Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Illegal Alien Amnesty; Addiction and School Children; Attorney Firings Issues
Aired March 24, 2007 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, HOST, LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK: Tonight, Congress launching a new effort to force an amnesty bill for as many as 20 million illegal aliens through Congress. One of the authors of the legislation joins us here, Congressman Luis Gutierrez.
And the national crisis over drug and alcohol abuse and addiction in our public schools. Should there be random drug testing of all public school students? We'll have that special report, a great deal more straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK -- news, debate and opinion for Saturday, March 24th.
Here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody.
There's deadlock tonight in the political confrontation between the White House and Congress over the investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The House of Representatives and the Senate have authorized the use of subpoenas to compel former and current officials of both the White House and Justice Department to testify in public and under oath.
The White House says Democrats are more interested in creating what the president calls a political spectacle than establishing the truth.
Dana Bash reports from Capitol Hill.
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, CAPITOL HILL: Lou, at the heart of this standoff is the Democrats' request for senior Bush aides to come before Congress and testify about why eight federal prosecutors were fired. But the result is the Democratic-run Congress and the Republican president inching closer and closer towards a constitutional clash.
Democrats say they want to talk to the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and other senior Bush officials on the record, in public, sworn testimony.
But the White House made an offer for the president's aides to talk to Congress in private with no transcripts and no oath. Democrats say -- unacceptable. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, D-VERMONT, CHAIRMAN, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: What we're told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing.
We're told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, a limited number of people. And the White House will determine what the agenda is.
That, to me, is nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: So Democrats issued what amounted to a double-barreled threat. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees authorized the Democratic chairmen to subpoena Karl Rove and others.
Now, they haven't decided to issue those subpoenas yet. Instead, Democrats call it leverage -- a bargaining chip in the hope of negotiating a compromise with the White House. Republicans argued it was premature.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALABAMA: ... the informal interviews that they have suggested. And if that is not sufficient, then we would be in a position to articulate with specificity, perhaps, a basis to justify a subpoena.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: So now the question is, who blinks first?
The White House argues it's just trying to protect executive privilege. But Democrats say there is ample precedent for the president's aides to come before Congress and testify in public.
But, of course, this is far beyond a legal fight, it is really a political one. And you have two parties, each in control in Washington now, each trying not to let the other get the upper hand -- Lou.
DOBBS: Also on Capitol Hill, the House voting 218 to 212 to impose a deadline for the withdrawal of all our combat troops in Iraq.
The House set a withdrawal deadline of September 1st next year, that deadline attached to an emergency spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Andrea Koppel has the report from Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIFORNIA, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The yeas are 218, the nays are 212.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
ANDREA KOPPEL (voice-over), CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, CAPITOL HILL: From start to finish, their own party deeply divided, Democratic leaders fought an uphill battle, filled with raw emotions, to get the votes needed to win.
REP. DAVID OBEY, D-WISCONSIN: And this is the best we can do, given the tools we have. And I make absolutely no apology for it.
REP. JACK MURTHA, D-PENNSYLVANIA: We're going to make a difference with this bill. We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the direction of this great country.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
KOPPEL: For Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose prestige was on the line, the narrow victory was sweet.
PELOSI: I stand here with great pride on this historic day. This new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq.
KOPPEL: But 14 Democrats -- conservatives and liberals -- defied their speaker and sided with Republicans to oppose the bill's September 2008 deadline for combat troops to leave Iraq.
Among them, anti-war presidential candidate, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, who is against spending more money on the war and wants troops out now.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: I believe you cannot say you are for peace and vote to keep this war going.
KOPPEL: Two Republicans crossed the aisle to support the bill, but most fought unsuccessfully to defeat it.
REP. GRESHAM BARRETT, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: I cannot do enough to protect you.
Men and women half-way across this world, laying their life on the line for me and my family and my children and my country, and everything I believe in.
KOPPEL: Republicans also argued Democrats were trying to micromanage the war.
REP. ERIC CANTOR, R-VIRGINIA: Our troops march to the order of one commander in chief, not 535.
KOPPEL (on camera): But at the moment, a majority of the 435 House members have decided to support a deadline for combat troops to withdraw. And next week, the full Senate is expected to consider a similar bill, which sets a goal of March 31st next year for troops to withdraw from Iraq.
Andrea Koppel, CNN, Capitol Hill.
(END VIDEO)
DOBBS: Democrats in the Senate are demanding an earlier deadline than the House for the withdrawal of combat troops.
he Senate Appropriations Committee has called for combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of March of next year. Republicans, however, say they're confident they will overturn that provision in the full Senate.
President Bush says he will veto any legislation that sets a deadline for the withdrawal of our troops. President Bush declared the House abdicated its responsibility by voting for a withdrawal timetable.
Elaine Quijano has the report from the White House -- Elaine.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON: Lou, President Bush calls it political theater by Democrats. He says their push for legislation that includes a timeframe for U.S. troop withdrawal in Iraq -- something he adamantly opposes -- will only delay vital resources to U.S. service personnel in the field.
