Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Congressmen Head Back To Capitol Hill; President Bush Preparing for G-8 Summit Speech
Aired June 02, 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, President Bush preparing for what could be one of the most intense G8 summit meetings in years - Russia aggressively modernizing its nuclear forces, Russian President Putin comparing the United States to Nazi Germany.
We'll have that report.
And pro-amnesty senators about to return to Capitol Hill after receiving an earful from their outraged constituents about their grand compromise on illegal immigration.
We will have those stories and a great deal more, straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK - news, debate and opinion - for Saturday, June 2nd.
Here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody.
President Bush next week faces off with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, at the G8 summit meeting in Germany. Their meeting comes amid rising tensions between the United States and Russia, Moscow accusing the Bush administration of launching a new arms race. U.S. officials say the accusation is ludicrous.
Ed Henry reports from the White House - Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE WHITE HOUSE: Lou, the president on Monday heads to Europe for the G8 summit, trying to tackle tough issues like climate change and Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also, dealing with those suddenly frosty U.S.-Russia relations.
At the G8, Mr. Bush will meet with his Russian counterpart, President Putin, who has been lashing out at the U.S., Putin agitated over U.S. plans to set up a missile defense system in Europe aimed at stopping attacks from Iran.
Putin has charged America with imperialism. The administration has fired back, accusing Putin of backsliding on Democratic reforms and crushing dissent.
Amid all of this talk of a new Cold War, White House national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, says the aim at the G8 will be to get everyone to calm down. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I would say it is true, the rhetoric has seemed to escalate a little bit in the last several months. And our view is that we ought to be trying to turn that rhetoric down and focus our efforts on identifying areas where we can work together constructively and trying to manage the differences the best we can.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: But the bottom line is that six years after Mr. Bush famously said that he had looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and saw into his soul, this relationship is now in tatters, with critics charging that Mr. Bush seriously misjudged his counterpart in Russia.
The White House so desperate now to try and mend this relationship, that Mr. Bush has taken the extraordinary step of already scheduling a post-G8 meeting with Putin at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine - the first time this president has ever opened his father's home to another world leader.
That will happen on July 1st, Lou.
DOBBS: Ed Henry reporting from the White House.
As President Putin criticizes the United States, the Russian military is rapidly modernizing its nuclear forces. That modernization includes a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles - missiles that can strike targets in this country.
Barbara Starr reports from the Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT, THE PENTAGON (voice- over): Russia said it test fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to defeat the U.S. missile defense system.
The Russian missile has multiple warheads. Each can hit a separate target - hard for the U.S. to defend against.
Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear, the test is part of Moscow's opposition to U.S. plans to place its own missile defense shield in Europe.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (voice of interpreter): We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and stuff it with new types of weapons.
STARR: Washington is trying to convince Moscow the U.S. program isn't aimed at shooting down any of Russia's hundreds of missiles, but rather to counter a launch from a known enemy.
TOM CASEY, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We've got a system that we are planning that involves only 10 interceptors - a very limited quantity that is designed to defend against a limited attack by a rogue nation, including a nation like Iran.
STARR: President Bush isn't backing down.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sent Secretary Gates to Russia recently to have a full and transparent conversation with President Putin and his cabinet, to make sure that the Russians understand that this missile shield is not directed at them, but, in fact, directed at other nations that could conceivably affect the peace of Europe.
(END VIDEO)
STARR (on camera): The U.S. believes that, in part, Russia is trying to bolster its image as a flagging superpower. But still, the United States is going to continue with its missile program. They've already $23 billion on it - Lou.
DOBBS: Barbara Starr reporting from the Pentagon.
Communist China is also aggressively building up its military forces. In a report to Congress, the Pentagon said China is rapidly improving its ability to launch surprise attacks near its borders.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on a visit to Singapore, admits the United States is concerned about that Chinese buildup.
Jamie McIntyre reports from Singapore.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT, SINGAPORE (voice-over): With 160,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, another 27,000 in Afghanistan, the U.S. is battling the perception in Asia that it's distracted and has lost its focus on the strategic challenges of the Pacific region.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Singapore on his first official visit to the region, hoping to dispel that belief as a myth.
ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We've been an Asian power, a Pacific power, for a very long time. And we intend to continue to be one.
MCINTYRE: The message comes on the heels of a just-released Pentagon report detailing China's rapid military buildup - a buildup that appears to go well beyond its desire to intimidate Taiwan into reunification.
Why, the U.S. wants to know, is China developing a missile that, as demonstrated in a successful January test, can knock a satellite out of orbit?
And what is China's motive in modernizing its nuclear arsenal, with longer range, more survivable, mobile missiles?
GATES: Tell us more about where you're headed. What are your intentions? That's the real issue.
ADMIRAL TIMOTHY KEATING, U.S. PACIFIC COMMANDER: If there aren't better ways of communicating intent, as the secretary mentions, the likelihood of a miscalculation increases.
