Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Images of Sacrifice; Judicial Nominees; Wisdom of Youth
Aired April 28, 2005 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Images of Sacrifice. Once these pictures were forbidden from being released. Today, the Pentagon made them public. We'll have details for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJOR LISA DEWITT, U.S. ARMY DOCTOR: September 11 definitely pushed it to the forefront of my mind that I'm an emergency physician, I have a skill that I can give back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Major Dewitt, known to patients in Iraq as "Dr. Lisa," she's back from the front lines and sharing her stories of lives saved and lost.
O'BRIEN: And on a wing and a prayer, this woodpecker thought to be extinct in America now proves the reports of his demise were exaggerated.
From the CNN center in Atlanta, I'm Miles O'Brien.
PHILLIPS: And I'm Kyra Phillips. This hour of CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.
O'BRIEN: Well, we know they're out there, but we almost never see them. They're soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines who are killed in the war in Iraq. Almost 1,600 at last count, each brought home in a flag-draped coffin and a cloak of secrecy that for more than two years has been almost absolute. No longer.
Today, the Pentagon put out a stream of sobering photographs. And CNN's Barbara Starr joins us with the story -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Miles, let's just set the stage for a minute for what we are about to show our viewers. Indeed, the Pentagon has a very strong policy of not allowing public dissemination of photography of the return of remains from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the return of the caskets carrying the bodies of those who have fallen. They say they don't do this because of privacy concerns for the family and privacy concerns for the soldiers who handle the Honor Guard and the honor duty of returning these remains to the United States.
But today, indeed, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from a public interest group, more than 300 images now made public. Let's take a look at some of them and explain to people what we are seeing.
Now, one of the reasons they tell us they have blacked out the faces and the identifying marks on these soldiers who are handling these caskets as we continue to look at them is that these were not public ceremonies. These were private ceremonies, and the soldiers had no expectation their faces would be shown. There are also, of course, the standard security concerns. But what you do see here is the extraordinary respect and honor that is rendered to the fallen by their comrades as they escort them on to airplanes and their remains, as we continue to look at the photos, are returned to the United States.
As we continue to look, some of the photos that you will see are really quite extraordinary. There are photos that are shown of metal caskets not yet having the flag draped over the casket. There are very explicit photographs of body bags, before they are put in the casket. But in all of these cases, you see the extraordinary ceremony and quiet respect that is given to these fallen as they are returned to the United States -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right, Barbara. Of course it is so odd to have the faces redacted, I think, is the term, blacked out. I'm sorry, explain that to me again. They can't show the faces for operational security, is that it?
STARR: Well, Miles, there are a number of issues at work here. The pictures that we're showing you -- for example, this one right here is clearly Kabul, Afghanistan. There are a couple issues on why these are, as you say, redacted or blacked out.
Operational security is certainly one of them. These are soldiers serving in a combat zone. Normally, their faces, their name tags, their identifying unit marks are not shown.
But also, what we are told by the Pentagon, by the Pentagon spokesman, is that these were private ceremonies. That the soldiers had no expectation. You see that picture here, the metal casket on board the airplane. The ceremonies...
O'BRIEN: All right, Barbara. There are some faces shown there. And what is the difference in that picture?
STARR: Well, what we are told here now, that this is not a return of one from an area that there would still be current concern about. The Pentagon -- let's be very clear, Miles. The Pentagon is pulling all the information strings, if you will, on this issue.
The current photos, the ones that are more recent, clearly have less information attached to them, the blackout, if you will. The ones that are perhaps more historic, where they have been sometime passed, they offer the faces to us.
O'BRIEN: Thank you. Barbara Starr. They are pictures that should take us all aback. Thank you for that report -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: We want to take you straight to the Senate floor right now. Bill Frist talking about the judicial nominees. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: ... with 84 percent of the vote in Texas, yet she can't get the courtesy of a vote to be confirmed by the Senate.
Judicial nominees are being denied. Justice is being denied. The solution is simple: allow the senators to do their job and vote.
In the spirit of civility and with sincere hope for a solution, I make an offer. This offer will ensure up-or-down votes on judicial nominees after fair, open and, some might say, exhaustive debate. It's a compromise that holds to constitutional principles.
First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-and-down vote until two years ago. However, it was not unprecedented, either for Republicans or Democrats, to block judicial nominees in committee. Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction.
It's time for judicial obstruction to end, no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.
The Judiciary Committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.
Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.
When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.
The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.
Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. So far, only up-or-down votes on appeals court nominees have been denied.
I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees. That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America. I hope my offer will make it unnecessary for the minority to further escalate its judicial obstruction.
