Return to Transcripts main page

Out in the Open

America's Anger at Capitol Hill Grows; O.J. Simpson Hearing Continues

Aired November 09, 2007 - 20:00   ET

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

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Lou.
You know, what we have been doing, we have been going through some of these numbers. And it's amazing to look at what the American people are saying about their government. It looks like they have never been angrier before.

So, we decided to do a little comparison, because it reminded us of what we were just talking about before, Howard Beale, when he screams out the window, "Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

In fact, stick around. I want you to take a look at this. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "NETWORK")

PETER FINCH, ACTOR: I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: It seems befitting, doesn't it?

And you know what it is? It's almost like cathartic. You almost get a feeling when you watch him, like, you know, not a bad idea. Maybe we can release some demons.

In fact, I'm going to do it.

DOBBS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: I'm going to do it. Hold on.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: I swear. I'm going to do it, Lou. I'm going to go out there and just see...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I'm going to do it. I'm going to see what it feels like to go out there and do the Howard Beale thing.

LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": Oh, my.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: ... take this anymore!

There you go. OK. I got it out. You know, it's that independent-thinking-American thing that we have been talking about. After a while, all you can do is just scream out the window, man.

What do you think? You want to join me?

DOBBS: The idea of screaming is -- it may be cathartic. I'm just hoping that all of those independents in this country right now are getting ready to really act.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Sometimes, you have got to scream before you act.

DOBBS: There you go.

SANCHEZ: So, we're going to do this. We're going to break down the numbers for you.

Thanks a lot, Lou.

Here it is: 81 percent of Americans are angry about how things are going in this country right now. We have got it up on the wall. In fact, let's take a look at it. We're going to break the whole thing down for you as we go, because this is a very important study. Eighty-one percent are now saying they're angry about things and how they're going in the country right now.

And let's look at this from the standpoint of how it's changed, by the way. It was 50 percent in January of 2004, election year. Let's go back 2000. It was only 40 percent of Americans who said the same thing. We're mad about the way things in the country are right now.

So, they're much madder, much more angry now than they were before. Let's go back, because I want to show you who exactly they're mad at.

Let's start of course with the president of the United States. The president of the United States in this CNN public opinion research poll is now at 34 percent approval rate. Now, folks, that's almost Nixonian range, because his disapproval is at 65 percent as well. But it's not just the president. It's Congress, as Lou Dobbs would tell you.

Let's go back, 75 percent when it comes to Congress, the Democratic Congress, by the way. Disapprovals are 75 percent. Approvals are 22 percent. And now you have the Republicans saying, my goodness, you know what, they're doing worse than we were doing. Yes, but these guys got kicked out. But they're right. When they got kicked out, they were at 63 percent. And the approval rate for them was 28 percent.

Before we go to our guests, because this is a very important part of this conversation tonight, I want you to go somewhere. This is CNN.com/Rick. And I want you to finish this sentence. You ready? Here's the sentence, "My problem with Congress is..." and then fill it. Let us know. We're going to air what you say, America, as you speak truth to power. And we're going to have a conversation about what's going on in this country when we get all the responses toward the end the newscast.

First, I want to check in with two of the members of our best political team on television, our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley, and our chief national correspondent, John King.

Candy, start us off.

What's the take in this report?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, my take is that, when things are going very badly in the country, as most people believe, they do tend to take it out on Congress, because it's not an individual person. It's a building, if you will, a group, if you will, that they can dislike.

It's interesting to me that, also within those numbers, about 39 percent of people say, even their own congressman doesn't deserve reelection. That's at an all-time high since 1991. So, look, if you're a Republican, you should be more worried than if you're a Democrat. But, if you're an incumbent, you ought to be looking behind you.

SANCHEZ: Hey, John, as we look at the numbers, by the way, we break this thing down, and it says I think that the Democrats have the Republicans by something like 12 percent margin in terms of how Americans feel right now.

Neither one of them are doing real well, but there seems to be a little more venom reserved for the GOP. Is there an explanation for that?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You have a Republican president. That's the explanation for that. We're in a Republican administration at a time when the war is incredibly unpopular, where more than three-quarters of the American people think the country is on the wrong track, and, first and foremost, they blame the president, and he's a Republican.

But, Rick, when you show that congressional number, Candy's dead right. The Democrats are extremely lucky next year is a presidential year. If it were a midterm election, like 2006, they're very likely, if these numbers held up, to be accountable for it.