MCINTYRE (on camera): At this conference, the U.S. is not pressing the case that China is a growing threat. Instead, it is taking the low key approach, hoping to encourage more Chinese cooperation.
One positive sign, say U.S. officials, is that China has sent the head of its military intelligence, Lieutenant General Zhang Qinsheng, to attend the gathering, and something it hasn't done in recent years.
Jamie McIntyre, CNN, Singapore.
(END VIDEO)
DOBBS: Turning to the war in Iraq, American casualties are rising as insurgents have stepped up their attacks against our troops. May the third deadliest month of this war, at least 123 of our soldiers and Marines killed. Another 104 troops were killed in April.
April and May together, the worst two months of the entire war for our troops.
American casualties in Afghanistan area also rising, nearly six years after the beginning of that war. Five Americans were killed in southern Afghanistan when insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter.
Two NATO troops were also killed, one from Canada, one from Britain. NATO and American troops this week launched a new offensive against Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan.
Coming here next, new fears about mad cow disease in this country, but the federal government won't allow cattle producers to test their herds for that disease. We'll have the report.
And the federal government doing almost nothing to protect this country from dangerous seafood imports - that story.
And will Congress learn anything from the failed 1986 immigration law?
I'll be talking with former Senator Alan Simpson - one of the two sponsors of the 1986 legislation. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: More alarming news tonight about the safety of this nation's food supply. The Bush administration is refusing to allow private companies to test American cattle for mad cow disease, a federal judge, however, ruling that such tests must be allowed.
Kitty Pilgrim has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't want U.S. cattle producers to test for mad cow disease, or BSE.
The USDA controls the testing kits, and won't let individual producers do their own testing.
President Bush says that's just fine.
BUSH: In the last three years, we've conducted over 800,000 tests to assess the health of our cattle herds. Thanks to these and other science-based measures, we've helped the farmers ranchers manage any possible BSE risk in the cattle population.
PILGRIM: The USDA tests only cattle they think are at risk for carrying the disease. That is a fraction of cows - less than one percent.
Some big industry beef producers like that system, and don't want the cost and burden of additional tests.
Everyone has to meet the same standards, and this additional testing doesn't provide any additional safety. But some small beef producers see an advantage to selling beef with additional testing.
Kansas beef producer, Creekstone Farms, sued for the right to test its own cows. A federal judge ruled that individual producers should be allowed to do that. The ruling was to take effect June 1st, but the USDA has appealed.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: The Bush administration has really gone out of its way to fulfill the stereotype of a country that is not doing enough to test its own beef.
I mean, around the world this is viewed as caving in to a few very large companies, who don't want to test their meat, and therefore, won't let anyone else test meat for the market.
PILGRIM: To-date, only three cases of BSE have been found in this country. The USDA says statistically, there should only be four to seven cases out of 42 million cows.
(END VIDEO)
PILGRIM (on camera): The USDA insists it should regulate the test, not the producers. It said widespread testing will only turn up false results, which would confuse the customers - Lou.
DOBBS: Well, the confusion here seems to be on the part of the FDA and others - and the USDA. They have a responsibility to have a test that's effective.
What is this nonsense about false positives?
PILGRIM: Well, they say it's not effective or it's not doable to test every cow for the disease, so they don't want a lot of tests out there, because if it turns up a different result, everyone will be confused.
That, of course, is not a legitimate answer. You could double test any questionable results, both by the producer and ...
DOBBS: Or you could have a dad gum test that actually works. These people. This government is a government in name only in some of these agencies.
Thanks very much, Kitty Pilgrim.
And the consumer, as usual, be damned. Thanks.
This country now importing more than 80 percent of our seafood. Most of that seafood originates in Asia and Latin America.
Fish that was fed contaminated ingredients from Communist China has already entered our food supply.
But as Bill Tucker reports, this country inspects barely one-half of one percent of all those imports.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): American consumption of seafood is near an all-time high.
Almost all of it - 81 percent - is imported. And almost none of it is inspected.
Less than two percent of imported seafood gets physically looked at, and just one-half of one percent is subjected to a lab test.
WENONAH HAUTER, FOOD AND WATER WATCH: It is dangerous. We're talking about things like Salmonella, Listeria, dangerous bacteria. There are veterinary drugs like chloramphenicol, an antibiotic, that has serious health side effects and is banned in the United States.
There are toxic - and there's just plain filth.
TUCKER: America's per capita consumption of seafood is 16.2 pounds. What's tested equals about an ounce-and-a-half, or about half a serving of fish. American consumers are vulnerable.
And if the lack of testing isn't a big enough problem, domestic shrimpers suspect there's a more troubling practice, where rejected seafood is simply moved to another port. They call it "port shopping."
JOHN WILLIAMS, SOUTHERN SHRIMP ALLIANCE: Well, they take it out of one port, re-label it and bring it into another port with a 99 percent chance of getting in.