Fourth, the minority of senators who have denied votes on judicial nominees are concerned that their ability to block bills will be curbed. As majority leader, I guarantee that power will be protected. The filibuster, as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress, will remain unchanged.
The Democratic leader and I have been talking on this issue almost every day. And I'm hopeful he'll accept my offer as a solution. It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it's the right proposal for America.
For 70 percent of the 20th century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, yet no minority ever denied a judicial nominee with majority support in up-or-down vote until the last Congress. These minorities showed self-restraint. They treated judicial nominees with fairness, and they respected the Senate's role in the appointments process as designed by the framers of the Constitution.
Resolving the judicial obstruction debate, for me, isn't about politics. It's about constitutional principles. It's about fairness to nominees. It's about senators doing their duty and doing what's right for our country.
Arbitrarily on just a few judicial nominees, as some have proposed, will fail to restore the Senate's 214-year practice of up- or-down votes for all judicial nominees that come to the floor. Senators have a duty to vote up or down on judicial nominees, confirm them or deny them, but give them all the courtesy of a vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: Mr. President...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democratic leader.
REID: First of all, I want...
O'BRIEN: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, offering up a compromise, as we see Harry Reid address the Senate. Let's listen to Senator Reid for just a moment.
REID: ... solution to this very difficult issue that now faces us in the United States Senate. But I do say to my distinguished friend, no matter how many times you say it, if something's wrong it doesn't become true.
Over the course of this country's history, there have been many, many filibusters of judges from the very beginning of our republic. Until 1917, there was no way you could stop a filibuster. And so a number of judges fell by the wayside as a result of that.
As I've said here previously, in 1917, the Senate changed its rules. And then two-thirds of the senators elected could stop a filibuster. And then in 1964, the height of the civil rights battle, it was changed to 60 on most everything. Only one thing is still different, and that's as it relate to rules where it takes 67.
Without getting into the numbers game, Mr. President, there have been a lot of filibusters of judges where a majority of the senators like that person -- you can go look at Abe Fortes as a good example of that.
Now, Mr. President, we don't need to reinvent history here. It's simply the way it is. And I'm not going to get into the individual judges. We can do that. We can go over them one by one. But they're -- I don't think that's what the country needs at this stage.
We have heard on this floor rehashed 69 judges of the -- President Clinton never made it to the floor, and we continually hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say, "We need a vote on these senators." They had a vote in keeping with the rules of the United States Senate.
So, Mr. President, I would -- I would also say that I agree with my friend, the distinguished senator from Tennessee who I have so much respect and admiration for. He said that the circuit court and Supreme Court are more important than the lower courts. I believe that, in fact, is the case. That being so, we need to focus more attention on them rather than less.
If my friend says that there will be no changing of the rules -- now remember, you have to break the rules to change them in this instance. Because if you follow the rules, you can't do it with a simple majority.
But I say to my friend, if you can break the rules to change the rules on a judge, then what about the other nominations of the president? We have a thing here in the Senate now that is in the newspaper every day regarding a man by the name of Mr. Bolton. I don't know him. I would recognize him because he has that very uncharacteristic mustache, which I kind of like. But my point is, that may be something that people will wish to talk a long time on.
I don't know that to be the case. The hearings have not been completed. But I do know that the administration really likes this man. The secretary of state likes him. She's said so.
Does that mean that the rules will be changed because this is one of the president's fair-haired persons that he wants to become his ambassador to the United Nations? You can't go down that slippery slope.
Mr. President, this proposal of Senator Frist is not exactly new. We had a proposal like this last Congress by my friend the distinguished senator from Georgia, Zell Miller. And it was very similar to this proposal.
This is, I would say -- and I don't mean to demean the proposal, because I'm going to take a close look at it and see if there's any way we can work with it. But I would say, for lack of a better description it's a big wet kiss to the far right, Mr. President. It just is not appropriate.
The rules are the rules. This is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
First, this is slow motion nuclear option. After 100 hours, the rights of the minority are extinguished. This has never been about the length of the debate. This is about constitutional checks and balances.
This is -- number two, this is probably worse than the nuclear option because it also speeds up the committee's consideration. I'm happy to look at that.
As the distinguished majority leader knows, I talked to him earlier about trying to do something in the committee system that would make it better. So I'm happy to take a look at that from his brief -- and I know it's brief -- we'll have to talk in more detail. I really don't think this is appropriate.
Third, this deals with only half the advise and consent that we have to deal with this pesky little document called the Constitution. You know, this is something that you take, Mr. President, as a whole. It's very, very short, but we have to -- we have to stick with this. And advise and consent means just that.
