign contributions in 2000 during the last major trade fight, normalizing trade relations with China.
LARRY NOBLE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: I think the problem with lobbying, with this much money behind lobbying, is that it may distort the field. It may give the impression that the public is in support of something that the public may not be in support of. And it really tends to drown out other voices.
SYLVESTER: Congressman Adam Smith will vote no on CAFTA. But he expects plenty of arm-twisting by the Bush administration to pass the trade agreement.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D), WASHINGTON: At this point, they're going to have to try to, you know, use whatever means of persuasion they have for their own members to get the necessary votes.
CROWD: No, no. CAFTA, no.
SYLVESTER: CAFTA opponents may not be able to match corporations, dollar for dollar. But what they lack in money, they are trying to make up for with grass roots support.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The Central American presidents are getting lots of face time with the Bush administration during their pro-CAFTA trip. Today they met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- tomorrow President Bush will host them at the White House -- Lou.
DOBBS: Pretty good for a group of nations whose combined GDP amounts to just about that of New Haven, Connecticut.
Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much. My next guest is one of the most outspoken critics of CAFTA in Congress. Congresswomen Hilda Solis says, you just have to take one look at the 750,000 jobs lost because of NAFTA to understand why this so called free trade agreement won't work. The Congresswoman Solis joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Good to have you with us.
REP. HILDA SOLIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you so much.
DOBBS: Why do you -- why are you so opposed to this agreement?
SOLIS: Well, I've seen what has happened in the last 10 years in my own state of California where we've lost several thousand jobs. And in my own district about a thousand in the garment industry, in the textile industry, in light manufacturing. And also in the automotive industry, we were hit very hard. I have seen firsthand going down to the border in Suarez, visiting the maquillas there. And the circumstances that people have to work under, that is long hours, maybe 12 to 14 hours, pay may be $27 a week. And usually enticing young women to come into these jobs, who have really no formal training. Who come in from the interior of Mexico, and then are asked to live in squalor areas around the area.
And then five years later half of those makilas get up and leave and go to China. So, where is the growth in trade, in economy for the state of Mexico? I didn't see it and I know a lot of people in Mexico feel the same way.
DOBBS: In Mexico, and in point of fact, those jobs that are being held in some would say -- that are being exploited by U.S. multinationals, in point of fact that's costing American jobs, isn't it?
SOILS: Absolutely. And the fact of the matter is we should be ensuring that we have fair trade agreements, not ones that actually disadvantage the U.S. economy and our workers here. Right now we're outsourcing so many jobs in particular in the telecommunication industry, and now textile industry. We have a lot of agricultural businesses that are going to be affected, as well. Not only on our side, but as well as the small farmers in Central America who won't be able to sell their goods? Where are they are going to go? They're going to want to get up and leave and go somewhere.
DOBBS: Congresswoman Solis, our U.S. trade representative, Mr. Portman, says that we need to have this agreement, in his words, because it will allows us to compete with China. Interesting reasoning, is it reasoning that you ascribe to at all?
SOLIS: No, because as I said earlier in many cases, many of the Makilas that were once in Mexico are now in China. Ad I can see the same pattern occurring in Central America, when they will drive down as much as they can the wages in Central America. They can't go anywhere else. And they'll go to China or India.
DOBBS: Congresswoman Solis, we thank you very for being with us. We appreciate it.
SOLIS: Thank you. Thank you.
DOBBS: Tonight's "Quote of the Day" comes from Republican Congressman Robert Simmons of Connecticut. Congressman Simmons says, he's -- opposed to trade deals such as CAFTA, that "send American jobs overseas." The congressman said, "If we do not get serious about `Buy American' there will be nothing left in America to buy."
Congressman, we couldn't agree with you more here.
Some workers at two Daimler-Chrysler plants in Indiana might have to start walking to work under a new policy that takes effect this week. Daimler-Chrysler employees are no longer allowed to park any competitors cars in the company parking lot. A Chrysler spokesman told us that employees received what he called a significant discount on Daimler-Chrysler cars and trucks, still 10 percent of those Chrysler employees drive cars manufactured by other companies, their competitors. Perhaps this new policy will change that. Employees who do park a non-company car in a company lot will have the cars towed at the cost of $200.