TUCKER: The Southern Shrimpers Association has their own answer to the problem. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But take heart. Now you have a choice.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Imported, pond-raised.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not for me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or wild American shrimp.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ask for wild American shrimp.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The shrimp you thought you were eating.
TUCKER: There is a choice. The European Union inspects a minimum of 20 percent of imported seafood. And if a problem is found, they inspect 100 percent of the seafood from the country with the problem.
The Food and Drug Administration has said it can only do what its budget will allow. This year, the budget for inspecting foreign seafood processing facilities was zeroed out by Congress.
(END VIDEO)
TUCKER (on camera): But we only know that, not because the FDA told us, but because Food and Water Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on the FDA's budget.
Lou, the FDA did not return our phone calls seeking comment.
DOBBS: Amazing. A federal agency not wishing to return our phone calls, just because we have a little, tiny criticism of the way they don't function properly.
Is there any hope here for the American consumer?
TUCKER: No. Based on Kitty's report that we just saw and this one, I think we've got a reason to be a lot concerned.
DOBBS: All right. Bill Tucker, thank you very much.
Up next, the new grand compromise on illegal immigration is being compared to a similar law passed in 1986.
What, if anything, have these legislators learned from their past failures? The short answer is, not much.
And the Catholic Church continuing to push for amnesty. We'll tell you why Catholic leaders say this new bill doesn't go far enough. And the Catholic Church just one example of the blurring of the lines between church and state.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council joins me to discuss that line between church and state, God and politics.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Senate's immigration legislation is putting into focus earlier attempts at reform, specifically one in 1986 - Amnesty '86.
Some of the same language, some of the same rhetoric and some of the same faces are back with us. And they say, this reform of a broken legal system is truly an echo of the past.
Christine Romans reports now on the ghost, the specters, the lessons, the failures of the 1986 amnesty and what it means now.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The stroke of a pen on November 6, 1986, was supposed to end illegal immigration in America.
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders, and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people - American citizenship.
ROMANS: Workplace enforcement and stepped-up border security in exchange for amnesty for just under three million.
In the Senate debate, a sense amnesty could only be offered once.
SEN. ALAN SIMPSON, R-WYOMING: Because you know every one of you here, that we will never grant a separate legalization to these unfortunate people, unless we know it isn't going to happen again.
ROMANS: And the suggestion that that bill was better than no bill at all.
REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, D-NEW YORK: And the bill is a gamble. Nobody's certain it's going to work. Everyone was certain the present situation is just terrible.
And so, if it doesn't work, we'll have to go back to the drawing board.
ROMANS: The concerns then, as now, businesses fearing cumbersome requirements, others saying there weren't enough teeth in workplace enforcement, and warnings of racial profiling.
REV. JESSE JACKSON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: The bill would stigmatize anyone with a foreign accent or appearance.
ROMANS: More than 20 years and a new wave of illegal immigration later, the concern today ...
REP. DAN LUNGREN, R-CALIFORNIA: What we do now, does it create a repetition of what we did in '86, with the idea that, instead of settling things, it acts as an encouragement for more people to come into this country illegally? ROMANS: Lungren was a floor manager for the 1986 bill.
(END VIDEO)
ROMANS (on camera): Even today, some of the architects of the 1986 amnesty insist it was a good effort. But they complain successive administrations never properly enforced the law.
Some of the same people today have the same concerns, but, Lou, they hope this time for a better outcome.
DOBBS: They hope for a better outcome. They couldn't achieve it 21 years ago. The language - bring them in from the shadows - the same rhetoric as we heard 21 years ago.
There is absolutely not a thing in this legislation would give any rational person confidence that anything positive could come out of this.
ROMANS: What I was interested in is the number of people who said the status quo isn't good enough. We've got to do something. This is better than just doing nothing.
And we're hearing that in this debate, that we've got to do something rather than nothing. And some would argue that doing something that wasn't perfect and wasn't enforced is what got us here in the first place.
DOBBS: Oh, absolutely.
And 100 amendments for this legislation already, because ...
ROMANS: Is it 100 now?
DOBBS: ... trying to ram it - yes - and trying to ram it down the throats, first the Senate and then the House.
But the American people, and treating the American people - these senators I really believe should be held accountable.
This is the most scurrilous act. This president talking about diversity as if it's something alien to the American people and American society. And this Senate leadership talking about this as if it has no economic consequence to this nation.
These are absolutely irresponsible positions for them to take. And this is no way to legislate on any issue, for crying out loud.
Christine, as you point out, unfortunately sometimes, those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
Thanks very much, Christine Romans.
The Senate's 1986 amnesty was known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.
I talked with former Senator Alan Simpson, what he thinks now of the Senate's current effort to put forward another amnesty plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
ALAN SIMPSON, FORMER U.S. SENATOR, R-WYOMING: I've been listening. And I heard you say you had a belly full of this and a belly full of that, and a belly full of this.