One of the things that we have failed to recognize here -- excuse me, I have very bad hay fever. One of the thing we have to recognize, Mr. President, is that we have the future ahead of us. Not what went on in the past.
I'm not here to -- to criticize what went on in the Clinton years. I'm not here to condone or criticize what went on in the last four years of the Clinton administration -- the first four years.
I'm here to say, let's look forward. Let's look forward. And I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, any proposal that I have made said, let's look forward, let' look forward, let's take this nuclear option off the table and let's work on these judges that we have ahead of us.
And I can never say there will never be another filibuster because I can't say that. But I don't think this body's in the mood for a number of filibusters. I just don't think they feel like it.
And I think we should go for it. And I've told my friends, I've told my distinguished friend, the senator from Kentucky, I've told my distinguished friend -- and I say "friend" in the true sense of the word -- from Tennessee, "If we somehow fail in the good faith and they think we filibuster too much, talk too much, you always have next Congress."
I'm saying let's tie to look forward. Let's not look back.
I really want to -- to leave here today or tomorrow, whenever we leave, with a good feeling about it. I -- while I -- you know, people get really locked in and "this isn't good enough." I'm not going to berate him for this offer he's made.
It's an offer. I appreciate that. It's the first one that we've had.
I've had one, he's had one. And I believe legislation is the art of compromise.
While this isn't truly legislation, it's in the keeping with what we do around here. We try to build up consensus. We try to work toward an end that is satisfactory. And I hope that we can do that.
I hope calmer heads will prevail. And I say that on my side, as well as the other side of the aisle.
This is a -- something that, if we did it right, what we would do is we would take his suggestion to the rules committee, have them come back with it. And we would vote on it here. That's how we change rules.
I had the good fortune -- and I say that without hesitation or reservation -- to serve for many years on the Ethics Committee. I was chairman, I was vice chair. We brought thing here and we -- one time, Senator Bob Smith from New Hampshire and I worked a full year. We worked so hard trying to change these very difficult rules we have in the Ethics Committee, which is part of the Senate standing rules.
O'BRIEN: All right. In the interest of bipartisanship, we've heard from the leaders of both parties addressing the Senate well today on the subject of filibusters.
At issue, of course, 10 judicial nominees of the Bush administration. Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, offering up 100 hours of debate on each and every one of those appellate nominees, as well as any Supreme Court nominees, as a compromise move to end the impasse over these filibusters.
Senator Reid, as you just heard, not very happy with that, calling it a slow-motion nuclear option. "Nuclear option" is the term he uses for changing the Senate rules.
So while he says we need to come to some sort of consensus, I didn't see a lot of consensus there.
Candy Crowley, did you?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I saw an awful -- you know, one of the things about the Senate is -- and Senator Reid was right on when he said, "It's all about trying to build that consensus." And they've had to do that in most Senate years when the margin between Republicans and Democrats was much smaller than it is now.
No, I didn't see -- this offer clearly isn't going to be taken up as is. I think Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said, look, we're happy to look at it, but no. So I don't think we have a compromise here yet.
O'BRIEN: No, no. And Senator Reid's offer is to allow some appointments to go through in exchange for the administration dropping a few. Specifically, Henry Saad is one of them, a judge out of Michigan. In other words, specific judges are being earmarked. I guess what that shows is that a little bit of horse trading is under way. Does that give you a sense there might be a compromise in work?
CROWLEY: I don't think anytime soon, and here's why. I think what you're seeing in these two speeches on the Senate floor is an attempt to get on the right side of this issue.
I think if you look at the polls, it shows most Americans say, don't change those filibuster rules. I'm hard-pressed to believe that most Americans actually know the ins and outs of the filibuster rule. But here's what they do know, that Democrats have shaped this as an issue of the Republican power grab.
The Republicans are trying to grab on to power, they're trying to solidify and take away minority rights. And that's what's come across.
So what the Republicans now need to try to do is say, now, wait, we're being reasonable, we'll let you talk about this for 100 hours. What could be wrong with that?
So I think you're seeing much more of the public struggle for the hearts and minds of voters than you are seeing, you know, the actual negotiations. The negotiations are somewhat less gentlemanly behind the scenes, I'm sure.
O'BRIEN: Oh, you think so? You think so?
CROWLEY: Pretty sure.
O'BRIEN: OK. All right.
Let's talk about the president's news conference tonight. I suspect this will be pretty close, if not the first question among the first. What's the president have to say about this, and what else is he facing tonight?
CROWLEY: I think what the president says about the filibuster, that's for the Senate to decide. I think...