But, because it's a presidential year, turnout tends to be higher, and it tends to be about the man in the Oval Office and who should replace him. And in these circumstances, with the numbers so bad, that benefits at this moment in time the Democrats. Democrats in Congress are lucky.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

But you know what's interesting to me, though? The Democrats are in a tough position. They're getting it from both sides. They're getting from the ardent Republicans, because they hate them, right? And they're also getting it from their own party, because they're not being hard enough on the Republicans. So, it's really a double whammy, is it?

Either one of you.

Candy?

KING: Ladies first.

CROWLEY: Well, you know, one of the things, I did a story about this not that long ago. And when you ask people what don't you like about Congress, they say a couple of things.

First, they think Congress is out of touch. They think of them as people in limousines. Lobbyists give them whatever they want. They have free health care. They also think that Congress is not addressing their issues.

So, you know, there is certainly a feeling out of there that Congress has nothing to do with the life that most Americans live outside that proverbial beltway.

SANCHEZ: Pick it up for us, John. We got 30 seconds.

KING: Well, Rick, Democrats are mad because their party was elected to Congress to end the war, and they haven't done that. Plus, they haven't done anything big on issues like health care.

You have the economic anxiety because of the subprime mortgage crisis. So, the country is in a foul mood and they're holding those in power accountable, the Republican president most of all, but Democrats better be nervous.

SANCHEZ: Candy Crowley, John King, my thanks to both of you.

Again, we want you to be in on this conversation with us. Just go to CNN.com/Rick or just send an e-mail to outintheopen@CNN.com. And finish this sentence for us. You ready? "My problem with Congress is..." -- and you can scream, if you would like, as we did at the beginning of the newscast with Lou Dobbs. We will discuss your answers a little bit later, when we get a panel together.

Tonight's other big story: O.J. Simpson. The big question, did he know where he would be or where the guns were at the time that he went into this hotel room? Now, remember, this is an armed robbery case, armed. So, the gun is important here.

If Simpson knew that there was a gun there, it certainly is going to hurt his case. You be the jury in this case. I want you to listen now to what happened in the courtroom when one of his cohorts took the stand. You tell me if you believe him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never heard while you were in the room O.J. Simpson mention anything about guns, correct?

THOMAS RICCIO, RECORDED AUDIO OF SIMPSON'S ALLEGED CRIME: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never heard him order anybody to take a gun out, correct?

RICCIO: Never at any time in the whole six weeks before or at any point, did he ever mention a gun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, as you sit here today, you are totally convinced that he never said to anybody, take out a gun, correct?

RICCIO: In the room?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the room.

RICCIO: No, I didn't hear him say that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: In the room.

But there's more conversation about this.

Ted Rowlands looking around, seeing what's going on behind him. I guess this thing never ends, right?

Pick this up for us, Ted.

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Well, what's going on right now is O.J.'s leaving the courthouse after another long day of testimony today, a pretty good day for Simpson, in that his attorneys were able to again spend a lot of time getting testimony on the record. Remember, this is a prelim. It's going to get bumped up to the next level. But it's very important, because what these witnesses say can be brought up at an eventual trial, if there is one.

And, again, we're not hearing about any guns, or any knowledge of the guns, in terms of from O.J. Simpson. Also today we did hear -- see that surveillance video played and tape. A surveillance expert took the stand for a considerable amount of time and detailed the images that were released today of Simpson and his co-conspirators going into the Palace Station Hotel before and after the incident. You see them going in with nothing, and you see them leaving with boxes of items, those items, of course, at the center of all of this.

Who owned the items? Simpson contends they were his. And the co-conspirators at this point, all the witnesses basically say O.J. truly believed those items were his. It will be up to the jury to decide who they belong to, whether it was O.J., Fromong, or, more importantly, if they belong to the Goldmans. And that will come up as this continues.

SANCHEZ: Hey, let me stick with you for just a moment, Ted, and ask you a question about something I'm a little curious about.

Wasn't there some testimony today about O.J. Simpson maybe talking to one of his cohorts about whether he wanted them not to tell anybody that he knew there was a gun there, or something to that effect?

ROWLANDS: Basically what happened was is, immediately after the incident took place, O.J. got on the phone and called Tom Riccio. This is the guy that helped set it all up.

SANCHEZ: Right.

ROWLANDS: And said, there were no guns, there were no guns, there were no guns.

And Riccio said, well, actually, O.J., there were, and I just told the police that. And Riccio testified that O.J. was depressed after that, and got a little upset, and said, oh. And then Riccio said he handed the phone to the police and O.J. talked to the cops at that point and said he's going to cooperate with whatever they need.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

ROWLANDS: Other testimony today came out late in the day. The perception from another witness was that O.J. was saying there were no guns, there were no guns, like, there were no guns.