So, I'm ready. Go ahead. Shoot.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: OK. Senator ...
SIMPSON: I used to have a belly, but not anymore.
DOBBS: Well, good for you. I'm working on getting mine down a little bit.
But here - I just want to quote something that Senator Alan Simpson said back in 1986.
You said, "There will be tremendous administration problems" - and we should put this up so folks can see what the senator said.
And by the way, I want to say, before anything else, I think Senator Simpson is one of the finest senators to ever serve this country.
He said, "There will be tremendous administration problems," but "it will sure as hell be a lot better than what we've got now."
Well, you know, we're hearing about the same thing from some folks right now.
What do you think of this new effort?
SIMPSON: Well, I've been watching it. But it - the bill we did - and it was a bipartisan bill. That's what's being forgotten. And I was really quite disturbed at the last comments there about a Republican bill.
If you're going to do a Republican bill or a Democrat bill, you're not going to have immigration reform.
DOBBS: Right.
SIMPSON: Mazzoli was a Democrat. Rodino, one of the great, respected members of the House, a Democrat.
This is absurd. You can't do this.
I never did - I never got involved in a Republican immigration bill. You do something for the national interest and forget parties.
But the reason the bill didn't work - and I was the first to admit it after I saw what happened - we never could get a more secure identifier.
DOBBS: Right.
SIMPSON: The last night of the session in the House. Ed Roybal - a wonderful guy, a passionate guy, a congressman from California - got up and gave the Nazi Germany speech. It also had tattoos. It talked about Nazi Germany. It talked about the Holocaust.
And we - and they removed from the bill that night, just before midnight, the whole guts of the more secure identifier. And dear old Joe Moakley, a Democrat from Massachusetts called a special meeting of the Rules Committee, and for me, a Republican, put some of it back in.
That has all disappeared. There is no cooperation. It's who's diddling who. And I tell you, it's disgusting to watch.
DOBBS: Yes, as a matter of fact, the employer enforcement provisions eviscerated. Border patrol enforcement, eviscerated.
SIMPSON: There are flash words there - flash words, Lou. The flash words are "national ID" - anyone who uses that. The flash words are the Statue of Liberty. Anyone talking about honest, authentic, immigration reform, that's true as a die and an arrow, will be called a racist, a xenophobe and a bigot.
DOBBS: Oh, yes. Absolutely.
And, you know, those are some - for some reason, I hear those familiar refrains.
Because what I have said, senator - and I want to ask you this, because, as I said, I've got great respect for your judgment, your wisdom.
I have said that you cannot - let's put this in the context of the 1986 immigration - the amnesty.
I have said - I've created just a straightforward syllogism - I've said you can't reform immigration laws in this country, if you can't control immigration.
And you can't control immigration, if you don't control our borders and our ports.
And I've said that, if anyone will defeat the logic of that syllogism, I'll sign on to whatever the heck they've got to offer.
What do you think?
SIMPSON: Well, I'll buy the drinks at Cassie's Supper Club, too ...
(LAUGHTER)
... because that is absolutely correct.
The first duty of a sovereign nation is to control its borders. This isn't about xenophobia and racism, and all this ugly stuff.
And if you want to know about a little country in our Northern Hemisphere that really controls its southern border, check Mexico. They don't like anybody coming through there, and then come to us and tell us that we're not doing it right. XX stuff.
DOBBS: Well, senator, we appreciate you taking the time to be with us. I hope you'll come back here soon. We can talk about a lot more than immigration. I always enjoy your views.
SIMPSON: It's a pleasure.
(END VIDEO)
DOBBS: Those are the words of the man who put forward the 1986 amnesty. And it's pretty clear he's had a belly full of the hollow rhetoric that is passing for legislation. Senator Alan Simpson.
Coming up here next, the Catholic Church continuing to push for amnesty and a lot more. We'll have a special report.
And I'll be talking with the president of the Family Research Council. We'll be talking about God and politics and the line between church and state.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN HEADLINE NEWS: I'm Rick Sanchez here in the CNN newsroom, trying to bring you up to date on what's going on right now. A chilling terror plot, targeting one of the country's busiest airports. Authorities are saying that terrorists planned to blow up JFK.
Four people are charged, three have been arrested. One of the suspects is a former member of Guyana's parliament. Another is a former airport employee.
The plan involved exploding the airport's jet fuel tanks and a 40-mile stretch of pipeline which feeds them.
There's no connection, by the way, to al Qaeda with this group, but the group could be linked to extremists Islamic fundamentalists. I'm Rick Sanchez. Newsbreaks we'll break in for you. Meanwhile, let's take you back now to Lou Dobbs for LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK.
DOBBS: Catholic Church leaders are continuing to push their ambitious agenda on illegal immigration. Catholic leaders not satisfied with the Senate's grand compromise giveaway, they're demanding senators offer more, more amnesty to more illegal aliens. Casey Wian has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Catholic leaders in Los Angeles and San Francisco entered the offices of Senator Dianne Feinstein armed with 45,000 petitions from church members demanding amnesty for more illegal aliens and their families.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy are those who take refuge in him.
