Return to Transcripts main page
Candid Moments Around The World; Key Parts Of Immigration Law Rejected; Health Care Ruling Coming Thursday; Key Parts Of Immigration Law Rejected; Egypt's New President; Key Parts of Arizona Immigration Law Rejected; Debby Spawns Deadly Tornadoes; Debbie Wasserman Schultz Says Koch Brothers Helped Scott Walker in Recall; Marco Rubio Says 1 Million Immigrate to U.S. Yearly; Do Illegal Immigrant Receive Majority of Food Stamps; Spain Asks for Bailout, Markets Not Happy; Presidents Before Obama Tried Health Care Reform.
Aired June 25, 2012 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: -- and then protested against a court ruling that will force them to serve in the military. It was decided that their previous exemption from mandatory military service was unconstitutional.
I'm Suzanne Malveaux. This hour in CNN NEWSROOM, we are focusing on immigration, politics and the economy here at home. I want to get right to it. A Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's tough immigration law could send political ripples across the country. In a five to three ruling, the Justice struck down some key parts of that law. But they upheld one key part, and that is whether or not police questioned people's immigration status based on reasonable suspicion. Joining us to talk about immigration ruling and what it means, our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin. Jeff, I want to start off with you first of all. Explain what it was that the court accepted and rejected.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the heart of this case was about state power versus federal power. Immigration is an area that traditionally has been one where the federal government exercises most of the power. But in this case, Arizona, as we all -- as we all now know passed S.B. 1070 which established certain new requirements to attempt to keep illegal immigrants out of Arizona.
And what the court did was they evaluated four provisions of the law, and they said three of them were unconstitutional because they conflicted with federal law. But the one they upheld, the one that they allowed to go forward was the most controversial and perhaps the most important of the four. It is nicknamed the show us your papers law. It's the law that said Arizona can -- Arizona law enforcement officials can go up to individuals whom they have stopped for a legitimate reason and say, show us papers indicating your immigration status. That is now OK, it's on the books, and it will go into effect. The other provisions are declared unconstitutional and they will not go into effect.
MALVEAUX: Jeff, so why did they do that? Why did they decide that that provision which is the one that many say opens up the door to racial profiling was acceptable? TOOBIN: Well actually, Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, very much said, look, we don't know if this will lead to discrimination. We will monitor carefully in effect whether there is discriminatory use of this law. But he was just evaluating the law so-called on its face, on paper, and on paper, he said there was no discrimination, but you can be sure that civil rights lawyers will be monitoring very carefully how this law is applied in the real world, and they are now free to challenge the law saying as it's -- in effect, as it's working in the real world, it's discriminating against Mexican Americans or other Hispanics.
MALVEAUX: And Jeff, tell us about these other states that followed Arizona's lead, because you've got similar laws that are being challenged in lower courts. And we're talking about in the states of Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina. Do those simply get thrown out? What happens in those states?
No, what judges are going to have to do when these laws are challenged, as they certainly will be challenged, is they're going to have to do what the Supreme Court did, is go through each provision one at a time and see if there is a conflict between federal and state law. Now, you may ask, what's OK and what is not OK? What's the standard for telling the two apart? Well, I've spent the last couple of hours reading through the opinion, and, frankly, I'm kind of puzzled about that. I don't really understand exactly the distinctions that Justice Kennedy drew between the three he disapproved and the one he did approve, so that means federal judges are likely to disagree about it, so it would not be a surprise to see this issue come back to the Supreme Court --
TOOBIN: -- for further clarification.
MALVEAUX: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you. Arizona's governor Jan Brewer, she's calling today's ruling a win. She put out a statement saying, today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It's also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of the states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of S.B. 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. I want to talk about the political implications of all of this and the immigration ruling. Jessica Yellin, she's joining us from Washington.
So Jessica, first of all, the president issues a statement within the last hour. In part, it says, I'm pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What does this mean? What this means, the decision makes unmistakingly clear that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. Patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system. It is part of the problem. So, has the president satisfied, do you think, a lot of folks who are looking to him for guidance and for some leadership on this immigration issue?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, first -- in the first place, Suzanne, the administration views this as largely a victory for them and is using this opportunity to call on -- to accuse Congress of inaction on immigration reform, as you can see in their statement. But let's be fair, the administration has itself not prioritized comprehensive immigration reform in the last few years. They have not pushed a bill as one of their top priorities. And so, there is plenty of blame to go around on why there is no comprehensive immigration reform bill at this point. But the point -- bottom line is it's not likely that there will be one between now and November, this is not the kind of thing that gets done in an election year.