And the United Auto Workers Union has a very similar policy, a little broader however. Members are not allowed to park foreign cars in United Auto Worker Union parking lots at all.
Later in the broadcast, I'll be talking with the author of a new book, an exciting book, and one of the most fascinating discoveries in science, the feathered dinosaur. The discovery has raised new questions about evolution, as the debate escalates on the origins of the universe and life itself. And that brings us to the subject of "Tonight's Poll." Do you believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll bring you those results, of course, later here in the broadcast.
Coming up next, lawmakers in one state working to help illegal aliens pay for college. I'll be talking with the support of that movement in our "Face Off" next.
And then a critical discovery to understanding evolution on the planet. A leading researcher is our guest -- next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In tonight's "Face Off" the battle over whether illegal aliens should be given opportunities to attend state colleges for greatly reduced tuition rates effectively in-state tuition rates. North Carolina is one of several states that could soon approve in- state tuition for illegal aliens.
My guest tonight is in favor of doing exactly that. Chris Fitzsimon is director of the North Carolina Policy Watch. He joins us tonight from Raleigh, North Carolina. Good to have you with us, Chris.
CHRIS FITZSIMON, DIR., NORTH CAROLINA POLICY WATCH: Glad to be here, Lou, thank you.
DOBBS: The first question has to be the 1996 immigration law that specifically says that if you provide these kinds of benefits they are to be provided to all those who attend universities in this case North Carolina from any state in the union. How do you square it all up?
FITZSIMON: Well, first of all there are nine states that are already doing that in the United States. And there's a lawsuit, obviously, in Kansas. But The other states have been doing this for years, and it hasn't been thrown out by any court. And it's the right thing to do.
DOBBS: Well, it hasn't been challenged either, Chris, as you know.
FITZSIMON: Right. Well, it's in the court now. I'm confident the court will do the right thing. I think it's important to remember that this really isn't an immigration issue as all. It's about education, it's about economic development. We're talking about people who have been in North Carolina for years, since they were one, two, or three years old and are excelling in our high school. So, we see it in North Carolina as about education and economic development and future of the state.
DOBBS: Now, That's an interesting argument because you concede that those who you would give in-state tuition to are in point of fact illegal aliens.
FITZSIMON: I would consider that they were undocumented -- they're undocumented...
DOBBS: Students in this case rather tan workers.
FITZSIMON: Right. Who's parents came here to work in North Carolina years ago. And the kids obviously had no choice whether they were going to come here or not. And these are kids who have grown up in the community, are part of the culture in their communities. There are a lot of safeguards in this bill. A child to get in-state tuition would have to have had attended a North Carolina high school for four years. Would have had to excel academically to get into one of our institutions. And would have to have proof that he or she was seeking legal citizenship in the United States. So, these are kids who are going to be here. They're here now, they're going to stay here. They want to be part of our community.
DOBBS: Now, that's an important statement you just made. They would have to show proof they are attempting to win citizenship, is that correct?
FITZSIMON: Right. They would have to have some documentation that they were in the process of trying to become legal citizens in North Carolina.
DOBBS: And that being the case, what do you say to those who, for example, who are supporting the Kansas challenge of precisely what you are attempting to do in North Carolina? That is that you're in violation first of all of the 1996 immigration law, right or wrong, the fact is the students you would be providing illegal -- providing tuition to are illegal. And you would be denying the same rights to American citizens. How do you square that up?
FITZSIMON: I think one difference that jumps right out at you, you can get in-state tuition in North Carolina if you live in any other state, if you move here and live here for one year. All you have to do if you live in South Carolina, is move to Raleigh, live here a year and then you're eligible for in-state tuition.
In this case, you have to live here four years and you have to have the documentation that I mentioned that you want to become a citizen. We have valedictorians in North Carolina, the smartest kids in their high school, who want to succeed, who want to contribute to the economy, who want to be leaders in the state and now are flipping hamburgers because they can't afford to go to one of our fine colleges and universities.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this, if North Carolina can do this, other states can do this, and ignore the clear -- in my judgment, we'll see what the courts say -- the clear intent of Congress in terms of the '96 immigration law, if you can ignore the fact, whether one is sympathetic and indeed I am sympathetic to those young people who are brought here and -- illegally by their parents -- whether they are working -- irrespective of the parent's situation. That's a tough situation.