We all understand that.

SANCHEZ: Yes, yes, like Clinton with his secretary.

ROWLANDS: But it was unclear whether or not -- yes, and it will be very interesting to see, in front of a jury, if this does play out and go to that point, how that all comes out, because clearly there's two different schools of thought. Was he saying, there were no guns, there were no guns, or was he saying, there were no guns, you guys understand?

SANCHEZ: Exactly, yes, like in collusion.

Ted Rowlands, thank so much. Let us know if anything happens back there. And we will get right back to it.

Court TV anchor Jami Floyd is joining us now.

That's interesting. I saw you nodding your head over there a little bit, that O.J. may have been involved in this thing that you and I were talking about last night...

JAMI FLOYD, COURT TV ANCHOR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... he's so good at. Hey, there were no guns there, right, Jami?

(CROSSTALK)

FLOYD: ... don't we?

SANCHEZ: Right. Right.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Look, I don't know how you read that. Maybe he really didn't think there were guns there. Nine people crammed into a tiny little hotel room, it's possible that he didn't expect a couple of these guys, where you hardly know some of them, to pull out guns.

At the same time, he could be saying, look, look, here, I'm saying there are no guns. But, if a jury is asked to consider that question, reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, you go for O.J.

SANCHEZ: But the fact of the matter is, there was a gun there.

FLOYD: It doesn't matter as to O.J. if he didn't know the gun was there as to a couple of counts.

SANCHEZ: Right.

FLOYD: Armed robbery, you have got to have a gun or know that someone who is with you has the gun.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Let me stop you for a minute. You mean to tell me, if you and I decide that we're going to go rob a bank, right, and you're...

FLOYD: The classic law school example.

SANCHEZ: You have the gun, I don't have the gun...

FLOYD: Right.

SANCHEZ: You mean to say I could walk, if I say, I didn't know she had a gun?

FLOYD: But it depends on what goes down. If a murder happens, then there's something called felony murder, and I'm caught up whether I knew or not.

SANCHEZ: Just a robbery.

FLOYD: Just a robbery, no. You have got to have a certain level of intent.

The burglary is also a problem. You don't enter -- if he's let in by Riccio with a key, there's no breaking for breaking and entering. So, some of these...

SANCHEZ: I see.

FLOYD: ... counts have a problem, but not all of them. Some of them may fall away over time, but not all of them. O.J.'s got problems, but so do the prosecutors.

SANCHEZ: There's another problem in this case, and it has to do with ownership.

FLOYD: That's right.

SANCHEZ: In other words, that stuff that was in that hotel room, did it belong to O.J. Simpson or not?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Hold on. Listen to this, and then I want you to hear what Riccio said on the stand today, and we will define this a little bit more after we little.

Go ahead and take that, if you would, Ellie (ph).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICCIO: O.J. doesn't pay his bills. There's a guy he knew that O.J. owed money to. And he took them from his house when he lived in Rockingham, California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So this guy felt, look, O.J. owes me money.

FLOYD: Right.

SANCHEZ: So, I'm going to take some of this stuff as my collateral for the money that he owes me.

It's kind of like these dirty deals going on between a bunch of real questionable characters, right?

FLOYD: It's very dirty, underground stuff, this memorabilia thing. We're all learning, right?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Who does it belong to? Is it O.J.'s? Is it theirs? Who stole from who?

FLOYD: But you know what? As we said last night, if O.J. uses force to take it back, it doesn't matter if it's his. He may have had a good-faith belief that it was his.

SANCHEZ: OK.

FLOYD: He may have felt wronged, but you can't use force to take it back, even if it is yours. So, the real question is, was force used and did he intend to steal it, or was he just negotiating?

SANCHEZ: And right now, all that stuff is a little...

FLOYD: Up in the air.

SANCHEZ: Up in the air, yes.

FLOYD: Look, I say the judge is going to hold it over for trial. Maybe one or two of these counts gets thrown out, but not many.

And then the question is, does it get to verdict? No, I say here on national TV, no verdict as to O.J.

SANCHEZ: No, says Jami Floyd on national television.

FLOYD: That's my prediction.

SANCHEZ: It looks like a safe count.

Thanks so much for being with us.

FLOYD: All right. Good to see you

SANCHEZ: Coming up, should police have the right to map out a Muslim community in Los Angeles? Well, Muslim activists are saying, hey, that's profiling, and it's wrong. Is it really, though, or just good proactive police work? We are going to debate that.