MALVEAUX: Do they think that they have, essentially, and they have an upper hand now on this, that they've come out the winner. If you compare it to Mitt Romney or even to Arizona -- what played out on the ground in Arizona.
YELLIN: Well, in the end, this is a political -- this is going to be a political football in the next few months, there's no doubt about it. You can see by their statement how carefully they have to walk the balance -- on the balance beam on this one, because at the same time that the president and even secretary Napolitano who runs DHS, is in charge of the border, she's just put out a statement saying, I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government's enforcement policies.
While they are saying this is a victory, they are also very careful to say they are worried about and watching the way that the immigrant check is enforced. You know, checking people's immigrant status when they are stopped, and they are very concerned about making sure that no one's civil rights are abridged because they don't want any of Latino voters who are very concerned about that to be offended, and yet, in the same breath, in the their -- in the president's statement, he also says, we are doing everything we can to crack down on the border and enforce our immigration laws, because he has to also look tough on the immigration -- tough on illegal immigration. So again, very careful balancing act in this election year -- Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: All right, thank you, Jessica.
If it's not enough Supreme Court news for one week, we actually have a ruling coming Thursday on the constitutionality of Obama care. As you know, the controversial law passed in 2010 requiring individuals to buy health insurance or face a fine. To be sure, you've got to tune in CNN Thursday morning for live coverage of this historic decision.
Here is what we are working on for this hour. How will the Supreme Court immigration decision change things for people in Arizona and other states?
Egypt's Islamic candidate wins the presidency. We're going to take a look at what it means for the Arab spring movement and their push for more Democracy in government.
And the tornado spawned by tropical storm Debby has already killed one person on Florida's Gulf Coast. We are live from St. Petersburg Beach, the roads are beginning to flood.
MALVEAUX: I want to get back to today's top story. The Supreme Court ruled this morning that Arizona went too far in its effort to crackdown illegal immigration. In a five to three ruling, the high court rejected key parts of the Arizona law. But the most controversial provision that allows police to check people's immigration status is still in place for now. Here is Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio, he has been one of the leading proponents of the law. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPE COUNTY, ARIZONA: I think that this is a good section that's been upheld. I would have liked to see where we would have the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being here illegally and booking them into the jails, but that's not going to happen. But I think this sends a message that we will be involved in the enforcement of illegal alien laws and our police officers will be able to at least try to determine if they are in this country illegally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Joining me on the phone, Alphonso Aguilar. He is the former chief of the U.S. office of citizenship under President George W. Bush's administration. Thank you for joining us here. You have described this as a victory of sorts. Overall, --
ALPHONSO AGUILAR, FORMER CHIEF, U.S. OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP: Well no, actually it is a big victory.
MALVEAUX: -- do you think that the immigration population --
AGUILAR: I think it was a bad law that unfairly criminalized undocumented immigrants. And I think it's a big victory also because it reasserts federal supremacy over immigration. It basically leaves very limited room for state action when it comes to immigration.
MALVEAUX: One of the things that you had mentioned earlier is that you believe that, of course, the president sued Arizona, but that the deportation policy might be more punitive, and that that might be even more harmful to the immigrant population. Can you explain?
AGUILAR: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the discussion of immigration is full of politics and hypocrisy and the president has spoken indignantly about Arizona, instructed the justice department to sue Arizona over S.B. 1070. But the irony here is that when we look at Obama's deportation policy, it's much more punitive than the Arizona law. Arizona police can, under the remaining provision of their -- of S.B. 1070, can continue to detain undocumented immigrants, but it cannot deport them. Only the federal government can do that and Obama is doing it massively and systematically. He has deported more people than any other president in history. So far, over 1.3 million people have been deported and the majority of them have no criminal record. MALVEAUX: So when you talk about hypocrisy, who are you talking about? Are you talking about the president? Are you talking about the governor of Arizona?
AGUILAR: Oh, I'm talking about the president of the United States. I think with governor Brewer, I just thought she supported the law that was a bad law that criminalized some documented immigrants, but she was being open about it. The case of the president, he speaks indignantly about Arizona, but puts in place an enforcement deportation policy that is much more punitive than Arizona. That's a hypocrisy.