The fact is you are creating effectively an amnesty program. You are ignoring federal law. And you are ignoring what is -- what would be helpful in terms of the nation that is responding -- seeking federal redress rather than acting on your own at the state level.
FITZSIMON: Well, I don't disagree that this is -- we need federal redress. I think this is a federal issue. I know there's going to be a bill introduced in Congress tomorrow that's going to try to attack immigration on the federal level where it needs to be handled.
Look, we have hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers and their children in North Carolina right now. They are not going to leave. Nobody is suggesting we deport 8 to 10 million Americans -- 400,000 people from North Carolina. So, we have to decide what the best thing to do is. And I think it's to give them an opportunity to get an education, succeed in our community.
DOBBS: You think that. It's interesting that you think that. A lot of people have a difference of opinion on this. But the fact of the matter is in this country right now, what you are advocating, what you are lobbying for and seeking is absolutely illegal.
FITZSIMON: Well, I would disagree with that. We'll see what the courts decide.
DOBBS: You can disagree with me. But let me ask you, I don't mind you disagreeing. I just got to understand it. You're talking about those that are in the country illegally. You are talking about providing them rights that are particularly proscribed by the 1996 immigration law. Disagree with me, but those are the facts.
FITZSIMON: Well, the court is going to have to interpret what that '96 law means. Does it mean that everybody who doesn't live in North Carolina has to have in-state tuition if the undocumented -- if children of undocumented workers do. Or is our one-year qualification come into play?
You know what's fascinating about this is the states that have done this, there's a lawsuit in Kansas, but there's been no huge, massive rush to these states by immigrants and their children just to go to college because of the restrictions in the bill, because people come here for work and for jobs.
DOBBS: Mr. Fizsimon, I think you would agree there has been that rush however across our borders: three million estimated last year, 20 million living here now.
FITZSIMON: That's an immigration issue. This is an education issue.
DOBBS: It's a national issue. I think would you agree. It may, in this case, be related to education but it's a national issue.
We thank you very much for being here, Chris Fitzsimon. Let's talk again soon.
FITZSIMON: Thanks for having me.
DOBBS: Coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, our special coverage of today's security scare in Washington. That special report is entitled "Defending the Skies." And Anderson Cooper will be leading the coverage -- Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Lou, good evening. We're going to be looking at the 24 minutes of fear in the skies over Washington, D.C. today. How did the plane get so close to the White House? Three miles at one point before it was turned away. Was someone letting down their guard? Or was this an operation that ran as smoothly as it possibly could?
We're also going to look at the two pilots. Who were these men and why were they flying on this day? And why weren't they responding to authorities who are trying to reach them.
We're going to look at that and a lot more, Lou.
DOBBS: And we'll be watching, Anderson. Thank you very much, Anderson Cooper. As I said, he'll be leading our coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. Eastern at the top of the hour right here on CNN.
In the meantime, those of you who like me are fascinated by the contention between evolutionists and creationists, a new discovery that could dramatically change our perception of not only dinosaurs but even something called intelligent design. I'll be talking with the head of the paleontology department at the American Museum of Natural History, the country's leading expert on the feathered dinosaur. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: An astonishing discovery that will forever change what we thought we knew, at least what some of us thought we knew, about dinosaurs. A new exhibit entitled "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries" opening this week at the American Museum of Natural History. It features fossils and models of the so-called feathered dinosaurs recently discovered in China.
My guest tonight, the leading U.S. researcher of the feather dinosaur, the author of the book "Unearthing the Dragon: the Great Feather Dinosaur Discovery." Mark is also the chair and curator of the paleontology division at the American Museum of Natural History. He's our guest tonight. It's terrific to have the opportunity to sit down and talk with you.
NORELL: It's great being here.
DOBBS: A fascinating book. A wonderful book. A wonderful new exhibit. All about something called a feathered dinosaur. Now, there's been speculation that there was a relationship between birds and the dinosaurs for years. What is the connection? And what is revealed by this feathered dinosaur that was discovered?