Then, from coast to coast, the message being now sent to illegal immigrants is, we don't want you. Tonight, a respected columnist has a warning about a Hispanic backlash in this country. What is it? We will let him on.

Also, look who the police stopped last night. This is the one I was kidding about a little while ago in the pre. He's a high school principal at a Catholic high school. Fine, right? Well, he happens to be wearing a leather skirt and high heels. Uh-oh. Details straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back.

Tonight, Muslims in Los Angeles are furious. It's about a new police plan to try and map their neighborhoods. There are about 500,000 Muslims living in the greater Los Angeles area. L.A. police say the idea is to identify extremist groups or possible terrorist cells. But opponents say this is profiling. Some even compare it to how the Nazis identified Jews during the Holocaust.

Joining me now is Hussam Ayloush. He leads the L.A. chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

I got to tell you, comparing this program to the Nazi Holocaust, that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

HUSSAM AYLOUSH, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: Maybe it is.

And then let me make sure we explain clearly that the American Muslim community stands in full partnership, in full support of all efforts that will help law enforcement secure America and all Americans. There is no debate about this issue.

The issue is not about them. The issue is about the false premise on which this project is based on. And that is the false premise that American Muslims are somehow more prone to committing acts of violence...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, no, here's what they say. Here's what they say, to be fair, to help Muslims avoid the -- quote -- "influence of those who would radicalize them." That's the reason they say they are mapping out your community to know who's there.

Do you buy that?

AYLOUSH: I don't buy that, because this is not the job of law enforcement, to define who is a moderate and who is not a moderate, which school of thought you follow and which not. This infringes on free speech and free practice of religion.

What happens is, LAPD is saying now, basically, that they would be monitoring and surveilling certain communities, in this case, the Muslim community, not based on specific suspicious criminal activity, but rather on the religious affiliation and political views.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But wait a minute. But we're talking about mapping. We're not talking about any -- here's where I have a problem with this. They want to map the community from a demographic standpoint, find out who's there, where they live. I mean, that's all. They're not individually going after any one person. And they're not using SWAT teams to go in there. They're standing back.

So, it doesn't seem that intrusive.

AYLOUSH: Have you read the testimony at the hearing, at the congressional hearing?

SANCHEZ: You tell me, what did you see that frightens you?

AYLOUSH: Well, in the testimony at the congressional hearing, it was made very clear it's beyond counting number of mosques and how many Muslims live there. It is also about which Web sites they visit and which countries of origin they come from, are these unstable countries that make them more prone to committing violence, which schools of thought they believe in, whether it's Salafi or other schools of thought.

(CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: But, I guess to a certain extent, though, do you sometimes think you're just a little overly sensitive when it comes to this? Because, after all, look, let's just be -- let's be honest about this.

In the past six years, there have been cells, radicalized cells, of Muslims in the United States from coast to coast. And the fear is that there could be something like that somewhere else. Are you sensitive to the need to make sure that those guys are found if they're out there?

AYLOUSH: Well, if they're out there, we know from experience. Just a couple of months ago when there was an individual in the city of Irvine in the greater Los Angeles area who was engaged in speech about violence and talking about committing violence, the Muslim community did not hesitate twice. They immediately reported this individual to the local law enforcement and to the FBI.

There is no doubt about the loyalty of American Muslims. They stand with all fellow Americans when it comes to facing terrorism. What we do not accept is to be treated as second-class citizens just because we're Muslims.

SANCHEZ: We get it. We get it.

Listen, I understand it. And I'm sure you're a fine citizen and a good American. And I think in the end it's all about finding a way to protect ourselves, while also respecting you and your rights. And that's, I guess, what we're all in this for.

Hasum -- or Hussam, I should say -- pardon me -- thanks so much for being with us. And we will keep tabs on this for you.

AYLOUSH: Thank you for having me.

SANCHEZ: Burning mad in Pakistan. We have got unbelievable pictures of people risking their lives to defy police and stand up to a general.

And then don't forget to finish this sentence for us. "My problem with Congress is..." -- because we're going to use that. We have got a great panel right here coming up. Go to CNN.com/Rick. Or you could also just send us an e-mail, if you want to finish it that way, to outintheopen@CNN.com. We will discuss your answers in just a little bit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Some of the best pictures of the day in "Rick's Pics."