WIAN: Even though Feinstein is one of the architects of the so-called grand compromise reform bill, Catholic bishops say it doesn't go far enough. They are demanding full citizenship for temporary workers.
BISHOP OSCAR SOLIS, CATHOLIC CONFERENE OF BISHOPS: The temporary workers must have a path to citizenship. That we do not create a permanent underclass in our society.
WIAN: They want illegal aliens who are eligible for amnesty to also have the right to immediately bring family members to the United States instead of having to wait eight years.
MARIA ELENA DUAZO, L.A. COUNTY FEDERATION OF LABOR: They as workers should have the right to have their families together.
WIAN: And they're opposed to the idea of a merit-based temporary worker system that favors skilled labor.
REV. STEVE NISKANEN, OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS: But there's also a need for lower wage persons in our country who are really the backbone of this nation.
WIAN: The Catholic leaders are clearly out of touch with the American public. A recent CBS/"New York Times" poll shows only 20 percent of U.S. residents believe legal immigration should be increased, 74 percent say it should be decreased or stay the same. As for the senator they're lobbying, she admits the bill isn't perfect.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D) CA: I think it's easy to tell the people on the far right of the political spectrum, the far left of the political spectrum are not happy with this bill.
WIAN: And she continues to preach the gospel of the Senate.
FEINSTEIN: Many of us in this body believe that you can't find and deport 12 million people.
WIAN: But the CBS/"New York Times" poll found 69 percent of Americans believe illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.
(END VIDEOTAPe)
WIAN (on camera): Senator Feinstein's office did not return our calls seeking comment on the Catholic petitions for expanded amnesty. The senator has said, however, that this issue has generated more emotion than any other during her 15 years in the Senate, Lou.
DOBBS: And nearly every political elected official we've talk with, Casey, as you know, who are being candid say that there is -- they just acknowledge a greater disconnect between Washington and their constituents than on any issue that they've dealt with in a mighty long time.
WIAN: Absolutely. And there's a lot of disconnect in terms of reality on this issue. These Catholic leaders acknowledging that the Senate bill will lower wages in the United States. Their answer to that, import more low-wage workers from south of the border, Lou.
DOBBS: Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Casey, thank you very much.
WIAN: OK.
DOBBS: My next guest, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council says I'm wrong to suggest as I have the churches have been encroaching on the divide between church and state in this country. But the question is, why should churches have a free pass when their tax exempt status depends on their aversion to politics.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: For the record, let me make it clear, I don't necessarily disagree with you on your position on immigration. It was the specifically targeting pastors and churches.
DOBBS: Can I say hallelujah then?
PERKINS: No, pass the plate. Can I quote you though? I would think I could quote Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
PERKINS: This is what you said in the transcript a couple weeks ago. "And church leaders are ignoring separation of church and state by interfering directly in the political issue of amnesty." My question is, how so? How are they violating the so-called issue of separation of church and state?
DOBBS: To me, Tony, it's very straightforward. The idea of creating, as the Catholic Church has, a statement from the Catholic Council of Bishops supporting illegal immigration, you heard Casey Wian's report tonight from Los Angeles laying out the terms of what they find acceptable in terms of an immigration legislation.
Terms that are purely secular and totally based on, it seems to me, I just wonder how many Catholics would be involved in this debate, how many Catholic leaders would be involved in this debate if the Hispanic immigrants were not primarily from Mexico and Central America and for the most part Catholic.
PERKINS: Well, let's take on this issue of separation of church and state. Actually, that's not found in the Constitution. It makes reference to the establishment clause. The First Amendment of the Constitution.
DOBBS: And there wasn't a ruling on it till really 1947.
PERKINS: Let me read it for you. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That pertains to Congress. Later it was applied to the states. It does not apply to the church. The church has been free from the very beginning to speak to the issues. Would you say Reverend Lyman Beecher (ph) or the Reverend Martin Luther King were violating the separation of church and state, one an abolitionist, one working for the civil rights movement.
They were both pastors using their pulpit to speak to the issues of the day.
DOBBS: If I believed, and I'm going to be candid with you, Tony, I have a lot of trouble with the idea that church has become so involved in the structure of this immigration, illegal immigration debate, that I think perhaps I have gone too far to one side on it.
Because I absolutely accede to you, Dr. Martin Luther King. There are other instances in our history in which secular politics has been well-served by ministers and pastors and priests.
But I'm at the same time very disturbed that we're watching agendas being driven. Do I have the correct answer as to what the balance is? No, I don't. But I'm troubled by it and I know a lot of other folks are too.
PERKINS: Well, I think about the issue. I would agree with you that this is an issue that is not -- there is not unity within the evangelical Christian community. There's divisions on the issue. But I think you've got to be careful. That may be your position or your view on this separation of church and state. But it's not the law.