MALVEAUX: Where does the middle ground lie here? Because know that Senator Marco Rubio, he says, look, he believes that this Arizona law is constitutional, but that it's not ideal. Do you think that there is some middle ground here between what the president believes and what, say, sheriff Joe Arpaio believes?
AGUILAR: Well, I think there is and I think the court pointed to it and that is there can be. And federal law currently allows for some collaboration between the federal government and state governments. But that's already in place. I don't think that we needed this law to establish that partnership between the federal and the state government. What we need, however, at the end is the federal -- for the federal government, Republicans and Democrats, to tackle this issue, and provide real solutions, not temporary solutions like the president is providing, but real solutions to the issue of security but also to the issue of the undocumented immigrants.
MALVEAUX: Do you have any concern right now moving forward that either of those who are legally here in this country or illegally in this country, don't have adequate information to understand what these laws and what these rules mean because it seems as if it's constantly changing and it's very different from state to state. Is there any kind of training that needs to happen, do you think, to -- within the Latino community to understand what we've actually got on the books?
AGUILAR: You know, Suzanne, that is a great question. And the truth is that the answer is no. It's just so complicated. Even Obama's decision two weeks ago not to deport young undocumented immigrants, it sounds better than what it actually is and the devil is in the details. So at the end, immigrants -- the only information they can get are from lawyers. And sometimes lawyers are not properly trained or not experts on immigration law. And so it is very, very difficult. That's why we need Congress to act with -- and provide immigration solutions through legislation that are real, permanent and clear.
MALVEAUX: All right, Mr. Aguilar, thank you so much. We appreciate your time.
The Supreme Court has also ruled on two other key cases. The justices reaffirmed their controversial decision two years ago allowing corporations to spend freely on federal elections. In short, they said the decision -- Citizens United case also applies to state campaign finance laws. Another ruling today. The high court said it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life in prison without parole for murder. The court previously ruled the juveniles could not be sentenced to death or life without parole in crimes that did not involve killing.
Egypt has a new democratically-elected president, be the military still claims lots of power. We're going to take a look at what it means for the Arab Spring movement, up next.
MALVEAUX: Egypt's new president-elect getting straight to work forming his team. Mohammed Morsi. He was once a political prisoners. Well, today, he moved into the presidential office, last occupied by Hosni Mubarak. Dan Rivers, he's joining us live from Cairo.
So, Dan, just give us a sense of how folks are feeling there now that they've got a newly democratic leader.
DAN RIVERS, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, down in Tahrir Square behind me, Suzanne, there is continuing celebration and great relief that their man won narrowly. But he won nevertheless. But elsewhere in Egypt, there is real apprehension about what this means.
I spent the day talking to some sections of society who feel they've got a lot the lose by Mohammed Morsi becoming president. For example, the Christian Coptic community are deeply worried. They say already thousands of their number have fled. They make up about 10 percent of the population here. But one Coptic leader I spoke to said more and more people are thinking about leaving Egypt altogether as a result of this. They're really worried despite President Morsi's reassurances that he will govern for everybody, and in particular on behalf of the Coptics. That he (ph) feels that they're on a road toward an Islamic republic and that's something they don't want to be a part of.
Also, women as well really worried about what this means for them, whether (INAUDIBLE) this is the beginning of them having to wear the veils of more controls on their behavior. Again, something that Mohammed Morsi has tried to reassure moderates and secular people on, but something they're concerned about nonetheless.
Dan, does it matter all that much what he says, what Morsi says right now, in light of the fact that it really is the military that is in charge?
RIVERS: Well, that's right. The reality is, he doesn't have much power. That parliament was dissolved by the military about 10 days ago. They still retain the powers over foreign policy and defense. And really he has very circumscribed powers. The military have the power to veto the new constitution. They have power still to write their own legislation. So a lot of people are kind of wondering, you know, if he's really just a (INAUDIBLE) figurehead, a symbolic victory that's been handed to the Muslim Brotherhood, but empiric (ph) victory. One that doesn't really mean anything because his powers have been so curtailed.
MALVEAUX: Dan, when you say that people are worried, like women are worried about whether or not they'll be forced to wear the veil, whether or not they will have rights when it comes to being sexually abused, these type of things, rights for divorce. What are they doing? Are they hiding? Are they talking to each other? Are they mobilizing? How are they responding?