O'BRIEN: Sidestep that one, a little Texas sidestep on that one? Yes.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. You know, legislative branch, executive branch...
O'BRIEN: Probably a good idea.
CROWLEY: ... and so I think he -- I think he says, look, I want my judges.
O'BRIEN: But we should be -- you know, to let our viewers know, the vice president has weighed in on this. So, in a sense, the administration has down on the side of Senate Republicans. CROWLEY: Sure. And -- but to get into the nitty-gritty, I'm sure he'll say, whatever gets me my judges. I think -- look, there are two story lines that are going on in Washington right now that are playing for the headlines.
One is the Democrats saying the Republicans are all about grabbing power, be it Tom DeLay, be it the filibuster, that they're for changing the rules so that they can really solidify their power. The Republican story line is the Democrats are obstructionists, they're standing in the way of judges that the president has the right to nominate, they're standing in the way of Social Security legislation, they're stand in the way of this.
So I think what you hear tonight in more general terms from the president is the Democrats have to stop being obstructionists on some of these things. And I certainly believes that he believes what the Republicans are saying, which is that they are on the judges.
So he has a dog in this fight. I'm just -- don't think he'll get into the nitty-gritty of, you now, what is a good compromise and what isn't. His good compromise is, pass my judges.
O'BRIEN: All right. And, quickly, if you had one question to ask the president tonight, what would be it?
CROWLEY: Wow. You know, I think it would be an Iraq question, because I think in this -- in these first months of this year, there has been so much on Social Security, so much on the budget, so much on gas prices, that I think returning the focus to Iraq -- and you've just had a top military person saying, look, the insurgency is still as strong as it's ever been.
O'BRIEN: I'm with you on that. I'd Iraq.
All right. Candy Crowley, thanks. Always appreciate it.
We want to give you the chance to play reporter, just like I put Candy on the spot. You're in the spot now.
E-mail us the questions you would like to hear the president answer at tonight's news conference. Would you like to hear more about Iraq or something else? Send those questions, keep them short and to the point, please. LIVEFROM@CNN.com.
A break now. Back with more in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: In our week-long retirement series called "Never Too Late," many young adults say they see the wisdom and need to save because of their parents' financial struggles. But are they following through?
Personal finance editor Gerri Willis reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR (voice-over): Don't hate this kid even though he's got more money saved for retirement than you do.
CHRIS LAHIJI, 21-YEAR-OLD FINANCIAL ANALYST: What I try to do is I try to save at least $1,000 to $3,000 a year from my income, and I put it in either mutual funds, bond, stocks, or, right now, I've just established a Roth IRA.
WILLIS: Financial analyst Chris Lahiji is just 21 years old.
LAHIJI: I know that when I turn 50 or 60 years old, I want to have a pretty nice nest egg, so when my kids are all grown up, they won't ask me for any money and me and my wife can be enjoying our little villa right by -- right by the beach.
WILLIS: If Chris is making you feel a little guilty, well, relax. Not every 21-year-old is investing for retirement. Even if they should be.
A recently released study by MetLife found that nearly half of young workers between the ages of 21 and 30 haven't even begun to plan or save for retirement. Some students at New York University know they have a long way to go.
HIRO TAKEI, NYU STUDENT: I see saving for retirement as something about 10,000 and a half steps away.
WILLIS (on camera): What do you mean? It's like so far off in the future you can't even think about it?
TAKEI: Yes. Like, my parents are in their 60s, and I personally feel like they've just begun to, like, realize that Social Security has a problem. And here I am at 21, and I'm looking at my parents, and I feel it's still their problem.
WILLIS (voice-over): Although he might not be saving yet, other students we talked to say they are. Because they worry that the safety net their parents enjoyed might not be there when they need it, or it might not be enough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think that Social Security itself has the high return that I'm basically looking for. I think if I go off and I do it on my own, you know, I could invest it better than, you know, the government itself.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If it continues in the direction that it's going right now, it quite possibly could be extinct. And in that situation, I think we're going to be in trouble.
WILLIS: Our financial whiz kid said the most important thing these young people can do is make sure they don't spend all the money they make so they'll have it later on.
LAHIJI: Spending is the easy part. Me and you could go on 5th Avenue and probably spend $150,000. I'll buy some Gucci underwear for $300. That's no problem. But we can't do that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm still trying to find a job to retire from before I start worrying about retirement.