Imagine what's going on in Pakistan. Imagine a president of a country and military leader putting a past leader of his country under arrest. That's what happened, President Musharraf declaring a state of emergency. We know that. But now the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, was under house arrest most of the day. You see her there. You see those barricades? See right there, where those barricades are? All right. You see those? That's because she had planned to lead an anti-Musharraf rally. So, the government came in, the government forces, the military, and they circled her home with barricades and barbed wire and armored vehicles, saying, you can't leave. You're essentially under house arrest. Later, the house arrest order was finally withdrawn.

Now, Musharraf's forces cracked down on protesters in Rawalpindi. Police fired tear gas into the crowds throughout the day.

A warning now from a man who knows the Hispanic community -- he says anti-immigrant hysteria is creating a backlash. This could be bad.

And, if you're angry with Congress, let us know why. You go to CNN.com/Rick, or send us an e-mail to outintheopen@CNN.com and finish this sentence. "My problem with Congress is..." -- there you go.

We will be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. What a segment we have coming your way.

This is a controversial editorial written in the "Miami Herald" by a respected columnist. He writes about Hispanics being vilified. The cowards who are doing and it the backlash to come.

(voice-over): They're being chased. Hunted down. And rounded up. Told to go away. They are America's new underclass. An expert and syndicated columnist joins us. He says the anti-immigrant hysteria will lead to an American intifada. A what? We'll debate.

He washed dishes for 11 years and saved almost $60,000. The government took it all away. But why? Is it right? We're fighting for the little guy. And joining Pedro in his odyssey to somehow get it back.

"Rick's Picks." Here we go. There he went. Oh my goodness. We'll tell you what happened.

And what we do. Speak truth to power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a never neverland.

GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: Got to go for a hike.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) HOUSE SPEAKER: It's a happy day for our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SANCHEZ: Want to help? Go to cnn.com/rick and finish the sentence. My problem with Congress is -- Have at it. You're OUT IN THE OPEN.

(on camera): Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. We are OUT IN THE OPEN. We speak truth to power. Tonight, some startling words from one of our country's leading writers on Latin American.

Andres Oppenheimer predicts that the highly volatile and incendiary immigration hysteria that is sweeping the country will help spark a quote, "Hispanic intifada," where angry, disadvantaged Hispanic youth stage a rebellion, the American equivalent of the bloody Palestinian uprisings for example. Here's a cut from his "Miami Herald" editorial that sparked controversy.

Here we go. "We are creating an under class of people who won't leave this country and realistically can't be deported. They and their children are living with no prospect of earning a legal status, no matter how hard they work for it. Many of them will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and some of them eventually turn violent."

Andres Oppenheimer is good enough to join us now. Also, we should say, the author of called "The Saving of Americas," or "Saving the Americas: the Dangerous Decline of Latin America and What the U.S. Must Do."

Another good conversation about what's happening down there. I'll tell you, Andres, you are taking on a sacred cow, defending poor immigrants, Mexicans, illegal immigrants. This is not a popular position. You are not going to win beauty prizes or any other prizes doing this, you know.

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER, "MIAMI HERALD": Well, Rick, but the truth is that we are creating this underclass. We are giving these people no alternative. We are giving these people no path to legalization. And what I am especially worried about, Rick, are the children, 1.8 million children who are growing up without papers, without legal papers, and we're going to throw them into the labor market with absolutely no possibility to get a job. To get a legal job.

So what are we going to do with them? They're roaming the streets ...

SANCHEZ: Those are children and they didn't even make the decision to come here quote "illegally." They're little kids.

OPPENHEIMER: That's a good point, many of them were brought here when they were two years old or three years old. We're going to throw them into a labor market where they have absolutely no way of getting a formal or legal job. So they're going to grow up in the streets. And they may join the gangs.

SANCHEZ: Some of them, what's funny, a lot of them are just like you and me. They don't speak a lick of Spanish. They play football. They eat pizza. And apple pie. I mean, they're as much a gringo as any other gringo, right?

OPPENHEIMER: So I understand, Rick, that people who say that people who enter legally this country should be sent back. I may not agree with them fully. But what I really can't understand is how can we be so mean against kids who came here, who were brought to this country when they were one, two years old.

SANCHEZ: Let me stop you there for a minute. I want to bring in Dan Stein, a good friend of this show, who's talked about these things many, many times. He believes Hispanic intifada is no credible threat.

But go ahead address, if you would, the point Andres makes about 1.8 million kids who through no fault of their own ended up in this country and are just little Americans. Many of them don't even speak Spanish very well. Go ahead, Dan.