NORELL: Well, it's not just one feathered dinosaur, it's a series of feathered dinosaurs that have been found. And one of the great things about this is it's something that a lot of us predicted that would be out there several years ago. And as a scientist, one of the great things is to actually find pieces of evidence and data that conform with your predictions.
DOBBS: And in China, the discovery was made by some of the leading anthropologists and researchers -- no, it wasn't.
NORELL: Well, it's like a lot of paleontologists, a lot of serendipity involved. And local farmers have actually collected most of this stuff.
DOBBS: Let's hear it for the farmers. They've got a place here.
NORELL: Brought them to the attention of the people in the Chinese Academy of Sciences who have been my great colleagues through all of this.
DOBBS: Colleagues. And in fact, it's taken a while for the news of this discovery to move to the popular -- at least and I think sometime for the academic consciousness -- but certainly to the popular consciousness.
NORELL: Well, I think in all things, if science is done correctly, it takes quite a while to do it. Because you just don't go out with a press release immediately after you found it. There's a review process. It takes a while for things to appear in the reviewed scientific literature.
DOBBS: This discovery, how does it really alter what we thought we knew in your mind, the fact that we found the feathered dinosaur?
NORELL: Well, I don't think it really alters so much what we thought. I think it conforms a lot with our predictions. But it is really hard evidence of those predictions.
One of the things I think it really shown is that feathers have been tied to the origin of flight for as long as people have been studying birds. Now all of a sudden we have to come up for another reason for their evolution.
DOBBS: Is it your sense that these feathered dinosaurs are more closely related, to say the crane or the Dodo bird?
NORELL: Well, not necessarily those birds. All living birds are more closely related to one an other than any of them are specifically to these dinosaurs. But just as with humans, for we have living humans in this wonderful series of things like Australopithecene and Homo erectus as sequentially become further and further closely related. These animals are like that.
DOBBS: And like that -- just like that -- in sequence comes the debate between creationism and evolutionism. Darwin is on trial, sort of in abstentia now in Kansas as -- as the debate is raging there. Give us -- first let me ask you, do you believe that evolution and creationism can co-exist? Or are they absolutely mutually exclusive?
NORELL: Well, to me, in my own mind, I don't believe.
DOBBS: But I'm asking you as a scientist. NORELL: Right, in my own mind, I don't believe much. I think a lot, and I think that that's really the difference. I mean, I have no problem with things like intelligent design being taught in schools. However, they should be taught in religion classes and not science classes. I mean, science exists, by its very nature, in the sense that we have to, with each set of new evidence, be able to throw out everything that we thought the day before yesterday.
DOBBS: It is -- it is -- and I love the way you put that, because the real issue is, we all talk somewhat, occasionally, too much about what we believe rather than what we know. And, of course, scientists are supposed to be focusing, not always successfully, on what they know. In your field, in paleontology, it's so difficult to know because there are so many inductive and deductive processes from what is scant evidence, really, against eons ago -- life that canvassed the earth with tremendous number of species and forms.
NORELL: Well, I think that the vagueries of the fossil record are real. Fossil record is -- very difficult to study. However, incorporating things that we know from electro-genetics and DNA sequencing, from animals that are alive today, that we can test some aspect of the fossil record, and that every new piece of evidence we find really conforms with the general view we have of the -- how life diversified in the evolutionary process -- through the evolutionary process.
DOBBS: When you talk about evolutionary processes, as the years are continuing to be pushed back when we originally -- and I say originally because of course I -- when I say originally -- back, eons ago when I was in college, when we thought man had first moved forward, that the first time that the primates actually stood erect, keeps being pushed back.
NORELL: Right.
DOBBS: Remarkable discoveries. You said something interesting. You thought creationism should only be in religion and not in science, yet you move to the issue of cosmology, which is the origin of the universe itself. And, we supplant, "and on the seventh day god rested," with Stephen Hawking and the big bang. Both require some faith in the incipient point, don't they?
NORELL: Perhaps, yes, and it's so out -- sorry (ph). It's not something that I deal with on a day-to-day basis.
DOBBS: Oh, nor me. (INAUDIBLE)
NORELL: I'm more focused as a scientist -- yes, as a scientist -- specifically on narrow sets of issues that we study in my own laboratory. However, I do think that a, you know, religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are two very different ways of looking at the world, and they're not necessarily incongruent with one another. They're just very different ways in that they can't be conflated.