RIVERS: Well, the businesswomen I spoke to today who has an American education and is very westernized said almost all of the kind of liberal elites that she knows are preparing a plan b. They're going to sit and wait it out for a few years. But at the same time, they're putting their paperwork in place for them to get out of Egypt if things get worse. She thinks that the next four years, it's very unlikely President Morsi will be able to introduce any of these kind of things about, you know, women wearing the veil or increasing Islamification of society. But they're worried about the long-term direction of the country. So a lot of them say they're preparing for the worst, but sitting and waiting and watching and hoping for the best.
MALVEAUX: All right, Dan Rivers. Thank you, Dan.
The Supreme Court tosses out key parts of Arizona's immigration law. We're going to hear what some Latinos think about it.
And don't forget, you can watch CNN live on your computer while you're at work. Head to cnn.com/tv.
MALVEAUX: For the first time in history, the House of Representatives could vote to cite a sitting U.S. attorney general for contempt of Congress. A house committee recommended that move against Eric Holder and the full House is going to vote this week. They are doing that because Holder refused to hand over all the documents in the investigation of the botched "Fast and Furious" gun running sting. President Obama cited executive privilege in keeping them from release. Well, the chairman of the House committee says he's going to send a letter to President Obama today outlining why his use of executive privilege is either, quote, "overboard" or "simply wrong."
Want to get back to a top story today, immigration. The Supreme Court just issued a landmark ruling. Pretty much said that the federal government should deal with the issue, not the states. Here's Florida Senator Marco Rubio speaking Friday at a gathering of Latino officials in Florida. He called immigration a political ping-pong that each side has used to their advantage. This morning on "The View," Rubio talked about the need for reform and he said he's still pushing forward with his version of the Dream Act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I think we need to remind people that a million people a year permanently immigrate to the U.S.
BARBARA WALTERS, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": So do you have a solution?
RUBIO: No other country -- well --
JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": Are you against the Dream Act?
RUBIO: Well, I'm against the Dream Act the way it's written.
RUBIO: I'm actually working on an alternative.
RUBIO: I think it's too broad. I think it encourages illegal immigration in the future. But I do think there's an alternative to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: As you know, the fight over immigration started in Arizona. The court ruled that federal law trumps state law for the most part. But the justices left in place for now the most controversial provision. That allows police to check people's immigration status. Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, she called the decision a legal victory. I want to bring in correspondent Valeria Fernandez at the state capital in Phoenix.
And, first of all, you've been talking to people. What's the response? What's the reaction?
VALERIA FERNANDEZ, JOURNALIST: Well, I had a chance to speak with a lot of people in the immigrant community that have been holding a vigil for ever days here outside the state capital in Arizona. There's a lot of fear and there is a lot of concern, Suzanne, about how the police is going to implement the portion -- the most controversial portion of SB-1070 that will go into effect.
The undocumented immigrants that I have been speaking with, in tears, were telling me, we are afraid because we don't know if we're going to be able to call the police if we're victims of a crime. And even if we are not fearful ourselves, we are fearful for what can happen to our neighbors.
So that's one of the big questions. And we're waiting to hear from Phoenix Police Department chief, who is going to have a press conference in about an hour or so, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Are they going to try to help people understand what this law means? How they should live, how they should travel, what kind of documentation they need? I imagine there is a lot of anxiety around this.
FERNANDEZ: Exactly. It is my understanding that this afternoon there is going to be a community forum, that the police is going to be part of it and different council members of the city of Phoenix are going to be trying to, you know, ease a little bit of the fear that people have and the confusion surrounding SB-1070. And, you know, there's a lot of analysis yet to be made as far as when exactly it will take effect, because it is my understanding that it has to go down through the process to the ninth district court and then, after that, it will become effectively part of the law.
And we know there was a press conference from civil rights organization just earlier and they're talking about challenging portions -- this portion of SB-1070 on the basis that it may result in the violation of civil rights. So we still have to wait and see what happens. With know that there's some law enforcement agencies that, for them, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, this might be business as usual. But there's others that, as we're speaking, are trying to figure out exactly what it means for them.
MALVEAUX: Is there a sense of this community being torn apart? I mean, how are people dealing with each other?
FERNANDEZ: Yes, there is a sense. I mean, I was talking to a woman earlier that she was in tears. I mean she knows that a lot of her friends are going to leave Arizona. And she is really sad to see, you know, the children that were born here in the state, they are going to be taken away from the schools. Families are going to be moving. There is a concern that we're going to see a repeat of what happened two years ago when the law took effect partially and, you know, entire communities took off. And we saw an impact in some of the businesses. Schools have a drop in enrollment. So, you know, there's a lot of ripple effects.