The IRS code, which was changed by amended by Senator Lyndon Johnson at the time because back in 1954, he was concerned of the opposition had he when he ran for the Senate, up until that time, it was very common for pastors to preach Election Day sermons that specifically targeted candidates.
Today, churches are free to talk on issues without hesitation. Where their limitations are is when it comes to officially endorsing a candidate as a pastor of a church.
I think whether we agree with what evangelicals on the left or liberal Christians believe, I think the informed debate is very important for this country and they have every right to speak.
DOBBS: I agree with you about informed debate. I'm troubled, though, when I see AIPAC lobbying on behalf of Israel and foreign policy. By the way, every bit I'm disturbed by the influence of the Saudi lobby in Washington on foreign policy.
I'm also disturbed when I see, you know, evangelicals pushing -- writing the land letter in 2002 to the president to justify the war in Iraq.
I think we have some very serious issues that require careful thought here. And as I say, I will absolutely admit to you, I'm troubled by the issue. I don't have the solution. And I will, you know, this is one of those times when you can take me to school, Tony, on the issues.
PERKINS: I agree with you. You may have problems with the outcomes, but the input, I believe it's a very troubling road to go down if we say people of faith must check their religious convictions at the gate of the public square in order to participate.
DOBBS: I would never suggest that because I believe that the body politic is elevated by men and women of faith and those who aspire to higher ethical conduct. So I wouldn't go that far. I'm just troubled by the issue, and come back, we'll talk about it some more.
PERKINS: I would love to do that, Lou. In the meantime, I'll be watching.
DOBBS: You got it, thanks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Up next, we'll have a preview of the upcoming presidential debates. Tomorrow, the Democrats meet in Manchester, New Hampshire. I'll take a look at the candidates from both parties. We'll see where they stand and our distinguished panel of political analysts join us here. We'll talk amnesty, President Bush, the Senate and some other interesting folks. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tomorrow night, CNN, WMUR, and the "New Hampshire Union- Leader" present the first of two presidential debates this week. The Democratic candidates facing off first in New Hampshire, the Republicans meet Tuesday. For a preview now of those debates, all the latest political news, I'm joined by CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley and chief national correspondent John King, both in Manchester, New Hampshire. Thanks, folks, for joining us higher. We're looking forward to two lively debates.
Candy, let me begin with you. What are the folks in New Hampshire expecting these candidates to discuss?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, if you go to the town hall meetings and you assume those are the sorts of things when they bring up the questions they want to hear about in the debate, sure, you hear about the war.
But I tell you that I also hear a lot of questions about college loans, the kind of debt that students have when they leave college, a lot of health care questions on foreign policy, Darfur, global AIDS, that sort of thing. And of course, Lou, in Republican town hall meetings in particular, you hear an awful lot about immigration. John McCain tends to get a lot of tough questions on that score.
DOBBS: And John, this is -- the middle class is taking some focus particularly among the Democratic candidates, the Senator Clinton coming out with her statements this week on shared prosperity. Senator Obama coming out with his health care plan.
This looks like a serious issue that at least two candidates are going to center their campaigns on.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Without a doubt, Lou. And you hear John Edwards on the Democratic side as well, although he comes at it more from an anti-poverty agenda.
But the Democrats realize the number one issue here in most of the country is the war, the number two issue is the war. But they don't know how much of the issue the war will be when people get around to voting. And there are serious concerns on middle class issues, the economic squeeze, the wage gap, the lack of health insurance, particularly here in New Hampshire.
In Mrs. Clinton's case, she remembers full well her husband ran a successful campaign here on the slogan, "It's the economy stupid."
So they are beginning more and more about it. They know especially within the primary campaign on the Democratic side the war is where the energy in the party is, but the voters, as Candy just noted, they want to talk about other things, not just the war. That whole middle class portfolio, rising gas prices, add that to the mix, as well.
DOBBS: Let me ask you both. Are people - because one of the stories out over the last week or so has been despite this early beginning to this campaign, we're not seeing a lot of movement in the national polls, certainly in the national surveys of approval ratings for these candidates.
Can we expect that to change with these two debates? Candy, you first.
CROWLEY: I think it always changes just a little after the debates. I think what you're see something still particularly in the Republican race, it's a very unsettled race and it moves back and forth, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney comes up. You throw Fred Thompson into the mix and different things happen. I think really people -- again, if you ask people here in New Hampshire, you know, at least half the time they will say I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm still shopping.
So these numbers do tend to go back and forth. And certainly I think the debates can move those numbers.
DOBBS: John?
KING: Absolutely, Lou. History tells you that the polls, they are good for us as a barometer to see where the field is. We spend a lot of money on them to help us understand what the voters want to talk about. Not just who they support early on.