DAN STEIN, PRES., FAIR: Not so fast, Rick. He did make what I think is viewed as a threat. That there is going to be rampant civil violence in this country of a criminal nature if this country proceeded forward to try to enforce immigration laws.

He also says, he wants to have it both ways, that he says we the U.S. can't enforce immigration laws and make them all leave. So he's trying to sort of have it both ways.

SANCHEZ: Andres, respond to that.

STEIN: The other point ...

SANCHEZ: Hold on, Dan. I'm going to let you get that other point in. I want him to respond to that. And then we'll come right back to you. Cross my heart.

OPPENHEIMER: It's absolutely untrue that I made a threat. Read this column. I don't know whether you have read it.

STEIN: I did.

OPPENHEIMER: But I make absolutely no threat. Nor do I condone any violence, much less do I support it. What I'm saying that is if we don't do something to give upward mobility, a channel for these young people to join the economy and to get jobs and to become like citizens, like you and me, we're going to throw them into the streets. They're going to go into gangs and they're going to turn violent.

SANCHEZ: Let's give Dan a chance. I told him he had another point to make. Go ahead.

STEIN: First of all, this is not about Hispanics. This is about people who have broken our immigration laws. They come from all over the world, not just from Mexico or Cuba or someplace in Latin America. And secondly, if you really want to help upward mobility, particularly for Hispanic Americans here legally, we need to enforce immigration laws to tighten labor supply and give employers an opportunity to improve wages and working conditions for all Americans. SANCHEZ: Andres, would you respond to what he said about this not being about Hispanics.

OPPENHEIMER: First of all, most of the immigrants who come here without documents are from Mexico, are from Central America, are from Latin America. Let's not try to play games with that.

Number two, if, again, the only way to stop this flow of undocumented immigrants to the U.S. is to somehow reduce the income gap between the U.S. and Latin America no, matter how high a fence we build on the border, people will continue coming. If people in the U.S. make five, 10 times more than in Latin America. So the way to stop ...

SANCHEZ: Dan, finish this up. You get the last word.

STEIN: Everyone watching this program will be dead and buried before we equalize wages with Latin America. What we need is to have comprehensive -- serious immigration reform, interior enforcement ...

OPPENHEIMER: It's a matter of reducing it ...

SANCHEZ: I agree. I think all three of us agree we need some kind of comprehensive immigration reform. I also would think that NAFTA has not helped the people in Latin America and have caused many of them to end up crossing the border as a result because of the way it's been handled. My thanks to both of you, we're out of time. Andres Oppenheimer, Dan Stein, thank you both, gentlemen.

Coming up, more of "Rick's Picks." Watch out. He's losing control. Oh my goodness. How did this thing turn out?

And also, what do you think of Congress? We were just talking about comprehensive immigration reform. It's not going to happen. It's not even going to be close to happening anytime soon. Go to cnn.com/rick or send an e-mail to outintheopen@cnn.com. We will check them out, bring them to a panel and bring this thing all OUT IN THE OPEN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: This is amazing what we're about to show you. This is a dash cam video. You see this? It's from Coweta County, Georgia. Police just released this video of a police chase. Shows a cruise on a highway on the right lane. Across the barrier is an SUV loses it. Bang, right there. The SUV rolls onto the barrier and almost over it. Two teenagers were in the SUV, they were charged with car jacking.

Now let's take you to Mexico City and take a look at this. It's a demonstration by a bunch of naked farmers. Here's what's going on. These farmers were upset because they've had this problem with the governor there who they say stole his land. And for 15 years they've been protesting but no one's ever paid attention. So they said, I know, we'll take our clothes off. Then we'll end up on CNN. People will see us all over the world. They're right. It worked.

"Biz Break" now. On Wall Street today, the Dow lost 223 points, the NASDAQ os down 68, and the S&P dropped 21 points today.

On Capitol Hill, just hours ago, House Democrats pushed through an $80 billion tax bill to block a dreaded tax on middle income taxpayers. Up to 24 million people could day $2,000 to $3,000 more in taxes if Congress does not raise the threshold for the so-called alternative minimum tax, the AMT as it's called. The bill goes to the Senate. Republicans are saying, no, we're going to protest it because it includes tax increases that affect mainly investment fund managers. And they don't want that.

Merck, maker of the painkiller Vioxx has agreed to pay $4.85 million to settle 27,000 lawsuits over the drug. It's the biggest settlement ever in the civil litigation. Vioxx was pulled from the market three years ago, remember, because some people who took it had heart attacks or strokes after taking this medication.