On the heels of the House vote this week, approving a measure that includes a September 2008 withdrawal deadline, the president said again he would veto that legislation, because, he says, it hamstrings the military's ability to fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Even as he accused Democrats of political theater, the president engaged in some political stagecraft of his own, surrounding himself with military families and personnel to make his case -- the White House even making them available to talk briefly with reporters after the president's remarks.
The message the administration wants to send is that the Democrats' continued efforts to attach restrictions to funding shows a lack of support for U.S. troops, and will ultimately hurt U.S. troops and their families.
Now, meantime, an unexpected development this past week in the West Wing. White House press secretary Tony Snow announcing that on Monday he will have surgery to remove a small growth in his lower abdomen. Doctors found the growth during CAT scans and PET scans.
Snow, of course, is a colon cancer survivor who was diagnosed in 2005. But he says blood tests are negative for cancer and he says he is having this surgery out of an aggressive sense of caution. Snow said that he will be recovering for about three or four weeks after the surgery. His deputy, White House press secretary Dana Perino, will be handling his duties in his absence -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, still ahead here, the national crisis over drug and alcohol abuse in our public schools. Should there be random testing for all public school students? The ACLU says "no." School administrators are saying "yes." We'll have the special report.
In corporate America and the federal government -- are they determined to do everything possible to sell off the United States and its industry and our middle class? We'll have that story. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now, "The War Within," our special report on the war against drugs and alcohol abuse and addiction in this country.
The disturbing use of drugs among our youth has prompted some public schools to conduct random drug testing.
But random testing is facing rising opposition from some groups such as the ACLU, groups that say random testing is an invasion of privacy.
Lisa Sylvester now has more on one school that's taking action to stop drug abuse.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON: More than half of all high school students have used an illegal drug, according to the federal government, and prescription drug abuse is up 40 percent in the last five years.
But you don't have to tell that to the acting superintendent of the Hanover Park Regional Schools in New Jersey. Last July, police arrested more than 50 Hanover Park current and former students in a prescription painkiller raid.
That same year, three recent graduates died of drug overdoses.
KARL MUNDI, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, HANOVER PARK REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY: We only have our influence over students six hours a day. And it's important that we have some control, because, let's be honest, the parent support is not as consistent as it has been. Community options may not be as strong as they have been.
So, we need to step up and take more of an active role.
SYLVESTER: Karl Mundi says, if he had his way, he would randomly drug test all of his students. But the Hanover Park school board is looking to test only those students who participate in athletics, other extracurricular activities, or students who want to park in the school lot.
School-wide testing has run into opposition from groups like the ACLU.
GRAHAM BOYD, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: The drug testing does not help students. It doesn't prevent drug use. And it breaks down trust between students and school officials, so it's counterproductive.
SYLVESTER: Since 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the list of students eligible for testing. But the high court has never ruled on whether all public school students can be tested. Lower courts have said school officials have not shown a sufficient need for broad testing.
But advocates say drug testing has made a difference.
BILL JUDGE, ATTORNEY: And if the goal is to deter children from using drugs, drug testing certainly has shown to be effective. It is working.
SYLVESTER: Those who favor drug testing say it's not about catching students, it's about identifying them and getting them help.
(END VIDEO)
SYLVESTER (on camera): National studies on the effectiveness of drug testing have been largely inconclusive. Some research suggests it is having an impact. One major studies says it is not.
But school superintendents say anecdotally, it sure seems to work. They are told by students that drug testing gives them a way out when they're being pressured by their peers -- Lou.
DOBBS: And, of course, Lisa, treatment is also critically -- it is absolutely, critically important.
Is there a sense that we're going to combine with random drug testing, guarantees of treatment?
SYLVESTER: Well, many of these schools say the reason why they like random drug testing is because it's a way of identifying the students that have a problem.
DOBBS: Sure.
SYLVESTER: And they say repeatedly that this is not about punishing the students, it's about getting them help.
DOBBS: All right. Lisa, thank you very much.
Lisa Sylvester from Washington.
Continuing now our report on "The War Within," and this country's national drug crisis, Mexican drug cartels are hauling increasingly larger and larger drug shipments across our borders and through our ports.
A record drug seizure on the high seas is only the latest example of what has become a booming drug trade that targets this country and Americans.
Kathleen Koch reports on a massive, 21-ton cocaine bust -- cocaine with an estimated street value of more than half-a-billion dollars.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
KATHLEEN KOCH (voice-over), CNN CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON: They're calling it the big fish that didn't get away -- a freighter spotted Saturday night by a Coast Guard C-130 patrol aircraft 20 miles off the Pacific Coast of Panama.
A Coast Guard team got the consent of the Panamanian government to board this ship and found a record of 42,000 pounds of cocaine in the first two containers they opened.
VOICE OF CAPTAIN CHARLEY DIAZ, U.S. COAST CUTTER SHERMAN: It was very obvious (UNINTELLIGIBLE), when they opened the doors, that -- I mean, these bales were just piled high. It was almost up to the ceiling.