But remember the polls in the last campaign cycle would have shown that Howard Dean was the overwhelming favorite. Among the Democrats at this point, John Kerry, of course, was their nominee.
In 1996, the big talk then as it is now about Senator John McCain was is Bob Dole too old, does Bob Dole have the energy, is he the right man for the party right now? He had a bumpy early ride in the primaries and in the early polls. Bob Dole was the nominee. So early polls are helpful if you're Mrs. Clinton right now and ahead in the polls, or Senator McCain in some polls you might be a little worried because Iowa and New Hampshire like to buck tradition and go after the front-runner.
But they're guidelines. They're not worth much more than that.
DOBBS: John King, Candy Crowley, we thank you both in Manchester, New Hampshire, getting ready for the first debate tomorrow night in Manchester, New Hampshire.
And please be sure to join us here for our special coverage. It begins at 5:00 p.m. Eastern. We'll be coming to you then until 7:00 p.m. The debates is begin, the Republicans face off Tuesday night. We'll be broadcasting live from Manchester for both debates, and you don't want to miss it.
Up next, President Bush defends his amnesty agenda for illegal aliens, he blasts his critics, and he really ticks off the conservatives. Three of the country's best political analysts join us here to discuss what all of that means, why is the president alienating his base. How desperate is he? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now, here in New York, Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf and Errol Louis, columnist, "New York Daily News." And from Washington, DC, Diana West, "Washington Times." Thank you all for being here.
The president, Diana West, he seems to think that this country is afraid of diversity, and he is taking it very personally that people are rejecting his so-called comprehensive immigration reform plan. As one writer put it, it looks like he's trying to alienate the 30 percent of the people who still seem to either like him or tolerate him.
DIANA WEST, "WASHINGTON TIMES": There are so many things wrong with what the president is saying right now. It's kind of hard to figure out where to start. I think what's most unforgettably insulting, however, is his notion that there is no legitimate intellectual argument against his bill that is not motivated by racism, bigotry and generally unpleasantly vicious feelings. This I think he will not be forgiven by his base. It's over.
DOBBS: Hank Sheinkopf?
HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I happen to agree we the lovely Miss West on this one. I think that he has alienated everybody who would ever say a kind word about him and he is adding more fuel to the fire by talking this way to what some proponents might want to do.
DOBBS: Errol, it's as if this man doesn't even know what America is in the 21st century. The most diverse nation on the face of the earth and he is talking to people about don't be afraid of diversity.
ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": I actually see it a little bit differently.
DOBBS: All right.
LOUIS: I think he may be alienating his current base but he is looking forward to a future base. This is a theme that runs consistently through the Bush presidency. You can see it in Mel Martinez, his former Cabinet aide who is now trying to move the party as chair of the Republican Party in a different direction.
They see that the Latino population in this country, rightly or wrongly, sees immigration as a touchstone issue. And they want those Latinos to be Republicans.
DOBBS: At the risk of alienating.
LOUIS: We've seen this before. We've seen it when they tried to - when the Republicans to tried to push for Puerto Rico to become a state, which is a fairly unusual ...
DOBBS: Are these people such paternalistic, condescending idiots that they believe that Hispanics in modern America equals illegal alien?
LOUIS: I think that a relaxed attitude toward immigration gets you a lot of Latino votes. At least that's the calculation. And not an unreasonable calculation.
SHEINKOPF: That may be the calculation, I would suggest that it is less reasonable than you think and it's kind of up there with the Republican idea that somehow, if we just talk to black people in a particular way, we'll get the black votes and it is just as dumb as the Democrats saying, you know, the South really doesn't dislike us, if we just spend a lot of time there we'll win the border states.
There are no border states. There are not a significant number of Hispanic or Latino Republicans per se outside of Florida with the Cubans, have been very significant in that - I mean, that's not there.
DOBBS: Diana?
WEST: I think that there's another element to the argument that has gone unspoken. And I really think that will President Bush is not keen to promote a country, an America, a United States of America that has borders. I really do believe is he more oriented toward an open border kind of society.
DOBBS: His father's new world order.
WEST: I do believe that that is what we're seeing. Now we're not discussing that. That doesn't get debated very often, but I think that that is at root what is behind his motivation, and again, trying to fob off opposition to that is only being a very crude kind of emotional primitive behavior is insulting.
LOUIS: There's echoes in his current stance of what the "Wall Street Journal" editorial page, not known as a bastion of liberalism, but they used to promote year after year a seven word amendment to the United States Constitution saying there shall be free and open borders. And I think almost right up till 9/11, I think, they kept that position.
DOBBS: I talked with Senator Alan Simpson, coauthor of the legislation that ultimately became the 1986 amnesty. He made it clear. This can't possibly succeed without border security. He also made it very clear that he thinks that this is effectively nonsense. And can't believe it's -- no one, I don't think any rational person can believe this is moving forward. They only have 100 amendments now, Hank.
SHEINKOPF: When they hit 200, they're going to sell.
