Skip to main content
U.S. Edition
Search
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

Return to Transcripts main page

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Keeping them Honest on the West Coast; War and Politics; Political Roundtable; Predicting an Earthquake; Ready for the Big Quake?; Organ Tourism; Jerry Brown Redux; Dispatches from Somalia

Aired June 15, 2006 - 23:00   ET

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


ANNOUNCER: And living donors -- Americans, desperate for transplants, are paying for organs taken from prisoners without their consent -- and while they're still alive.
This is a special edition of ANDERSON COOPER 360, "Keeping them Honest on the West Coast."

Live from San Francisco, here is Anderson Cooper.

ANDERSON COOPER CNN ANCHOR: And welcome to a beautiful sunset over the Golden Gate Bridge here in San Francisco. A lot to cover tonight.

We begin with the heat over Iraq. It is coming from the House of Representatives. We're about to show you a live picture unfolding right now. Lawmakers going late into the night tonight, debating a resolution on the war that some call a chance to stand up for troops. Others are calling a cynical election year trick. You'll hear from both sides tonight. Whatever you call it, it comes to a vote tomorrow. The debate is happening now.

And as CNN Candy Crowley reports, tempers today were running high.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A House divided, debating a controversial war, five months before an election, produced sound bites and fury.

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: I know standing here does not solve the problem! And it hasn't gotten better. It's gotten worse. That's the problem.

CROWLEY: They argued over the rational for war, the conduct of war, when and how to end the war.

REP. IKE SKELTON (D), MISSOURI: We have just reached a sad milestone -- 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in the Iraq war.

CROWLEY: But first they went silent over the cost of war. Otherwise, it was an agonizing antagonizing acrid debate around a Republican resolution. Democrats had been pressing for an Iraq debate. This is not what they had in mind. REP. JOHN LARSON (D), CONNECTICUT: And you guys bring to the floor a political document, not designed for a new direction, or to bring the country together to discuss this issue the way it should be, but instead as talking points, outlined by Karl Rove in New Hampshire, sandwiched in between the president's photo-op and a picnic this evening.

CROWLEY: The resolution is merely a vehicle for debate on Iraq, the single most important issue of the election year. It is a piece of paper with no force of law, but, Republicans hope, the potential to force divided Democrats into a corner.

REP. CHARLIE NORWOOD (R), GEORGIA: Is it al Qaeda? Or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate.

CROWLEY: The resolution basically backs Bush policy in Iraq, ties it to the war on terror and includes this: "...it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq."

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: Let's send this message to every soldier, every Marine who is watching this thing from the mess halls in Mosul and Tikrit and Baghdad and Fallujah, the message that the United States House of Representatives stands with them.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: It's a trap. It's an attempt to force Democrats to sign on to a resolution that will do nothing to bring our troops home. All they want to make us sound as if we're unpatriotic.

CROWLEY: Debate talking points from the Pentagon and the Republican majority circulated the Hill. Democrats called the resolution a cheap election year ploy, Republicans called it a vital election year debate with huge consequence.

REP. HENRY HYDE (R), ILLINOIS: The more valuable our dissent into weakness, dissension and inaction, the greater the aid and comfort we give to our enemies.

CROWLEY: Members of Congress will vote Friday on the resolution.

In November, Americans will vote on members of Congress.

Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, you heard a little bit from Charlie Norwood in Candy's report. I spoke with him earlier tonight, along with Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. And I began by asking Congressman Norwood about the line that got all the headlines, his statement that tomorrow's vote is a choice between America and al Qaeda.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) NORWOOD: I think those who vote against this resolution are making a large mistake because that sends a signal across the world and it helps people, our adversary in Iraq, and it keeps us from getting our troops home.

COOPER: Representative Kucinich, what about that? Do you stand with al Qaeda?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Well, I think that everyone knows that we're in Iraq for all the wrong reasons, that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was not involved with al Qaeda, with respect to 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

So what we're looking at right here is a Baathist insurgency that didn't start with al Qaeda. Our presence there has actually emboldened al Qaeda and that's another reason why we need to get out.

COOPER: Congressman Norwood, this debate on the Hill today, isn't it more about politics than really about debating issues related to the war? Isn't it more about trying to pigeon hole the Democrats, trying to show divide between the Democrats and Republicans?

NORWOOD: It isn't about politics to me. And that's the only one I can answer for. When I listen to the Democrats, there are some who actually believe we shouldn't be there. They really truly believe that. There are others I can't tell. I think what they really believe is this is a way to hurt the president.

The way you hurt the troops and the way you hurt this country is continuing to say, oh, we can't win, oh, we've got to come home. Our plan is just to pull out to Kuwait. John Kerry is doing the same thing now that he did in Vietnam. He's bad mouthing our troops.