WILLIS: But the message may be sinking in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know, maybe I should start rethinking this whole thing and care more about it?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: And tomorrow Gerri talks about dream jobs for life, how to pursue what you really love doing, like Soledad and Bill, and how it can pay off.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired April 28, 2005 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Images of Sacrifice. Once these pictures were forbidden from being released. Today, the Pentagon made them public. We'll have details for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJOR LISA DEWITT, U.S. ARMY DOCTOR: September 11 definitely pushed it to the forefront of my mind that I'm an emergency physician, I have a skill that I can give back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Major Dewitt, known to patients in Iraq as "Dr. Lisa," she's back from the front lines and sharing her stories of lives saved and lost.
O'BRIEN: And on a wing and a prayer, this woodpecker thought to be extinct in America now proves the reports of his demise were exaggerated.
From the CNN center in Atlanta, I'm Miles O'Brien.
PHILLIPS: And I'm Kyra Phillips. This hour of CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.
O'BRIEN: Well, we know they're out there, but we almost never see them. They're soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines who are killed in the war in Iraq. Almost 1,600 at last count, each brought home in a flag-draped coffin and a cloak of secrecy that for more than two years has been almost absolute. No longer.
Today, the Pentagon put out a stream of sobering photographs. And CNN's Barbara Starr joins us with the story -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Miles, let's just set the stage for a minute for what we are about to show our viewers. Indeed, the Pentagon has a very strong policy of not allowing public dissemination of photography of the return of remains from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the return of the caskets carrying the bodies of those who have fallen. They say they don't do this because of privacy concerns for the family and privacy concerns for the soldiers who handle the Honor Guard and the honor duty of returning these remains to the United States.
But today, indeed, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from a public interest group, more than 300 images now made public. Let's take a look at some of them and explain to people what we are seeing.
Now, one of the reasons they tell us they have blacked out the faces and the identifying marks on these soldiers who are handling these caskets as we continue to look at them is that these were not public ceremonies. These were private ceremonies, and the soldiers had no expectation their faces would be shown. There are also, of course, the standard security concerns. But what you do see here is the extraordinary respect and honor that is rendered to the fallen by their comrades as they escort them on to airplanes and their remains, as we continue to look at the photos, are returned to the United States.
As we continue to look, some of the photos that you will see are really quite extraordinary. There are photos that are shown of metal caskets not yet having the flag draped over the casket. There are very explicit photographs of body bags, before they are put in the casket. But in all of these cases, you see the extraordinary ceremony and quiet respect that is given to these fallen as they are returned to the United States -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right, Barbara. Of course it is so odd to have the faces redacted, I think, is the term, blacked out. I'm sorry, explain that to me again. They can't show the faces for operational security, is that it?
STARR: Well, Miles, there are a number of issues at work here. The pictures that we're showing you -- for example, this one right here is clearly Kabul, Afghanistan. There are a couple issues on why these are, as you say, redacted or blacked out.
Operational security is certainly one of them. These are soldiers serving in a combat zone. Normally, their faces, their name tags, their identifying unit marks are not shown.
But also, what we are told by the Pentagon, by the Pentagon spokesman, is that these were private ceremonies. That the soldiers had no expectation. You see that picture here, the metal casket on board the airplane. The ceremonies...
O'BRIEN: All right, Barbara. There are some faces shown there. And what is the difference in that picture?
STARR: Well, what we are told here now, that this is not a return of one from an area that there would still be current concern about. The Pentagon -- let's be very clear, Miles. The Pentagon is pulling all the information strings, if you will, on this issue.
The current photos, the ones that are more recent, clearly have less information attached to them, the blackout, if you will. The ones that are perhaps more historic, where they have been sometime passed, they offer the faces to us.
O'BRIEN: Thank you. Barbara Starr. They are pictures that should take us all aback. Thank you for that report -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: We want to take you straight to the Senate floor right now. Bill Frist talking about the judicial nominees. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: ... with 84 percent of the vote in Texas, yet she can't get the courtesy of a vote to be confirmed by the Senate.
Judicial nominees are being denied. Justice is being denied. The solution is simple: allow the senators to do their job and vote.
In the spirit of civility and with sincere hope for a solution, I make an offer. This offer will ensure up-or-down votes on judicial nominees after fair, open and, some might say, exhaustive debate. It's a compromise that holds to constitutional principles.
First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-and-down vote until two years ago. However, it was not unprecedented, either for Republicans or Democrats, to block judicial nominees in committee. Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction.
It's time for judicial obstruction to end, no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.
The Judiciary Committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.
Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.
When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.
The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.
Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. So far, only up-or-down votes on appeals court nominees have been denied.
I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees. That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America. I hope my offer will make it unnecessary for the minority to further escalate its judicial obstruction.