DOBBS: Let's move to the folks hanging around the edges of this early 2008 presidential nomination race. Namely, former Vice President Al Gore and former Senator Fred Thompson.
WEST: Mm-hmm.
DOBBS: A lot of attention being paid to you two folks who haven't even announced. What do you think, Errol?
LOUIS: Both from Tennessee. I find the Fred Thompson phenomenon fascinating.
DOBBS: I've got to be honest with you. I hadn't even thought about that. You're exactly right.
LOUIS: Both from Tennessee but don't live in Tennessee. Fred Thompson lives in Virginia now and Al Gore went to school in Washington, DC. But ...
DOBBS: And Tennessee then took him to school during the 2000 ...
LOUIS: For a little bit, yeah. So Fred Thompson is doing very well in the polls. He's right up there with Romney and Giuliani and McCain. All of them, I think, in some key polls are being walloped by undecided at 30 percent.
DOBBS: Right.
LOUIS: Which tells you that the Republican Party has not made up its mind, it has not settled on a candidate, and the 40 percent of Republicans who say they want Thompson in the race I think are clearly saying they don't like what they're seeing. I hope the candidates and their staffs are going to take that seriously.
WEST: I think there's an interesting point that's going to come out of this whole immigration mess. And that is that, I think, Republicans, if anyone's going to take a true conservative mantle will feel much happier and more at home in running against George Bush and not feeling they need to remain respectful and indeed, they can perhaps try a Sarkozy style model campaign where indeed he ran against the president he was in the Cabinet with and won.
So it can be done. SHEINKOPF: They're looking for -- I think that party is looking for Ronald Reagan. I think that's why Fred Thompson, he understands it clearly and is I think that's why he's announcing July 4th in Nashville. I think he wants to pull the South back together.
I think he's the 20 mule team Borax man, but from "Law & Order." Very much alike.
DOBBS: Very much alike and interestingly I see great similarities between Al Gore and Fred Thompson. Both men, this week, took what I thought was a very important step and said, Al Gore moving his new book "Assault Against Reason,"
Fred Thompson obviously laying the ground for his campaign should he decide to execute one is, talking about the disconnect between Washington, DC and the voters. And the assault against reason and the national interests. I found it interesting that both men coming about as polar extreme in the main -- in partisan politics in this country really hitting on the very same message.
SHEINKOPF: Southern politics writ large tends to work. That's why Reagan announced in Philadelphia, Mississippi and why Bill Clinton came from Arkansas.
LOUIS: Absolutely. And almost every Democratic president you've seen in the last half century has come from the South.
By trying to get out of the Beltway, by saying they're going to run against Washington that, that has worked very, very well for the last 25 years in national politics. The question is, once you get out of there, where do you go? Are you going to go to the anti-abortion part of America or are you going to go to the pro abortion part of America.
DOBBS: And independent populists like me, Diana West, I see the problem just exactly as Errol has framed it. The problem is you run against Washington, you win, and where do you end up? You end up in your town, Washington, DC.
WEST: That's right. Well, some people I guess we can go back to Ronald Reagan keep something of a common touch. But what these senators are thinking of, I just hope they're all getting a real earful back in their home districts because -- their home states because this is crazy.
DOBBS: Well, Lindsay Graham, we know, has taken a beating from his home state.
WEST: Well, he should. He's told people they're bigots if they oppose his point of view. That's not the way we debate in America. Or not the way we're supposed to.
DOBBS: It's not the way we used to. This debate has produced a lot of "we ain't supposed to"s. Thanks a lot, Diana West, Errol Louis, thank you very much. Hank Sheinkopf, thank you, sir.
Coming up next, some of your thoughts on the so-called grand compromise. We'll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Time now for some of your thoughts. Margaret in California. "Lou, how can I get in touch with Michael Chertoff at Homeland Security? I want to know how to become an illegal alien. I would only be responsible for a few thousand dollars or two to three years of back taxes (I have been paying all my life) to get free college, free medical and so on."
And William in Ohio. "Hey, Lou, the government has sold our ports, toll roads, etc, so why not sell citizenship. It's the cheapest deal anyone will ever get, except for existing legal citizens."
And Patrick in Wisconsin. "I'm an American man who did not graduate from high school. I have worked in restaurants, cut grass, cleaned beaches, etc. The point is I do what I need to do to feed my family. I now work in a lab cleaning and taking out the trash. I do things Americans are not supposed to do, according the President Bush. Thank you, Lou. I love your show."
And all Americans respect whatever work any of us do.
We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs.com. Be sure to tune in to CNN tomorrow evening for our coverage of the presidential debate. Our coverage begins with a special two hour edition of this broadcast live from New Hampshire.
We begin at 5:00 p.m. The Democratic debate begins immediately afterwards. 7:00 p.m. For all of us here, please join us tomorrow. We thank you for watching tonight.
THIS WEEK AT WAR begins right now with Tom Foreman.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