But what's interesting, too, is that we're seeing, two years after the law took effect for the first time, this strong push to get people to register to vote. And we're seeing undocumented immigrants becoming part of this debate and organizing. It's my understanding that there is a team right now that's launching a campaign to fight against Sheriff Arpaio re-election and so there's that sort of activity going on.
MALVEAUX: We know that the governor, Jan Brewer, she's going to hold a press conference probably within about a half hour to 40 minutes or so. What do you want to hear from her? What do people expect from her now?
FERNANDEZ: Well, I mean, she said earlier that this is a victory because one of the most controversial portions of SB-1070 is going to take effect, which is the portion that would basically require police to ask for documentation when they have reasonable doubt that someone is in the country illegally. So I'm expecting to hear her talk about this victory and what it's going to meaner for other states.
And I'm sure the governor probably is going to have a message for the Obama administration. We know that she wasn't very happy with the announcement that they're going to grant the fair action to the dreamers, this young students that are here without documentation.
FERNANDEZ: So it's going to be interesting to see what she has to say in that respect. And I think all eyes are on the Obama administration at the same time. And there's the question, how are they going to handle the cases of people that will be arrested and their -- you know, this portion of SB-1070 that did go into effect. How -- I mean I just got a press release that there's a community organization that they are calling on Obama not to deport these individuals -- Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: A lot of still unanswered questions and uncertainty.
Valeria, thank you very much. Appreciate the reporting.
Egypt's new president-elect is getting straight to work to form his new team. Mohamed Morsi was once a political prisoner. Well, today, he moved into the presidential office last occupied by Hosni Mubarak.
The Carter Center oversaw both rounds of the elections in Egypt. President Carter, himself, was there for last month's vote. His oldest grandson, Jason Carter, was there for the latest run-off election. I spoke to Jason last hour about the road ahead for Egypt.
JASON CARTER, GRANDSON OF FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: The most important thing about this election that we observed being there was that political context that it occurred outweighed the conduct of the election. As you know, we are faced with a democratically elected president, but the military rulers have dissolved the parliament and limited the powers of the president, and reinstituted aspects of martial law. That process and those actions that are frankly undemocratic have cast great uncertainty over where we go from here.
MALVEAUX: Do you have any suggestions in terms of where we go from here? Because it does look like a situation that is quite frankly out of our control, and really, part of the Egyptians' control, the military.
CARTER: Well, there is no doubt -- I think, that outsiders can't push Egypt. I mean, the outcome and the steps that take place from here on are going to have to be determined by the Egyptian people. They have decided and embraced democracy and demonstrated their democratic spirit. They have been to the polls five times in the last 16 months, so they are going to demand democracy. The most important aspect of the transition that us, outsiders, can control or look at is how to get to their constitution that is going to be the foundation for a democratic Egypt. That is the key process.
CARTER: You have a situation in Egypt now where the Egyptian people have embraced democracy and we don't know what that means yet. And we can obviously hold -- as an international community, can hold President Morsi and others to the democratic principles of freedom of religion, of women's rights, of all of the things that we all believe need to hold firm. That is what I think my grandfather was saying. are they confronted with difficulties? Absolutely. There is economic issues, there's a divided country. But I believe that if we continue to put the pressure and ensure that the democratic transition takes its steps, as halting as they may be, we will get to a better place. And sometimes, in a democracy, the results are troubling or surprising, but that is what democracy is about.
MALVEAUX: Tropical Storm Debby churning up the surf and flooding streets off of Florida's gulf coast. Already had deadly consequences. One person was killed by a tornado. We will go live to St. Pete Beach.
MALVEAUX: Deadly before it makes landfall, Tropical Storm Debby has hammered Florida with record-setting rainfalls and spawned a fatal tornado as well. Officials say a woman was found dead in Venus, in the middle, of the state between Port St. Lucie and Sarasota.
John Zarrella is live at St. Pete Beach, Florida.
What are we talking about, John? How does it look?
JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Suzanne, the sun is out right now, and it is a good sign, a sign that the Tropical Storm Debby is weakening. But here in the community of Pass-a-Grille, which is in St. Pete Beach, people will long remember the storm. You can see behind me. That is a detached garage with an apartment on top of it. Fortunately, nobody was living in there when last night, at 8:00, they had some straight-line winds and possibly a tornado and possibly a waterspout that came on shore -- officials aren't sure what it was. But it came through the area. You can see there is standing water here, and the fence has been knocked down. we are going to walk down the street a little ways, Suzanne, to give the viewers an idea what we are talking about. They've already started clean up. The power is all out here. People have been cleaning up their front yard. There's a sign that is down and bent over here as well.