Fourth, the minority of senators who have denied votes on judicial nominees are concerned that their ability to block bills will be curbed. As majority leader, I guarantee that power will be protected. The filibuster, as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress, will remain unchanged.
The Democratic leader and I have been talking on this issue almost every day. And I'm hopeful he'll accept my offer as a solution. It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it's the right proposal for America.
For 70 percent of the 20th century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, yet no minority ever denied a judicial nominee with majority support in up-or-down vote until the last Congress. These minorities showed self-restraint. They treated judicial nominees with fairness, and they respected the Senate's role in the appointments process as designed by the framers of the Constitution.
Resolving the judicial obstruction debate, for me, isn't about politics. It's about constitutional principles. It's about fairness to nominees. It's about senators doing their duty and doing what's right for our country.
Arbitrarily on just a few judicial nominees, as some have proposed, will fail to restore the Senate's 214-year practice of up- or-down votes for all judicial nominees that come to the floor. Senators have a duty to vote up or down on judicial nominees, confirm them or deny them, but give them all the courtesy of a vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: Mr. President...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democratic leader.
REID: First of all, I want...
O'BRIEN: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, offering up a compromise, as we see Harry Reid address the Senate. Let's listen to Senator Reid for just a moment.
REID: ... solution to this very difficult issue that now faces us in the United States Senate. But I do say to my distinguished friend, no matter how many times you say it, if something's wrong it doesn't become true.
Over the course of this country's history, there have been many, many filibusters of judges from the very beginning of our republic. Until 1917, there was no way you could stop a filibuster. And so a number of judges fell by the wayside as a result of that.
As I've said here previously, in 1917, the Senate changed its rules. And then two-thirds of the senators elected could stop a filibuster. And then in 1964, the height of the civil rights battle, it was changed to 60 on most everything. Only one thing is still different, and that's as it relate to rules where it takes 67.
Without getting into the numbers game, Mr. President, there have been a lot of filibusters of judges where a majority of the senators like that person -- you can go look at Abe Fortes as a good example of that.
Now, Mr. President, we don't need to reinvent history here. It's simply the way it is. And I'm not going to get into the individual judges. We can do that. We can go over them one by one. But they're -- I don't think that's what the country needs at this stage.
We have heard on this floor rehashed 69 judges of the -- President Clinton never made it to the floor, and we continually hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say, "We need a vote on these senators." They had a vote in keeping with the rules of the United States Senate.
So, Mr. President, I would -- I would also say that I agree with my friend, the distinguished senator from Tennessee who I have so much respect and admiration for. He said that the circuit court and Supreme Court are more important than the lower courts. I believe that, in fact, is the case. That being so, we need to focus more attention on them rather than less.
If my friend says that there will be no changing of the rules -- now remember, you have to break the rules to change them in this instance. Because if you follow the rules, you can't do it with a simple majority.
But I say to my friend, if you can break the rules to change the rules on a judge, then what about the other nominations of the president? We have a thing here in the Senate now that is in the newspaper every day regarding a man by the name of Mr. Bolton. I don't know him. I would recognize him because he has that very uncharacteristic mustache, which I kind of like. But my point is, that may be something that people will wish to talk a long time on.
I don't know that to be the case. The hearings have not been completed. But I do know that the administration really likes this man. The secretary of state likes him. She's said so.
Does that mean that the rules will be changed because this is one of the president's fair-haired persons that he wants to become his ambassador to the United Nations? You can't go down that slippery slope.
Mr. President, this proposal of Senator Frist is not exactly new. We had a proposal like this last Congress by my friend the distinguished senator from Georgia, Zell Miller. And it was very similar to this proposal.
This is, I would say -- and I don't mean to demean the proposal, because I'm going to take a close look at it and see if there's any way we can work with it. But I would say, for lack of a better description it's a big wet kiss to the far right, Mr. President. It just is not appropriate.
The rules are the rules. This is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
First, this is slow motion nuclear option. After 100 hours, the rights of the minority are extinguished. This has never been about the length of the debate. This is about constitutional checks and balances.
This is -- number two, this is probably worse than the nuclear option because it also speeds up the committee's consideration. I'm happy to look at that.
As the distinguished majority leader knows, I talked to him earlier about trying to do something in the committee system that would make it better. So I'm happy to take a look at that from his brief -- and I know it's brief -- we'll have to talk in more detail. I really don't think this is appropriate.
Third, this deals with only half the advise and consent that we have to deal with this pesky little document called the Constitution. You know, this is something that you take, Mr. President, as a whole. It's very, very short, but we have to -- we have to stick with this. And advise and consent means just that.