KOCH: U.S. officials say the brazenly open way the drugs were being moved reflects the mindset of the drug cartels.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I still think they operate with a mentality of impunity, where they think they can get away with what they're doing.
That is changing, though.
KOCH: Three Panamanians on the freighter and two Mexicans onshore were detained by authorities in Panama. Eleven Mexican citizens on board were taken into custody and were being transported to Tampa, Florida, to face charges in the case.
The massive maritime bust comes on the heels of the seizure last week of $205 million in Mexico City. Authorities call that the world's largest single drug cash seizure.
KAREN TANDY, HEAD OF U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY: DEA and our partners are shattering our own records as quickly as we make them. And more than that, we're shattering the drug organizations' financial capability and operation ability.
KOCH: There is concern that U.S. aerial surveillance and resources to patrol maritime drug trafficking lanes are down. But the Coast Guard says, drug seizures for the last four years are up. And that, it says, is what counts.
Kathleen Koch, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEO) DOBBS: Up next, the war on the middle class. Corporate elites exporting more jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. China using U.S. technology to undermine the U.S. aircraft manufacturing industry -- that special report.
And Congress launching again its amnesty agenda, promising amnesty and citizenship to as many as 20 million illegal aliens.
That's next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Middle class working Americans already reeling from job losses, stagnant wages and rising costs facing another new challenge.
You could argue it's from communist China or the U.S. government or corporate America, or all of the above.
For the first time, Beijing planning to produce large commercial jetliners to compete directly with American aircraft manufacturers. We've been warning about this for years. It's here.
Kitty Pilgrim has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Communist Chinese leaders and executives at Boeing work well together. Last spring, Chinese president Hu Jintao told Boeing workers at a U.S. plant that the relationship was a win-win situation.
But Boeing is giving China both jobs and technology in return for China's patronage -- a practice known as offset.
NICHOLAS LARDY, INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS: The Chinese would agree to buy a certain number of aircraft. And in return, Boeing or Airbus would offer them a contract to produce a certain part of the aircraft.
So, in that process, they gained experience. And certainly they will build on that as they move to produce an indigenous airliner.
PILGRIM: Every Boeing aircraft produced today has Chinese made parts, including rudders, tail pins, horizontal stabilizers and wing panels. Boeing wasn't able to say how much of each aircraft is made in China, but its Web site labels the parts clearly.
Boeing boasts that China has an "important role" in its newest, flashiest 787 Dreamliner, which will have 25 percent foreign content. That foreign content means lost U.S. jobs, some 300,000 in the last 15 years in the aerospace industry overall -- that as Boeing is now training 30,000 people in China.
THOMAS BUFFENBARGER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS: We keep giving up bits and pieces of the technology, of the abilities, the engineering and the innovation that we have created in this country.
And we're getting to the point where we finally can say we gave it all away.
PILGRIM: Industry analysts say China will have to work hard to catch up. But China is getting better at absorbing U.S. technology and turning out its own products.
(END VIDEO)
PILGRIM (on camera): Now, Boeing says it protects its intellectual property and is continually working to improve its long- term competitiveness.
Company officials said they welcome the potential competition from China and won't change their strategy because of it -- Lou.
DOBBS: That's wonderful, but they're the ones the United States government has permitted to use offsets to sell aircraft (ph), and basically selling part of their intellectual property as others are buying their aircraft.
PILGRIM: And Boeing is in complete denial about it. They say it's mutually beneficial.
DOBBS: Well, I'd love to hear how it is beneficial to the American middle class and this national interest, if those are the priorities anymore, anywhere in this country.
Thank you very much, Kitty Pilgrim.
Up next, a new push for amnesty for illegal aliens. We'll hear from Congressman Luis Gutierrez on his new plan for so-called comprehensive immigration reform.
And did the Mexican government push for the prosecution and incarceration of another law enforcement officer in Texas?
We'll have that special report up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Two former Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, are already serving lengthy prison terms for wounding an illegal alien, a Mexican drug smuggler given immunity by the Justice Department to testify against those Border Patrol agents.
The same federal prosecutor who went after Ramos and Compean is also responsible for sending another law enforcement official to prison.
As Casey Wian reports, this case raises new questions about the Bush administration's efforts to apparently try to appease the Mexican government.
(BEGIN VIDEO) CASEY WIAN (voice-over), CNN CORRESPONDENT: Former Edwards County, Texas, sheriff's deputy, Gilmer Hernandez, was just doing his job that day in April 2005, when he attempted to pull over a Suburban loaded with suspected illegal aliens.
CHIEF DEPUTY JAY ADAMS, EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Gilmer approached the car that had run the stop sign. They stopped approximately half a mile after he had turned his emergency lights on.
He walked up to the driver's window and asked for the license, and the driver immediately put the car in gear and swerved toward him, taking off.
Gilmer pulled his pistol and fired at the left rear tire, blowing it out. And then they kept on going and he attempted to shoot out the right rear tire.
WIAN: One of the shots slightly injured a female passenger. The other occupants fled.
The Texas Rangers investigated the shooting and cleared the deputy of wrongdoing.