We get off to the corner, and there's a park, and in that park, you can see a giant oak tree that fell last night as well. All through this area there are power lines that were downed, and trees that were down. There are boats -- and boats that were damaged. In all, they had about eight homes that were seriously damaged. They had another 20 or 25 that suffered some damage.
Now, right now, again, the rains have stopped here. You know, it is still unclear as to how much more rainfall is going to come from this tropical storm as it moves closer to the state of Florida. Right now, good signs, because of the weakening trend, but the ground is so saturated here that, as you saw there, any little bit of rain is going to cause more flooding. We have seen a lot of that as well -- Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: John, it looks very dramatic. What about the oil rig workers in the gulf? Are they being evacuated or are they still out there? ZARRELLA: You know, we had heard earlier there was some talk that they would evacuate the oil rig workers, but given the fact that the storm has weakened substantially, we don't have any updates as to whether they ultimately went through with any or all of those evacuations -- Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Thank you, John.
I want to bring in Chad here to talk about tracking the storm.
It seems that the storm is sitting out there. How is that happening?
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, the weakening part -- it's a great word, weakening, but that just means that the winds are not as strong in the middle. This thing has a lot flooding potential. And it is just sitting there. One band of rain after another after another. And there you can see the pictures. We don't have confirmation that this was a tornado, but if a waterspout does come on shore, it technically becomes a tornado even though it starred as a water spout. So that certainly -- weather service go out here. That could have been the localized damage from that we see from that type of weather.
There is a tornado watch over almost the entire eastern half state, and back here to Apalachicola. This is where the tornadoes would form today if we get tornados, some bigger cells in the central part of Florida for this afternoon, especially during the heat.
It is a 45-mile-an-hour storm. It never did get to be a hurricane. It is still blowing up more thunderstorm activity there to the east of Panama City. And that is where we will see the potential for flooding today.
Look at some of these already-on-the-ground rainfall totals. This is Brookridge, Florida. This is north of Tampa, 14.48 inches of rain, and it still has a lot more potential rainfall to come.
Something else that will happen here, Suzanne, is the potential for Florida sinkholes. This happens when the ground is saturated. It has been very dry in Florida for a long time. The ground water is not all the way filled up. Taken the ground water, pumped it out to drink, on a such a dry, dry couple of years, has not recharged the groundwater. When you get the dirt above it to be swampy, clay and sand, all it wants to do eventually is to fall down in the ground. So you might think you are walking or driving through a little puddle. That puddle might not have any ground underneath. Be careful, especially after dark. These sinkholes may be very hard to see. Don't drive into one.
MALVEAUX: Very dangerous. Tell us what is going on out west. I understand there are wildfires burning across Colorado and Utah.
MYERS: Well, too bad we can't get some of the rainfall that way. We talked about that a lot last week. They lost some containment on the fires in California and Colorado, in Utah, in New Mexico over the weekend. We still had red-flag warnings, which means fires that have wind-driven rain and fires there. Some were wind-driven fires about 40 to 50 miles per hour at times. We lost 10,000 acres in what we called the Hyde Park Fire, north of the Cougar Canyon over the weekend. It jumped the highway 14 on the north side. And they immediately lost 10,000 acres, because it was so dry. The wind was blowing so much. They can't contain some of the fires even though they are still trying. So much wind out west. The next couple of days will not be good for the firefighting effort. There are over 2,000 firefighters on the line right now fighting that one fire west of Fort Collins, and they cannot get containment.
MALVEAUX: And 10,000 people have evacuated their homes.
MYERS: Air tankers. Right, of course. And that is what they are doing. We lose acres of trees, that is OK. The firefighters are not losing structures. That is all they're doing. They are doing point protection, going to the fire, going near the fire if it's near a home, they make sure that home survives and let the fire go. They don't try to put all the trees out around it. They're protecting the points, the people's homes. The wildfires are taking out barns and animals. The evacuations -- you have to think about this is a wild land area. People have a lot of horses around this area. They not only have to evacuate themselves, but they have to find places for the animals to go as well -- Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Big job.