What we do here is we try and stick up for the little guy. Well, there are new developments tonight in the odyssey of Pedro the dishwasher. He is getting closer to going home for good. Is he any closer to getting his $60,000 back from the government? They took because they said he was a drug dealer. He wasn't a drug dealer by the way.

Also tell us why you're angry with Congress. Go to cnn.com/rick or send an e-mail to outintheopen@cnn.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Update now on a story that we have been following closely. It's about fighting for the little guy, really no matter who he is. It's what we try to do. Pedro Zapeta is an illegal immigrant, yes. But he worked here more than 10 years as a dishwasher and managed to save about $60,000. So while trying to take that money to his mother out of the country, he was mistaken for a drug dealer and the money was confiscated from him.

He's not a drug dealer. In fact, he's got no criminal record. They got his money and they aren't giving it back and now they're deporting him. John Zarrella's been following this story and he has the latest on this tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN ANCHOR: Pedro Zapeta did not want to make this ten-minute bicycle ride but he had no choice. The illegal immigrant dishwasher must, under court order, leave the U.S. by the end of January.

Pedro rode to a little store in Stuart, Florida, to buy a one-way ticket home to Guatemala. $667, he's told. Zapeta counted out 20 dollar bills. Some of the money he's earned recently from washing dishes. In just over two months on January 20, the dishwasher will board a plane from Miami.

PEDRO ZAPETA, CASH SEIZED BY GOVERMMENT (through translator): I bought my ticket and now I need to get ready. ZARRELLA: But chances are Pedro will be leaving broke. As we've reported in the past, he was going home to Guatemala two years ago with nearly every penny he had made and saved over 10 years as a dishwasher, $59,000 in cash in a duffel bag. As he went through security, the money was spotted and seized by federal agents. The government is not giving it back.

ZAPETA: There are bad things that happen in life. I'm furious. Because they still haven't returned my money. But I know God's will is great.

ZARRELLA: Under U.S. law you must declare if you're carrying more than $10,000 in cash out of the country. Pedro says he didn't know. Since then, his attorneys have been fighting to get him his money. The U.S. government refuses to comment while the case is on appeal. Pedro's attorneys say they will continue to fight, even after he's gone.

MARISOL ZEQUIERA, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: I think just fairness. Fairness dictates that this man gets a significant amount of his money, the money he earned over 10 years of hardcore labor.

ZARRELLA: Since Pedro's story first became public, sympathetic people have donated more than $11,000. But he can't get that money either. The IRS wants to claim it for back taxes.

Today, Pedro and his attorney went to the immigration offices in Miami with his plane ticket in his briefcase. He was required to show proof he is indeed leaving.

(on camera): And even though Pedro is self-deporting, immigration officials took his Guatemalan passport. That they'll give him back on January 17, three days before his flight. As for the money, getting that back hasn't been anywhere near as easy. John Zarrella, CNN, Miami.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: And Pedro's good enough to join us now. Keep in mind, Pedro was self-deporting, leaving the country, he's not trying to stay as an illegal immigrant. He's saying I know I'm illegal, I want to leave, but that was my money that I earned. He doesn't speak good English so I'm going to help him with the translation.

(Spanish) I just asked him if it's boss that I believe he thinks he'll be getting money back.

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: So you're confident then that you're going to get the money back. Why do you say that? (Spanish)

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: You think it's an injustice and you think they've made a mistake. (Spanish). Do you think they did it because they thought you were moving drugs?

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: You say, yeah, you think they made a mistake but in the eyes of God and the world you know you deserve the money back. Are you willing to negotiate with them? (Spanish) Maybe if they don't get all of it to you but maybe ...

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: Yes, you're willing to listen?

Exactly, you're willing to follow the law, if the law says that you have to pay a certain amount of that in taxes, you're willing to give them that, but you're not willing to take all of that money. (Spanish) If you have to leave without the money, will you do so? (Spanish)

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: OK. He says no, he says he's not willing to leave, because he worked hard for that money and it would be a huge injustice if they were to do something like that to him. It's an interesting situation. We've been following it for quite some time. We'll keep tabs on it. Pedro Zapeta, Pedro (Spanish)

Thank you very much for being with us tonight.

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: Go ahead, finish up. (Spanish)

ZAPETA: (Spanish)

SANCHEZ: I got it. Pedro wanted to show us some of his (Spanish). He's telling us that he feels like he's injured as a result of all the work that he's put, in now he's under medication because of all the pain that he goes through. And he just wants to be able to deal with it and go back to his family in Honduras.

We thank him once again.