Even so, Gilmer Hernandez -- not the illegal aliens or their smugglers -- is now the one incarcerated. He was convicted of violating the illegal aliens' civil rights and sentenced to a year and a day in prison.
ADAMS: I believe that Gilmer was unfairly prosecuted. If a police officer can't protect the people that he's assigned to protect and serve, who's going to protect them?
WIAN: It's a painful separation from his wife and seven-month- old daughter.
ASHLEY HERNANDEZ, WIFE OF GILMER HERNANDEZ: He knows he did what was right. And everybody is supporting him, and that keeps him going.
ROY COTTLE, LONGTIME FRIEND OF GILMER HERNANDEZ: This is a small town. We all know everybody. We know their whole life history.
If Gilmer Hernandez wasn't a good person, this whole town wouldn't be behind him. But we are -- 100 percent.
WIAN: Hernandez was prosecuted by Texas U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton's office, after the Mexican government intervened in the case. Sutton also pursued criminal charges against Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting and wounding an illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler.
REP. TED POE, R-TEXAS: They were similar in that the Mexican government demanded prosecution, and our federal government quickly reacted to prosecute in both cases.
And in both of the cases, the border agents and Gilmer Hernandez discharged their weapon. They were acting in self-defense. But yet, the federal government saw otherwise and prosecuted them for really doing what I think was their job.
WIAN: Poe and other supporters want a congressional investigation into how the Mexican government may have influenced both prosecutions.
(END VIDEO)
WIAN (on camera): Hernandez could have received a decade in prison. However, with time already served and good behavior, he will serve the rest of his sentence in a half-way house, and should be home with his family in about six months -- Lou.
DOBBS: Casey, this case -- basically dismissed by the Texas Rangers who investigated?
WIAN: They investigated the case. They cleared Gilmer Hernandez of any wrongdoing in the case.
Then after the Mexican consulate lodged a complaint with the U.S. government, all of a sudden, the same prosecutor, Johnny Sutton, in the Ramos and Compean case, got involved in this one, decided to prosecute this sheriff's deputy.
DOBBS: Have we got a record of the prosecutions by U.S. Attorney Sutton of human smugglers and drug smugglers?
WIAN: Yes, actually, Johnny Sutton's office has prosecuted dozens of human smugglers and drug smugglers over the years.
New statistics released by Syracuse University's TRAC immigration program show that his district is one of the most aggressive prosecutorial districts in going after human traffickers and drug smugglers. So you wonder why he's also being so aggressive in going after law enforcement officers.
DOBBS: Well, again, the relationship with the Mexican government and the Bush administration suggesting some answers.
But it is interesting, the fact that both of these cases fall in his jurisdiction.
We thank you very much, Casey Wian.
WIAN: OK.
DOBBS: Now, we had talked to Gilmer Hernandez's attorney about the Mexican government's involvement in the prosecution of this case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY PARKS, JR., GILMER HERNANDEZ'S ATTORNEY: It disturbs me -- and it would for any attorney who represents a citizen who's been accused -- to think that you've got that added pressure of a prosecutor reviewing the case and investigating you. And on top of that, he has a concern about how your government will react to a foreign government who demands a prosecution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Well, Congress plans to hold hearings on the possible influence of the Mexican government in the prosecution of Gilmer Hernandez and former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.
And be sure to join us Tuesday, March 27th, 8 p.m. Eastern, for our one-hour special, "Border Betrayal." We'll spend that full hour examining the prosecution and investigation of former Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean.
And we'll be live outside the Yazoo federal corrections facility in Yazoo City, Mississippi, where one of those agents remains in prison.
The Senate will take up immigration reform by the end of May, and congressmen have just introduced a bill that contains a controversial provision that would give amnesty to as many as 20 million illegal aliens living in this country.
One of the sponsors of the legislation is Congressman Luis Gutierrez. He says his bill will end illegal immigration.
REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ, D-ILLINOIS, HISPANIC CAUCUS: Well, the first thing I wanted to accomplish is end illegal immigration in the United States of America. And I want to fix our broken immigration system.
That's why this is a comprehensive. It has over 700 pages in this bill. It deals with everything from smart border security, smart border security and smart border security -- putting more patrol agents, using a biometric card, so that we know who is in the country.
It's untamperable. Workers -- we're going to know who those workers are. It'll have their thumb print. We want to know and secure America.
We also put more provisions in it, so that we can fight against those who deal in illegal immigration. Those that are involved in gang and drug activities are also included in this bill.
And at the same time, we want to invite those to come out of the shadows and participate fully in our economy.
And I think I shared with you before, Lou, I have yet to see a proposal that is going to sweep 11, 12, 13 million undocumented workers off our streets and send them back to their countries of origin.
So, I want to fix the broken immigration system.
And I know you keep saying it's amnesty. And I keep thinking to myself, you know, if I forgot or just overlooked a past offense, maybe that's amnesty. But this is really an earned legalization program where they pay a fine, $2,000.
And I would just end with this, before your next question.