MALVEAUX: Thank you, Chad.
MYERS: You're welcome.
MALVEAUX: Appreciate it.
U.S. stocks are sinking fast today. Spain might be behind most of it. We are live from the New York Stock Exchange.
MALVEAUX: There are a lot of claims from the politicians and campaigns especially in an election year. Can you believe what you hear? We're putting some of the claims to the test.
Bill Adair is the Washington bureau chief for the Tampa Bay Times and editor of politico.com.
Bill, let's begin with Debbie Wassermann Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, who is talking about the Wisconsin recall where Scott Walker defeated challenger Tom Barrett to stay in office. Wassermann Schultz says, quote, "The Koch brothers" -- referring to billionaire conservative activists David and Charles Koch -- "gave twice as much money to Scott Walker as the total amount of money raised by Tom Barrett." What do you think?
BILL ADAIR, EDITOR, POLITICO.COM & WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE TAMPA BAY TIMES: We rated this false on the Truth-O-Meter. First, do the math. For her to be right, it has to be somewhere on the order of $4 million. So $4 million is how much Barrett spent, so for that to be right, you have to be up to $8 million. But there is no proof that the Koch brothers gave that much money. There's no record that they gave any to Scott Walker. And there is also no proof that even the Democrats acknowledge, that maybe the Americans for Prosperities gave this money, but that doesn't prove the claim either. So that one gets a false on the Truth-O-Meter.
MALVEAUX: OK. False. This from Republican Senator Marco Rubio, talking about immigration, and says, "A million people a year come into the U.S. legally. No other country comes close to that number." True or false?
ADAIR: This is a true. This one's kind of interesting. You hadn't -- a lot of us had no idea it is on that scale, but indeed, it is a little over one million last year, and about the same the year before. And he is right that no other country comes close. The next two that were closest were Germany and Spain. And they were about half the level of the U.S. So, a true for Marco Rubio on that one.
MALVEAUX: A true. OK. What about factoid from Facebook, a Facebook post that says more than 43 percent of all food stamps are given to illegal immigrants. How does that rate?
ADAIR: That is a Pants on Fire. That's ridiculously false. First of all, it is mathematically impossible that, when you look at the number of illegal immigration compared to the number of people who receive food stamps, even if every illegal immigrant were to get food stamps, it still would not be enough. This is interesting, because it is part of a phenomena of people posting pictures, such as jpeg images, on Facebook that are political messages, sometimes coming from activists, sometimes from big corporations, but it is a phenomenal that we have seen. And it is interesting, because often they are wrong.
MALVEAUX: It is downright misinformation.
Bill, good to see you. Thank you.
ADAIR: Thank you.
MALVEAUX: Spain made it official today, asking for the bailout from its European partners. The markets are not so happy about it.
Alison Kosik is at the New York Stock Exchange.
Alison, tell us, first of all, why this reaction? It was not a surprise.
ALISON KOSIK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. First of all, it was not a surprise. And secondly, the market is not thrilled about it, because it reiterates what bad shape Spain's finally firms are in. Also, not a lot of details of this bailout are coming out. It also raises worries about how the surrounding countries could be impacted by Spain's own troubles. So you have the major averages, deep in the red since the opening bell. The Dow falling right now. Financial shares are leading to declines. The big banks are down 2 percent to 5 percent across the board because of worries over their expose to Europe's problem.
But it is not Spain weighing on the sentiment. Analysts say investors are not expecting anything new out of the E.U. summit later this week. It's the reason many investors are taking money off the table. Hopes are high for the summit, but nothing expected to come of it. A lot of uncertainty here in the U.S. The health care ruling from Supreme Court is weighing on the sentiment as well. It is hard for the investors to trade on something they don't know which way it's going to go yet.
MALVEAUX: Thank you, Alison.
President Obama did something that his predecessors tried but failed to do. He got health care reform passed. We are still fighting about it 60 years after the first ambitious push for change.
We're awaiting a press conference that will happen momentarily. Jan Brewer will be holding a press conference around 2:00 or so. She'll be talking about her response to the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the controversial immigration law out of her state. We'll bring that to you live.
Whether you call it Obama-care or the Affordable Care Act, health care reform considered a single accomplishment of the Obama administration, and for good reason. For 60 years, presidents tried and failed to improve health care for Americans.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta explains.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In putting his signature in what came to be known as Obama-care, the president did what others tried to do and failed, many times since World War II, starting with Harry Truman.