Well, you've been telling us why you have a problem with Congress. There are oh so many reasons. And we're bringing them OUT IN THE OPEN next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: See this new poll out today? Americans are mad as hell at Congress. Maybe as mad as they've ever been. All through this hour you've been telling us exactly why, and now we have all your information. And we're going to be able to share it with the rest of America. And we're also going to share it with two of our guests. Help us going over this now are Joan Walsh, editor in chief of salon.com. And John Mercurio, senior editor of "The Hotline" and contributor to the nationaljournal.com. Were you watching the beginning of the newscast?

Did you see? I was coming out with Lou Dobbs and doing this thing -- the Howard Beal thing. In fact, I want you guys or folks at home who maybe didn't see it, to see it now. Here it is. For your viewing pleasure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm mad as hell! And I'm not gonna take this anymore!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: It's kind of like what Americans are thinking right now. Those numbers are unbelievable. We're going to start with Al. He just sent an e-mail and he says, "What a bunch of bungling idiots. Rick, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Regards and thanks for enlightening us."

You know, this is what's going on in America right now? John, let's start with you.

JOHN MERCURIO, "THE HOTLINE": A couple of things going on. First of all, a lot of dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq which I think you're seeing played out in this poll. I think the Democrats who are running Congress are sort of taking it from both sides. They've got conservative Republicans and sort of mainstream Republicans who have never been supportive or approved of their job performance, and also got the liberal democrats who are frustrated that they elected them, put them into power on Capitol Hill last year, and they haven't actually seen resulted they wanted.

SANCHEZ: So it's a double whammy for the Democrats. They're getting it from both sides. Their people are mad because they're not going after the president. The people on the Republican side are mad because they've always been mad at the Democrats because we've got a polarized politic right now. Joan, let me go to you with this.

J.B. says, my problem with Congress is "that they run the country. If they didn't run the country, I wouldn't mind them so much." He basically is saying they're inept, right?

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Well, they're not running the country is the problem, Rick. And you know, I think it's true, the Democrats are in trouble. The Republicans do worse in this poll, significantly worse. So people draw a distinction. The president is wildly unpopular. But it's true that the Democrats were elected to stop the war, they haven't been able to do it. You've got the sub-prime mortgage mess which is affecting a lot of people. We've got record foreclosures. There's a lot to be angry about and the perception is that Congress isn't doing anything about it and I think is accurate.

SANCHEZ: Warren writes to us and he says, my problem with Congress "is they're spending my hard-earned tax money on anything and everything except us."

And boy, this is the point, John, we made yesterday about what's going on with the Iraq war and how much money. We are now in debt up to our pantaloons, my friend, like perhaps never before.

MERCURIO: I've never worn pantaloons so I don't know if we're up to them. But fiscal responsibility is an issue that Republicans had to deal with and it's a large part of why they lost their majority. Because conservatives abandoned the Republican Party because they didn't believe they were no longer -- they didn't believe they were any longer fiscally responsible. You're seeing a big appropriations fight right now on Capitol Hill over that issue. I think you saw it to some extent, the fight over the children's health insurance program recently, fought over the issue of fiscal responsibility.

WALSH: But it's worse than that.

SANCHEZ: Go ahead, Joan.

WALSH: But the president wants tax cuts for the rich and doesn't want to fund health care for poor children. I think Americans would be comfortable with their tax dollars going to people who need it, people who work hard but can't afford health insurance. But the Republicans want to give to people who need it, who work hard but can't afford health insurance, but the Republicans want to give huge tax breaks to rich people. It isn't working.

SANCHEZ: Before we run out of time, here's a couple more. This is from Heath in Louisiana. He says "they don't have the," expletive deleted, "to challenge the idiots in charge."

Let's go to the next one, number four. He said, "They're so afraid to lose their office they are doing absolutely nothing."

That's a good point. I mean, especially with immigration reform. I'm not going to do anything because I'm going to lose no matter what, right?

MERCURIO: Well, where they're going to lose and the expletive deleted guy before who we didn't talk about specifically. I think he's got a good point. He's saying, look, they are afraid to challenge the guy in charge. The guy in charge, of course, is President Bush.

SANCHEZ: Right.

MERCURIO: He has terrible approval ratings on his own and I think what you're going to see ...

WALSH: He got his attorney general.

MERCURIO: ... is Democrats saying, elect a Democrat.

SANCHEZ: Hey, guys, we've got to go. Joan, great. John, as usual. Great stuff. Thanks so much.

That's it for us. Here's LARRY KING LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com