You know, usually, our law has stated in the past, in order to become an American citizen you had to learn English, you had to civics class and you had to pass the test.
DOBBS: Yes. I think that's wonderful. I truly do. I think that's a wonderful requirement.
But help me through a couple of things.
Is there anything in the legislation that requires that our borders and ports be secure?
GUTIERREZ: Yes. We have triggers. We have triggers in the legislation.
DOBBS: All right.
GUTIERREZ: And we'll get that over to you.
And what our legislation says is, before you can start any new worker program inviting new workers to this country, or before you can even engage in legalization of those that are already here, the Department of Homeland Security has to establish that the new technology is in place, that it's available, that the funding is there ...
DOBBS: Have you ...
GUTIERREZ: ... that the Border Patrol agents are.
So, there are triggers. That biometric card -- you don't have a biometric system ...
DOBBS: You know what? We can't even get the ...
GUTIERREZ: ... they can't even (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them.
DOBBS: Congressman, in all respect, I mean -- let's be -- you and I, we've known each other a long time. We disagree with each other about a lot of things.
But you and I can agree about, I think, this: the Homeland Security Department is a screwed up mess and can't even implement the U.S. VISIT program. Has a -- in the citizenship and immigration services has a backlog that is numbered in the millions of people trying to get into this country legally.
And the second part is, we've heard Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, talk about, well, sometimes maybe we'll get to operational control. Not too sure, Democratic leaders of the Congress, if they want to implement the fence. Then people talk about a virtual fence.
Does anybody really think the American people are so stupid as to be gamed again on the issue of border security?
GUTIERREZ: Well, here's what we have, Lou. We put the money for virtual fences, for new cameras, for new sensors, for new patrol agents, to gain control of our border.
I think, essential to gaining control of our border is stopping the flow of people trying to cross that border. So we have a new program that says, look ...
DOBBS: How about the ...
GUTIERREZ: ... here's a way you can get to the United States legally, to get that job that you so desire. Therefore, you don't have to try to cross that border, endanger your life and endanger the lives of our agents, so that we can focus on the terrorist element that's trying to come into our country.
DOBBS: Well, how about this instead, just as a thought. Make it an absolute requirement -- rather than "triggers," as you put it -- let's try something new in Washington. Let's talk about results.
Once -- once -- that it could be certified that our borders and ports are secure -- and we could set a number for that -- to demonstrate that it is not wide-open, that actually our borders are being enforced.
How about that, rather than -- as a standard rather than a trigger?
GUTIERREZ: Well, we think the triggers cause those standards to come.
Of course, if you are going to say that those that are going to certify homeland security are incompetent, then you and I will never reach a conclusion about who is going to certify that the triggers are being in place.
DOBBS: Well, if you think I'm going to be in any way sad by listening to anything that this secretary of Homeland Security says about nearly anything, you would be correct.
Let me just show you something, if I may, because I get kind of curious about this.
If we could, let's take a look at the number of people who come into this country legally every year. Could we do that? Pull up the full screen and so that the congressman can see this.
There's a lot of distortion here. And I kind of think it's important we get these facts out.
Two million people legally admitted to the United States each year. In addition -- and 14 percent of those, by the way, of those people given permanent residency are from Mexico.
Two million people legally admitted to the United States. Four hundred thousand skilled foreign workers and their families receive H- 1 visas each year.
Nearly 900,000 other legal foreign workers are admitted on some type of employment visa. Six hundred and sixty thousand student visas are issued every year, and 455,000 people given temporary employment transfers.
Help me out. What are we trying to do here?
I mean, we have a lawful immigration system that brings in two million people a year, plus all of these other workers that overwhelms any other immigration system in the world.
All of the -- Russia -- all of the European Union combined can't even come close to matching our immigration levels, and that's a population 40 percent higher than our own.
GUTIERREZ: Well, my kind of initial reaction is, a lot of those people over-stay their visas. We've got to stop that.
And they are compounding the problem of undocumented workers. That's probably why a lot of them don't cross the border. They come here legally and over-stay their visa.
We've got to deal with that, Lou. I want to deal with that in a very serious manner. That's why we need the biometric system, so that not -- so you just can't jump from job to job.
You need a system that says, you know, this card, you can't alter it, you can't fake it, you can't counterfeit it.
DOBBS: Congressman Luis Gutierrez. Come back next week. We'll talk some more.
GUTIERREZ: Thanks. I look forward to it.
DOBBS: Thank you.
Hazleton is a town under siege. The illegal alien and open borders lobby dragging the Pennsylvania town into federal court, calling Hazleton's efforts to curb the harsh effects of illegal immigration on its community unconstitutional.
In what has been a two-week long trial that ended Thursday, Hazleton said its crackdown on illegal aliens is entirely reasonable, given the huge scale of the problems it faces as a result of illegal immigration.
Bill Tucker, covering the trial in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT, SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA: Lou, after nearly two weeks in court, nine days before a judge, this historic trial of Hazleton's ordinances came to a conclusion.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
TUCKER (voice-over): The lawyers gathered for closing arguments. Vic Walczak, head of the ACLU in Pennsylvania, taking up the duties for those suing the city to stop Hazleton from enforcing its ordinances.