One of the things that we have failed to recognize here -- excuse me, I have very bad hay fever. One of the thing we have to recognize, Mr. President, is that we have the future ahead of us. Not what went on in the past.
I'm not here to -- to criticize what went on in the Clinton years. I'm not here to condone or criticize what went on in the last four years of the Clinton administration -- the first four years.
I'm here to say, let's look forward. Let's look forward. And I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, any proposal that I have made said, let's look forward, let' look forward, let's take this nuclear option off the table and let's work on these judges that we have ahead of us.
And I can never say there will never be another filibuster because I can't say that. But I don't think this body's in the mood for a number of filibusters. I just don't think they feel like it.
And I think we should go for it. And I've told my friends, I've told my distinguished friend, the senator from Kentucky, I've told my distinguished friend -- and I say "friend" in the true sense of the word -- from Tennessee, "If we somehow fail in the good faith and they think we filibuster too much, talk too much, you always have next Congress."
I'm saying let's tie to look forward. Let's not look back.
I really want to -- to leave here today or tomorrow, whenever we leave, with a good feeling about it. I -- while I -- you know, people get really locked in and "this isn't good enough." I'm not going to berate him for this offer he's made.
It's an offer. I appreciate that. It's the first one that we've had.
I've had one, he's had one. And I believe legislation is the art of compromise.
While this isn't truly legislation, it's in the keeping with what we do around here. We try to build up consensus. We try to work toward an end that is satisfactory. And I hope that we can do that.
I hope calmer heads will prevail. And I say that on my side, as well as the other side of the aisle.
This is a -- something that, if we did it right, what we would do is we would take his suggestion to the rules committee, have them come back with it. And we would vote on it here. That's how we change rules.
I had the good fortune -- and I say that without hesitation or reservation -- to serve for many years on the Ethics Committee. I was chairman, I was vice chair. We brought thing here and we -- one time, Senator Bob Smith from New Hampshire and I worked a full year. We worked so hard trying to change these very difficult rules we have in the Ethics Committee, which is part of the Senate standing rules.
O'BRIEN: All right. In the interest of bipartisanship, we've heard from the leaders of both parties addressing the Senate well today on the subject of filibusters.
At issue, of course, 10 judicial nominees of the Bush administration. Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, offering up 100 hours of debate on each and every one of those appellate nominees, as well as any Supreme Court nominees, as a compromise move to end the impasse over these filibusters.
Senator Reid, as you just heard, not very happy with that, calling it a slow-motion nuclear option. "Nuclear option" is the term he uses for changing the Senate rules.
So while he says we need to come to some sort of consensus, I didn't see a lot of consensus there.
Candy Crowley, did you?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I saw an awful -- you know, one of the things about the Senate is -- and Senator Reid was right on when he said, "It's all about trying to build that consensus." And they've had to do that in most Senate years when the margin between Republicans and Democrats was much smaller than it is now.
No, I didn't see -- this offer clearly isn't going to be taken up as is. I think Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said, look, we're happy to look at it, but no. So I don't think we have a compromise here yet.
O'BRIEN: No, no. And Senator Reid's offer is to allow some appointments to go through in exchange for the administration dropping a few. Specifically, Henry Saad is one of them, a judge out of Michigan. In other words, specific judges are being earmarked. I guess what that shows is that a little bit of horse trading is under way. Does that give you a sense there might be a compromise in work?
CROWLEY: I don't think anytime soon, and here's why. I think what you're seeing in these two speeches on the Senate floor is an attempt to get on the right side of this issue.
I think if you look at the polls, it shows most Americans say, don't change those filibuster rules. I'm hard-pressed to believe that most Americans actually know the ins and outs of the filibuster rule. But here's what they do know, that Democrats have shaped this as an issue of the Republican power grab.
The Republicans are trying to grab on to power, they're trying to solidify and take away minority rights. And that's what's come across.
So what the Republicans now need to try to do is say, now, wait, we're being reasonable, we'll let you talk about this for 100 hours. What could be wrong with that?
So I think you're seeing much more of the public struggle for the hearts and minds of voters than you are seeing, you know, the actual negotiations. The negotiations are somewhat less gentlemanly behind the scenes, I'm sure.
O'BRIEN: Oh, you think so? You think so?
CROWLEY: Pretty sure.
O'BRIEN: OK. All right.
Let's talk about the president's news conference tonight. I suspect this will be pretty close, if not the first question among the first. What's the president have to say about this, and what else is he facing tonight?
CROWLEY: I think what the president says about the filibuster, that's for the Senate to decide. I think...