ALLAN LICHTMAN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: He wanted to increase the availability of hospitals and doctors and have the government serve as a guarantor of insurance for all Americans.
GUPTA: But in Congress, Truman's plan never got so much as a vote.
LICHTMAN: The American Medical Association, very wealthy, very powerful lobby group, campaigned against Truman's health care plan.
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We do not want socialized medicine. GUPTA: In the 1960s, a similar fight. Ronald Reagan, before becoming governor of California, recorded this message, "Pass Medicare and the united states will become like the Communist Soviet Union."
REAGAN: One of these days, you and I will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when children were free.
GUPTA: Reagan's efforts fail short. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law creating Medicare, health insurance for every American over the age of 65, and Medicaid for the poor.
It wasn't just Democrats. Richard Nixon had big ambitions.
STUART ALTMAN, FORMER NIXON ADVISER: Richard Nixon, who I worked for, put forth a comprehensive plan which looks a lot in structure like the Obama plan. You remember we had a little problem with Watergate, and Nixon resigned, and health insurance totally died.
GUPTA: By the early 1990s, there was the Clinton plan to cover every American without spending more.
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE & FORMER FIRST LADY: Health care reform must be achieved for the good of our country.
GUPTA: Too big, opponents said, too expensive, too complicated.
LICHTMAN: We're going to lose our doctors. We're not going to be able to make medical choices anyone. It wasn't true. But these kinds of arguments resonate.
GUPTA: Like Truman's plan, it never came to a full vote. Around that time, many Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, started talking up something called a mandate, a requirement that every American buy his own health coverage.
LICHTMAN: You can have universal or near universal coverage and reserve the private insurance system. The idea of a mandate was a Republican idea.
GUPTA: By 2008, Hillary Clinton, now running for president, was pushing the mandate herself --
CLINTON: I cannot stress to you how passionately I feel about fighting for universal health care.
GUPTA: -- as she ran against Senator Barack Obama. Back then, Candidate Obama was against it.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Senator Clinton says I'm going to make universal health care by mandating that everybody buy it. If people can't afford it, it doesn't matter what the mandate is, they're not going to be buy it.
GUPTA: By election time, he had come around to Clinton's position. And now Obama-care will likely rise or fall on that very pillar.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.
MALVEAUX: The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the Affordable health Care Act. That's happening this Thursday.
40 years after "Deliverance," we take a look at the movie that put the southern region on the map and left a lasting impression.
MALVEAUX: Four decades ago, the film, "Deliverance," introduced people to the north Georgia mountains. White the scenery was beautiful, the plot was dark.
As Martin Savidge shows us, many are still upset about the impression it left behind.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to north Georgia thanks in large part to the movie "Deliverance."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It essentially started the white-water rafting industry in this southeast.
SAVIDGE: Annually, tourism brings in $42 million to the area.
When the movie was made, it brought cameras and excitement to Rabun County. Many locals signed up to be extras only to be horrified by what emerged from Hollywood.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: The infamous "squeal like a pig" male rape scene was especially shocking here in the heart of the Bible Belt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: 40 years later, there's still anger.
STANLEY BUTCH DARNELL, CHAIRMAN, RABUN COUNTY COMMISSION: We were portrayed as ignorant, backward, deviant red-neck hillbillies. And that stuck with us through all of these years. And in fact, that was probably the furtherest thing from the truth. SAVIDGE: He's right. Rabun County is actually a second home to many wealthy southerners.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This would be a dream come true.
SAVIDGE: The average house costs $2 to $3 million. This one is $10 million.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When people build houses when they come here, they need art on their walls.
SAVIDGE: The area has dozens of trendy galleries. More than 80 percent of the county's residents are high school graduates.
RONNIE COX, ACTOR: My show starts --
SAVIDGE: Actor Ronnie Cox, who played Drew, is sympathetic to a lot of attitudes about the movie.
COX: For a lot of people that became a tough pill to swallow. I think some people missed the artistic essence of it, the value of it.
SAVIDGE: Then there's Billy Redden. You remember him.
SAVIDGE: You think if anyone would be angry, it would be Billy. He's not. He can't understand why, after 40 years, others still are.
BILLY REDDEN, ACTOR: I think they just need to let it go. Let it just be a movie. That's all it is to me.
SAVIDGE: Martin Savidge, CNN, Clayton, Georgia.
MALVEAUX: All right, CNN NEWSROOM continues right now.