He attacked them as scapegoating the illegal aliens in Hazleton.
WITOLD WALCZAK, ACLU ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: To blame them for all of Hazleton's problems is really unfair and why the term "scapegoat" really does apply.
TUCKER: He told the court that Hazleton's problems won't go away, even if every illegal alien is banished.
Walczak argued that the ordinances, as they are currently drafted, do not provide for due process protection and ultimately are unconstitutional, violating the federal government's right to regulate immigration.
Attorney Kris Kobach countered in his closing arguments for the defense that the ordinances are constitutional, because they're compliant with federal law, don't conflict with federal law and in no way are an attempt at regulating immigration.
He added that merely not liking an ordinance is not grounds for declaring it unconstitutional.
KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, CITY OF HAZLETON: There are lots of ordinances passed all over this country that people are not happy about. That is not good enough under the law to strike down an ordinance.
TUCKER: After two weeks in court, all of the participants were happy to see the trial come to its conclusion. But the importance of the trial was underscored by Hazleton's mayor on the steps of the courthouse.
LOU BARLETTA, MAYOR OF HAZLETON, PENNSYLVANIA: I realize that we're not fighting for Hazleton anymore. We're fighting for people all across the country.
TUCKER: Estimates vary widely, but there are some 60 to 100 communities considering similar ordinances.
(END VIDEO)
TUCKER (on camera): Now, it will be a while before those communities learn the outcome of this case. Attorneys on both sides of the issue say it will be the end of May, at the earliest, before this judge hands down his decision.
And then, regardless of the outcome, it will be appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, potentially on to the Supreme Court -- Lou.
DOBBS: Coming up next here, the powerful head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is determined that the White House aides talk about -- under oath and on the record -- the abrupt dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. I'll be talking with Senator Patrick Leahy.
And Congress has cleared the way for subpoenas for those top presidential advisers in the showdown. Will they testify? Three of the country's best political analysts and commentators. Join me for that, and a great deal more.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The standoff between the White House and Congress over testimony in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys will flare up again this coming week.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, now has the authority to subpoena White House or Justice Department officials, possibly forcing them to testify publicly and under oath.
Senator Leahy says he will soon use that authority.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, D-VERMONT, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We're going to start with Mr. Sampson next week. I have testimony from him. He was the one who ...
DOBBS: Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales.
LEAHY: Yes. And the one who everybody wants to point fingers at. He's, as you know from the press, kind of started to point the fingers back.
We'll talk with him. We'll ask him questions -- in open session, under oath. We'll ask everybody questions in open session, under oath.
Next month, Attorney General Gonzales will be there in open session, under oath.
And I've said, that's why I want everybody -- you know, and when you stop to think about it, it's the best way to do it. Both Republicans and Democrats get to ask the questions. It's totally fair.
DOBBS: The White House says, describes it -- White House press secretary Tony Snow, as you know, said that their offer to provide the top officials on what would effectively be a background basis, is extraordinarily generous.
How would you characterize it?
LEAHY: It's not generous at all. It's totally inadequate.
What he has said is, we'll let some people come up, answer limited areas and behind closed doors -- no transcript, not under oath. Don't let the public in, only a few members.
Oh, come on! If they want to be open and honest about this, they'll do it openly and honestly.
This is not a -- we're not up here to play some kind of games. We're just trying to find out how this -- why this was done, why there are people who seem to be trying to interfere with prosecutions that are underway around the country.
DOBBS: The suggestion has been made a number of times. In the Clinton administration more than -- well, initially, he fired 93 U.S. attorneys, and then another just almost 30 other U.S. attorneys were fired in the second term, going into the second term.
Why is this, in your opinion ...
LEAHY: Well, and President Reagan fired the same number when he came in and President Carter the same number when he came in.
They changed -- especially when you change administrations, the U.S. attorneys change. They are, therefore, usually a four-year term. These people were appointed for a second four-term.
What bothers me is we find that one of the highest-rated U.S. attorneys in the country was yanked out so that they could put in a protege of Karl Rove's. Another one had just prosecuted a very, very prominent Republican and was investigating others and was suddenly replaced.
It raises a -- remember, the president has the power to fire U.S. attorneys.
DOBBS: Sure.
LEAHY: He doesn't have the power to fire the justice system. Nobody does.
DOBBS: And I take your point.
But at the same time, let's assume that you were to find that the president had -- and Attorney General Gonzales, who basically seems to be strikingly uninformed about what was happening with just about 10 percent of his U.S. attorney staff -- let's say you find out that they didn't like the way something was being handled and it was for political reasons rather than -- you know, whatever the reason may be.
Is this ...
LEAHY: If that's the case, they're free to come and tell us that. I would ...
DOBBS: I guess what I'm asking is, when we get through with all of this, what do you expect to be the result? Because this is going to take weeks and weeks, and the country's time.
LEAHY: Look, I can think ...