O'BRIEN: Sidestep that one, a little Texas sidestep on that one? Yes.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. You know, legislative branch, executive branch...
O'BRIEN: Probably a good idea.
CROWLEY: ... and so I think he -- I think he says, look, I want my judges.
O'BRIEN: But we should be -- you know, to let our viewers know, the vice president has weighed in on this. So, in a sense, the administration has down on the side of Senate Republicans. CROWLEY: Sure. And -- but to get into the nitty-gritty, I'm sure he'll say, whatever gets me my judges. I think -- look, there are two story lines that are going on in Washington right now that are playing for the headlines.
One is the Democrats saying the Republicans are all about grabbing power, be it Tom DeLay, be it the filibuster, that they're for changing the rules so that they can really solidify their power. The Republican story line is the Democrats are obstructionists, they're standing in the way of judges that the president has the right to nominate, they're standing in the way of Social Security legislation, they're stand in the way of this.
So I think what you hear tonight in more general terms from the president is the Democrats have to stop being obstructionists on some of these things. And I certainly believes that he believes what the Republicans are saying, which is that they are on the judges.
So he has a dog in this fight. I'm just -- don't think he'll get into the nitty-gritty of, you now, what is a good compromise and what isn't. His good compromise is, pass my judges.
O'BRIEN: All right. And, quickly, if you had one question to ask the president tonight, what would be it?
CROWLEY: Wow. You know, I think it would be an Iraq question, because I think in this -- in these first months of this year, there has been so much on Social Security, so much on the budget, so much on gas prices, that I think returning the focus to Iraq -- and you've just had a top military person saying, look, the insurgency is still as strong as it's ever been.
O'BRIEN: I'm with you on that. I'd Iraq.
All right. Candy Crowley, thanks. Always appreciate it.
We want to give you the chance to play reporter, just like I put Candy on the spot. You're in the spot now.
E-mail us the questions you would like to hear the president answer at tonight's news conference. Would you like to hear more about Iraq or something else? Send those questions, keep them short and to the point, please. LIVEFROM@CNN.com.
A break now. Back with more in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: In our week-long retirement series called "Never Too Late," many young adults say they see the wisdom and need to save because of their parents' financial struggles. But are they following through?
Personal finance editor Gerri Willis reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR (voice-over): Don't hate this kid even though he's got more money saved for retirement than you do.
CHRIS LAHIJI, 21-YEAR-OLD FINANCIAL ANALYST: What I try to do is I try to save at least $1,000 to $3,000 a year from my income, and I put it in either mutual funds, bond, stocks, or, right now, I've just established a Roth IRA.
WILLIS: Financial analyst Chris Lahiji is just 21 years old.
LAHIJI: I know that when I turn 50 or 60 years old, I want to have a pretty nice nest egg, so when my kids are all grown up, they won't ask me for any money and me and my wife can be enjoying our little villa right by -- right by the beach.
WILLIS: If Chris is making you feel a little guilty, well, relax. Not every 21-year-old is investing for retirement. Even if they should be.
A recently released study by MetLife found that nearly half of young workers between the ages of 21 and 30 haven't even begun to plan or save for retirement. Some students at New York University know they have a long way to go.
HIRO TAKEI, NYU STUDENT: I see saving for retirement as something about 10,000 and a half steps away.
WILLIS (on camera): What do you mean? It's like so far off in the future you can't even think about it?
TAKEI: Yes. Like, my parents are in their 60s, and I personally feel like they've just begun to, like, realize that Social Security has a problem. And here I am at 21, and I'm looking at my parents, and I feel it's still their problem.
WILLIS (voice-over): Although he might not be saving yet, other students we talked to say they are. Because they worry that the safety net their parents enjoyed might not be there when they need it, or it might not be enough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think that Social Security itself has the high return that I'm basically looking for. I think if I go off and I do it on my own, you know, I could invest it better than, you know, the government itself.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If it continues in the direction that it's going right now, it quite possibly could be extinct. And in that situation, I think we're going to be in trouble.
WILLIS: Our financial whiz kid said the most important thing these young people can do is make sure they don't spend all the money they make so they'll have it later on.
LAHIJI: Spending is the easy part. Me and you could go on 5th Avenue and probably spend $150,000. I'll buy some Gucci underwear for $300. That's no problem. But we can't do that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm still trying to find a job to retire from before I start worrying about retirement.
WILLIS: But the message may be sinking in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know, maybe I should start rethinking this whole thing and care more about it?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: And tomorrow Gerri talks about dream jobs for life, how to pursue what you really love doing, like Soledad and Bill, and how it can pay off.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