He related to us in Vietnam as Genghis Khan. Well, now we're talking bad again. We got -- and that's the kind of thing you think this won't be on TV tomorrow in the Arabian world? They'll all see John Kerry and Dennis Kucinich...

KUCINICH: Hey, John Kerry is a good American, Charlie. And so am I and so are you. You don't need to make this...

NORWOOD: I'm trying not to interrupt you.

KUCINICH: It's not about interrupting. You can't challenge somebody's patriotism.

NORWOOD: I didn't challenge his patriotism. What I said is he's doing the same thing he did in Vietnam. He is hurting the troops in the field by sending signals around the world that we can't win, we must come home, it is all over, oh my goodness, it is so terrible, we need to finish this mission. And we can only do it by, I hope, all of us in America saying, standing behind our troops, let's get this done, let's get Iraq in position they can take care of themselves, then let's all come home happily. COOPER: Now that troops are there, the war continues. Do Democrats actually have a plan for winning the war or is getting out where the Democratic Party is moving?

KUCINICH: Today Democrats, by and large, want to bring our troops home.

Now, let it be said, this is President Bush's war. He's the one who told the American people there were weapons of mass destruction. He's the one who told the American people that the Iraqis were trying to get uranium from Niger. He's the one who conflated Iraq with 9/11. It's on his watch and it's his responsibility.

COOPER: I appreciate your passion on both sides of the aisle. Congressman Norwood and Congressman Kucinich, thank you very much.

KUCINICH: Charlie, good to be here with you.

NORWOOD: Yes, Dennis, good to see you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: So more now on where is the debate is going and what it's really about, from the best political team in the business.

At the roundtable tonight, CNN's Candy Crowley, Suzanne Malveaux and John Roberts.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: So, John, I didn't hear all the speeches on the Hill today. But what I did here -- it often sounded more like sort of a volley of talking points than a real debate.

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I didn't hear them all either, Anderson. But certainly, the Republicans were speaking from a play book, one that the Pentagon provided for them. The Democrats were on their same play book.

But let's take a look at what happened in the Senate with that 93 to six vote against the idea of bringing the troops out immediately. This is exactly the same move that the Republicans pulled on the Democrats last year.

Remember when John Murtha talked about setting a timetable for the troops, maybe a six-month period. And the Republicans turned around and said, OK, let's vote tonight on bringing the troop out right away. They put the Democrats in a box. They won their point. It was a shrewd political move. They did it again in the Senate.

COOPER: Candy, what about this play book? I mean, literally, a play book sent out by the Pentagon, 74 page prep book on Iraq for Republicans, also sent to Democrats. Does that happen often? I've never heard of that.

CROWLEY (on camera): It doesn't happen often. It shouldn't be a huge surprise that the Pentagon supports the war in Iraq. At least the upper echelon as we know. The problem -- and Republicans will tell you this, is it just doesn't look good.

If the Pentagon wanted to support the war, they should have sent it out at some other time because it makes the Pentagon look unnecessarily political. So Republicans were not all that pleased about it.

COOPER: Suzanne, I understand you have a letter that President Bush sent to leaders of Congress. What does it say?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, it's really pretty extraordinary, Anderson. It's required by law, it's consistent with the War Powers Resolution. It went to members of Congress, the leadership.

Essentially about U.S. troops throughout the world, where they're based. Kind of an update here, but this was the one line that really stood out here. It's on the war on terror. He says, "It is not possible to know at this time either the precise scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to counter the terrorist threat to the United States."

This administration, on the one hand, it's in a very tough position. On the one hand, trying to bolster the Iraqi government, convince the American people to be patient, that things will work out. At the same time, the president admitting here that (a), there is no deadline, and (b), there is no sense of what it's going to take to win this war on terror.

COOPER: Interesting.

John, you were talking about this play book. I mean, Republicans are now arguing -- both sides, frankly, have their talking points. Republicans are arguing that the only plan the Democrats have for Iraq is just to cut and run.

How do the Democrats avoid being defined by Republicans? Because clearly that is their strategy moving forward in the next months of the election.

ROBERTS: It's very difficult for the Democrats because they don't have the same type of voice that the Republicans do. When you control the White House, when you control both houses of Congress, you make far more noise than you can when you're in the minority.

So the Democrats have to just keep on coming out with their idea that they have an alternative plan, even though they have yet to articulate one, that they don't want to cut and run.

But really, it is a voice that is just not cutting through and Republicans, particularly this week, are doing everything they can to make sure that that voice does not cut through.

Look at what they were saying right after Zarqawi was captured. Now, if we had to listen to John Murtha, troops would have been out of there in April, and we never would have got Zarqawi. It's pretty hard for Democrats to come back against shots like that.