DOBBS: Your valuable time is going to be consumed. So will the White House's. LEAHY: I can think of a lot of other things I'd rather be spending time on. But I also want to make sure, whoever the next president is, that they respect the independence of U.S. attorneys.
I was a prosecutor for eight years. I know how important it is to have independent ones.
I want them -- I don't care whether you have a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, I want them to allow the prosecutors to be independent.
You know what happens, Lou, if you start shading -- politically shading -- how the prosecutor acts, it affects everybody all the way down to the cop on the beat. And you and I -- you and I cannot be guaranteed that we're going to have equal justice.
DOBBS: Well, I love the concept of equal justice, and I'd sure like to see it. And I'd sure like to see this Justice Department attempt a little more of it.
We thank you very much, Senator Patrick Leahy.
LEAHY: Good to be with you.
DOBBS: Coming up next, Attorney General Gonzales under fire. New calls for his resignation. Three of the country's leading political analysts and commentators weigh in on that issue and others.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: I'm joined now by three of the best political analysts and commentators in the country: Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf; "New York Daily News" columnist, Errol Louis, and member of the editorial board; and syndicated columnist, Mona Charen.
Good to have you with us.
Mona, let's start with you on what is, we're told, a brewing constitutional crisis between the White House and Congress over the issue of the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
What's going on?
MONA CHAREN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What a pseudo-scandal. The fact is, there has been no allegation of wrongdoing.
What is going on is an incompetent White House, an incompetent Justice Department who sort of gave a lot of contradictory answers about why they did ...
DOBBS: More (ph) wide (ph), more wide (ph).
CHAREN: ... something that is -- possibly, but there's not much evidence of that -- what is fully within the White House's discretion to do.
President Bush hired these people. He's allowed to fire them.
There is no scandal, except that the Democrats are desperate to find one. And, B, the president and this administration have very ham-handed and amateurish response.
I suspect you can agree with part of that, Hank.
HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Ham-handed response. Silly, indeed, it's true.
Constitutional crisis? Not likely.
Does the president have the power to fire them? You bet.
Do they have a responsibility to tell the American people whether they were trying to interfere in the activities, the lawful activities of the prosecutions and investigations of U.S. attorneys? Absolutely.
And that's where the political issue lies.
DOBBS: I wonder, though, Errol, is it a big deal, if that prosecution was impeded in its progress de facto as a result of other motivations?
ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": I think it's a very big deal. And I think that's why you got these contradictory non-answers out of the administration.
I mean, it really is not unusual. A lot of talk went forward about how Clinton fired all of his U.S. attorneys when he first got into office.
Well, Reagan replaced 71 of the 93 in his first year in office. It is what's done.
(CROSSTALK)
CHAREN: Which means it's absolutely normal, yes.
LOUIS: But when asked about it, if people are saying things like, well, it was because of bad performance. And then you look at the memos and there's not much about performance, but there's a lot about politics ...
DOBBS: Here's my problem ...
CHAREN: But it is a political position. Sorry.
DOBBS: Go ahead.
CHAREN: Well, by their very nature, these people are political figures. They are there to make decisions about certain policies that the administration feels strongly about, versus others that it may not. Every decision by a U.S. attorney is, by its very nature, at least in part, political. And that's OK.
SHEINKOPF: Lou?
DOBBS: Go ahead.
SHEINKOPF: They're there to defend and protect the law of the United States of America. They're not there to make decisions about politics. They're not there to allow ...
CHAREN: Not about politics, but about policies.
SHEINKOPF: ... that allow prosecutions to be interfered with by political individuals.
CHAREN: No, no, no.
SHEINKOPF: Their job is to root out corruption.
CHAREN: No, you're right about that.
SHEINKOPF: It's part of their mandate. And they were interfered with. And that's the scandal.
CHAREN: Well, that's -- actually, that is not at all clear, that any ongoing investigation was interfered with -- not clear.
If that was done, yes, that's obstruction of justice. But that has not ...
DOBBS: And it'd have to be their intent.
CHAREN: Exactly. And that has not been shown.
What has I meant was ...
DOBBS: But what has been shown? It seems to me -- well, you know what? We're going to take a quick break. We're going to be right back, because there's another issue here that looms larger. That is the idea of something called statesmanship, some concern about the public and the national interest.
We'll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We're back.
I know there's a lot of partisan fervor around this issue, but I think it's important to ask the question.
Where are the statesmen here who can say, we've got people dying in Iraq. We have major challenges to deal with, whether it's the high cost, the exorbitant cost of free trade, the loss of jobs, a middle class that's under attack, a failing public education system. And both Congress and this president are acting like -- in my opinion -- utter buffoons.
Hank?
SHEINKOPF: We need someone to stand up and say, this has to stop -- the gamesmanship has to stop, the politics will have to be put in their place -- and to deal with the real issues and to identify them.
And it's OK to have partisan conflict. What is not OK is to get nothing accomplished so poll numbers go up. That's the difference.
DOBBS: Do you think this is pure gamesmanship?
SHEINKOPF: I think a lot of this is gamesmanship, absolutely.