DOBBS: Well, "Unearthing the Dragon" is a terrific book. It is a beautiful book on top of that, and there it is. It is available in bookstores worldwide, and the web, worldwide, is that fair enough to put it? And the American Museum of Natural History, a terrific exhibit, and worth everyone's -- everyone's time, notice and attention.
Mark, thanks for being with us.
NORELL: Thanks for having me.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll: do you believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive? Yes or no, cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We're going to settle this -- this debate about evolution and creationism right here on this broadcast, tonight. Help us do it. We'll have the results for you coming up.
And we'll have a preview of what is ahead tomorrow. Also, a look at Washington's new political odd couple. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWT GINGRICH, FMR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It is a genuine thrill to be here...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Well, it doesn't get much better than this. Two once- bitter political rivals have formed what would be at least an unlikely alliance. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich today came together, together to promote new legislation aimed at improving the healthcare system of this country.
Senior political analyst Bill Schneider has this unlikely story from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SR POLITICAL ANALYST: 1993, Newt Gingrich attacks the Clinton health care plan.
NEWT GINGRICH (R), FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, the essence of the Clinton bill is an enormous centralized government bureaucracy with much higher taxes and much bigger bureaucracy.
SCHNEIDER: 1996, the Democrats run scare ads.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if Dole wins and Gingrich runs Congress, there will be nobody there to stop them.
SCHNEIDER: Two of the leading antagonists from the '90s were back on stage, singing a different tune.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: I know, it's a bit of an odd fellow or odd woman mix, but...
SCHNEIDER: What's changed? Both Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich are thinking about running for president in 2008. Moreover, healthcare has re-emerged as a problem. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last month asked people to rate issues they regard as extremely important. Healthcare costs came in second, right behind terrorism, just ahead of the economy and gas prices, and way ahead of the two issues Washington is obsessed with, Social Security and the way federal courts handle moral issues.
Gingrich and Clinton are showcasing themselves as practical politicians trying to solve a real problem: the cost of out-moded healthcare information technology, in lives as well as dollars.
GINGRICH: Paper kills. This is not complicated. If you see paper in the health system it risks killing you.
SCHNEIDER: In 2000, President Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. So did John Kerry last year.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am a uniter, not a divider.
SCHNEIDER: Gingrich and Clinton are trying to do what Bush and Kerry failed to do. What's that?
GINGRICH: ...that it is a genuine thrill to be here in this bipartisan effort.
CLINTON: At our first meeting, when we were agreeing so much with each other, I thought people thought the end is near. It's a sign of the end times.
SCHNEIDER: They are trying to depolarize the political environment.
Bill Schneider, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: We'll see how it works out.
The results of our poll tonight: 58 percent of you say evolution and creationism are somehow linked, or at least not mutually exclusive, and 42 percent of you say they are mutually exclusive.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts -- Richard Sutton in Morganton, North Carolina: "Why doesn't the U.S. government sue the Mexican government in International Court for the cost of keeping illegals?"
David Whitmire in Watkinsville, Georgia: "If there were 3 million lawyers entering the U.S. illegally each year, I bet you would see Congress act and act fast."
Austin Keegan in Aptos, California: "Can a lawsuit be brought against Mexico through NAFTA for illegal trade policies towards the United States? Mexico isn't dumping computer chips or apparel. It's dumping humans."
Those are you thoughts. Send us yours at LouDobbs.com. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. We'll be debating the origins of our universe, and the role of education. We'll have a special report on the latest to date on evolution, creationism, the newest approach and theory -- intelligent design. I'll be talking with three leading experts in science and religion. Please be with us. For all of us here, thanks for being here tonight. Good night from New York. ANDERSON COOPER 360 starts right now.
Those are your thoughts. Send us yours at loudobbs.com. Please join us here tomorrow. We'll be debating the origins of our universe and the role of education. We'll have a SPECIAL REPORT on the latest debate. The newest approach in their of intelligent design. Please be with us. For all of us here, thanks for being here tonight. Goodnight from New York. ANDERSON COOPER 360 starts right now.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