COOPER: Yes, Candy, were Democrats feeling today that the Republicans were successful in debating Iraq on their terms?

CROWLEY: Well, here is the problem. The Democrats do have a problem because they have a handful of Democrats in the Senate and some in the House who do want to set a timetable. So the whole debate today has been aimed at setting this timetable, should we do it?

Now, Republicans call it cut and run because it's one of those things that, you know, looks great on a bumper sticker. But the fact of the matter is some Democrats don't think there should be a deadline.

So what Republicans are trying to expose is the divisions within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is trying to cover with this and say, listen, we believe that this has to be a year of transition for the troops in Iraq and for the Iraqi government.

Whether or not they can sustain that into an election without saying yes, we're for a timetable or here's how we would get out of Iraq gradually, remains to be seen.

COOPER: Suzanne, Candy and John, thanks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, some perspective to wrap this up. This has been a bad week for the insurgency in Iraq. Here is the raw data. According to Pentagon, 104 terrorists have been killed in Iraq since Zarqawi's death. Another 759 suspected insurgents were detained. And over the past eight days there were 452 military operations against the insurgency, 143 of them carried out, we are told, by Iraqi forces.

Today here in the San Francisco area, a light earthquake hit. Scientists say that it is possible we'll be able to tell when and where quakes will hit in the future.

Coming up, a look at the technology that could make us safer and we'll talk to an expert about just how prepared we are for a major shake.

Plus, I'll speak to Former California Governor Jerry Brown. We'll talk about his run for California attorney general.

Also, desperate people traveling halfway around the world and paying huge fees for organ transplants. But exactly where are the organs coming from? Some surprising news on that. Some say this is China's darkest secret when this special edition of 360 continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Welcome back. We are live in San Francisco. Today the city of San Francisco is shaken by a magnitude 4.7 earthquake this morning. Aftershocks, soon after that. Nothing unusual about that in California where it's always only a matter of time before the next one or perhaps even the next big one.

With that in mind, seismologists are spending a lot of time trying to make sure that it doesn't come completely out of the blue. How are they doing that?

Well, CNN's Dan Simon investigates.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Imagine if you could predict an earthquake the same way you can with a hurricane. If there could only be some sort of satellite imagery that could forecast such a disaster.

JOHN RUNDLE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: It is not overly optimistic at all.

SIMON: Professor John Rundle at the University of California Davis is among the many scientists helping to develop that technology, which he says will be available at our lifetimes.

We won't get a precise date for a quake, but the information, he says, will still be better than anything they once thought was possible.

RUNDLE: I think long-term what will be possible is for us to say things like there is a 50 percent or 75 percent chance of having a magnitude six or larger earthquake within two years, in a location maybe around the size of the bay area.

SIMON (on camera): Although earthquakes seem to strike randomly, the energy released from a quake builds up for months or even years. The idea for satellites to sense that buildup, spot the signs of an impending quake. The public could then be notified in advance and better prepared for an emergency.

RUNDLE: It allows you to plan, it allows you to prioritize where you put your resources, where you put your valuable manpower.

SIMON (voice-over): Scientists are also trying to come up with better building materials to withstand earthquakes. This three-story model at UC-Berkeley has new stronger shock absorbers.

On Thursday Berkeley engineers ran some tests on the absorbers, which they said performed quite well. The hope is, this kind of technology will someday be common for hospitals or other essential buildings in times of crisis.

JOHN MOEHLE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: This type of technology works both for new construction or can be retrofitted into older existing buildings as well.

SIMON: As for when the next big one might hit, Rundle and his colleagues have made some eye-opening predictions. He says there's a 25 percent probability that a quake with a magnitude of seven will occur near San Francisco sometime during the next 20 years. That's nearly equal to the 1989 earthquake which caused widespread devastation and served as a reminder how fragile a life on the bay can be.

Dan Simon, CNN, San Francisco.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, everyone knows that the next big one could be coming, could be on the way. The question is, are we ready for it?

Joining me now is Chris Poland. He's the past president of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, also partner at Degenkolb Engineers.

CHRIS POLAND: Degenkolb Engineers.

COOPER: Degenkolb Engineers. I knew I was going to get that wrong.

POLAND: That's all right.

COOPER: How likely is it, or how ready are we for a big one here?

POLAND: Well, we're ready and getting more ready. A big one is going to occur. We know that it's going to happen. There is a lot more we can do.

COOPER: What are the lessons from 1989? I mean, that was last time there was really a major earthquake here in San Francisco.

POLAND: 1989 showed us that the new buildings we were building were doing well, they were performing the way we thought they should. But it reminded us that we had a large inventory of older buildings, built prior to the 1970s, that were quite damageable and dangerous and needed to be taken care of.