CHAREN: But, you know, if, for example, the Bush administration had said what you just said, in response to the accusations -- which I think were quite wild -- about the firings of the attorneys, then people would have said, ah, well, he's just hiding behind the war. He's not dealing with it. He's using that as an excuse to do anything he wants on the domestic sphere.
So, I think, in Washington, D.C., things being the way they are, you cannot come out and say, I'm going to be a statesman, because it takes two sides to do that.
DOBBS: Yes, I think what the president -- if I may say, then, since you raised -- could have said very clearly is, Alberto Gonzales, you're not running the department the way a public servant should. You have a responsibility for absolute honesty and straightforwardness.
And the idea that -- you know, that's what he could have said. I don't think anybody wants to hear George Bush say he's a statesman, any more than anybody wants to hear Nancy Pelosi declare she is a stateswoman.
But their conduct, their action and their words could certainly reveal that reality, if it were the reality.
(CROSSTALK)
LOUIS: Here's the problem, Lou. You've got folks -- if you traced the careers of all of the major players in Washington right now, they were running for office when they were in their 20s and 30s. They were running for town councils and city councils and state assembly seats, and all of that sort of thing.
DOBBS: All honorable service.
LOUIS: Right. But each -- at each step of that career ladder, they were rewarded for going straight to gamesmanship, for raising the most money, for holding the best press conference, for sort of getting the feel of the public pulse and just running with it, regardless of the long-term consequences of it. So, now, the stakes are so high, there are so many -- I mean, of the issues you mentioned, there's also 2.2 million homes about to go into foreclosure. We've got a major city called New Orleans that still has to be rebuilt.
All of these major, major issues that require long-term thinking, we've got the wrong crew in place to try and sort it out.
DOBBS: In both the White House and in Congress?
LOUIS: Absolutely.
CHAREN: But let's be politically realistic.
If George Bush fires Alberto Gonzales and says, you've done a poor job, what it represents is not a victory for statesmanship, but a victory for the kind of cold-blooded political hit job that the Democrats orchestrated here.
DOBBS: You think?
CHAREN: There's no question about it. And don't think that if he does fire Alberto Gonzales, that there will then be a satisfaction on the side of the Democrats and they'll cease attacking the White House. They'll find another victim.
DOBBS: I really -- I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not really interested in whether the Democrats like it or not. I don't really care whether Republicans like it or not.
These people are here to govern. And what we're witnessing is the prologue to the presidential election of 2008, in which two parties are, as Hank said, in substantial part playing gamesmanship, while the nation is suffering for its lack of governance.
CHAREN: But the campaign will -- when it gets started in earnest -- it will be about the issues facing this country.
Those things are not going to get ignored. They will be played out in the election season to come.
I think it's overly pessimistic to say we're not discussing the issues.
DOBBS: Don't think for a moment I'm pessimistic. I'm optimistic.
What I am is disgusted with the conduct of both political parties, their leaders and the elected officials that are now responsible for Congress and for the executive branch.
LOUIS: Yes, but the problem, of course, is that those who determine what happens in the early stages of the presidential campaign, they don't penalize these people.
I mean, and to a certain extent, it makes less sense to sort of appeal directly to the politicians than to appeal to maybe the people who give them the money and the exposure and the troops on the ground that they're looking for in Iowa and New Hampshire and anywhere else.
DOBBS: Let's go quickly to the horse races as we wrap up here.
Who do you think right now, in terms of the Democrats, is prevailing?
SHEINKOPF: I think Senator Clinton is prevailing, and it will become more clear that she continues to prevail. The numbers aren't shifting that dramatically. It's just she's the one to watch.
The problem here to pay attention to is what's not happening on the Republican side. They're in much more trouble than the Democrats are right now.
DOBBS: Errol?
LOUIS: The first week of October in 1991, about 12 weeks out from the primaries, a guy named Bill Clinton had two percent in the polls. So, I think it's way too early to make any kind of conclusions about who's going to ...
CHAREN: Well, that's a good historical reminder.
DOBBS: You've fueled hope in all of us and ...
(LAUGHTER)
LOUIS: I learned that from Christopher Dodd, who, by the way, wants to be president of the United States.
CHAREN: Yes, and he's probably at two percent.
DOBBS: You get the last analysis, the last word.
CHAREN: Well, the Republican side is really interesting, because the three front runners all are majorly flawed from the point of view of the conservative electorate, that tends to be the nominating section of the Republican Party.
They all have major problems.
Fred Thompson, on the other hand, who has ducked a toe and maybe even an ankle into the water in the last couple of weeks, is generating huge excitement. And if he does decide to run, he could be the solution to the Republican Party's problems.
DOBBS: Well, there's one thing that can be said of Fred Thompson, irrespective of whoever prevails in winning the nomination on the Republican side.
No one's going to out-communicate him.
CHAREN: That's right.
DOBBS: Mona, thank you very much. Errol, Hank, thank you.
And thank you for joining us. Please join us here tomorrow. For all of us, thanks for watching. Enjoy your weekend. Good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