COOPER: And have they been taken care of? I mean, how many of the buildings that are still out there are vulnerable?

POLAND: Well, quite a few of them are. Because it's very expensive to strengthen those buildings and take care of them. And there's no real policy to take care of that. There are things that need to be done.

COOPER: 4.7 was the magnitude of the earthquake that hit this morning. How does that compare? I mean, where is that -- how much more -- how much stronger does it need to be in order to actually get damaged?

POLAND: Well, it really needs to be a lot stronger. We start seeing damage when the earthquakes get 6.5, 6.8. But low seven, we see serious structural damage.

COOPER: What were the lessons from Hurricane Katrina that we should take toward planning for the next earthquake? POLAND: Well, what we saw in Hurricane Katrina was that we needed to worry about what was going happen immediately after the disaster, in terms of the vulnerable populations, people that couldn't evacuate themselves.

COOPER: Right, the elderly, the injured, people with illnesses.

POLAND: That's correct. We also needed to house people immediately. You know, in a repeat of the 1906 earthquake, we're expecting maybe 250,000 displaced households, people that won't be able to go home. And so that has to be taken into consideration.

COOPER: In the city of San Francisco?

POLAND: In the city of San Francisco and the surrounding areas.

COOPER: Wow. And also for individuals. I mean, we all saw -- we all know about the government response to Hurricane Katrina, really, at all levels -- state, local, federal. What is the lessons for individuals, that they need to be really prepared to be on their own for a certain amount of time?

POLAND: Individuals need to be prepared to be on their own for the first 72 hours.

COOPER: That's the window, 72 hours do you think?

POLAND: Seventy-two hours. And then need to be prepared to respond after that because the recovery takes a long time. The buildings will be damaged. They may not be able to use their homes. They really need to find out about that and make plans for how they're going to care for themselves.

COOPER: Right, 72 hours. That is an important timeframe to consider. Chris Poland, appreciate you joining us. Thanks.

POLAND: OK, thank you.

COOPER: Thanks very much.

We're going to have a lot more here from San Francisco. A man, who had just been told that he was going to die, and then found a reason to hope. A father of six who desperately needs a new liver. He faces a life or death decision. Coming up, you'll see just how far he will go to save his life and who may suffer because of his choice. Next, on this special edition of 360.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, until you've stared death in the face and been told there is no hope for the organ transplant that you desperately need, you can't really know how far you'd go to save your own life, right? Or can you know?

This next story literally turns on that question. It is about a dying man, a husband and a father who is desperate to stay alive and the lifeline he chose.

The question as you're watching this story is, what would you do? What choice would you have made? You're about to see a dark side, a very dark side of organ transplants. It's called organ tourism.

Here's CNN's Randi Kaye.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ERIC DELEON, NEEDED LIVER TRANSPLANT: Take it down! Take it down! Take it down!

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eric DeLeon of California, a father of six, desperately needs a liver transplant.

But he's so sick with nine tumors on his liver, doctors concluded even with a new liver, his chances for survival were low. So they removed him from the U.S. transplant list.

ERIC DELEON: I just knew that cancer would grow and spread throughout my body and I would be another statistic. And I just thought I got to get it out of me.

KAYE: But Eric would not give up. Online he found Web sites offering transplants in China. Many advertised kidney, liver and other transplant surgeries for as much as $200,000. He would have only weeks to make a life or death decision.

DELEON: I didn't want my kids to watch me wither away and die in front of him so this was either it works or it doesn't and then it's cut and dry and done.

KAYE: In fact, people who cannot get transplants travel to China from all over the world.

REP. CHRIS SMITH (R), NEW JERSEY: They house these people in hotels. The dictatorship makes an enormous amount of money.

KAYE (on camera): Chris Smith chairs the House Subcommittee on Global Human Rights. With tens of thousands of foreigners paying for transplant surgery in China, he says many do not know the terrible truth about the program.

(Voice-over): Those organs may be surgically cut from an executed death row prisoner without consent. Even worse, to keep the organ as fresh as possible, some organs are said to have been removed before the prisoner even took a last breath.

Human Rights Activist Harry Wu testified before Congress about a doctor who told him he removed an organ from a prisoner who was still alive.

HARRY WU, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Of course, he's warm, he's breathing, the blood is still moving out. But we just push very hard, just take the organ, keep it fresh.

KAYE: Other gruesome tales come from this doctor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The prisoner had not yet died, but instead lay convulsing on the ground. We were ordered to take him to the ambulance anywhere where urologists extracted his kidneys quickly and precisely.

KAYE: Critics say some prisoners in China, both men and women are actually executed for petty crimes, such as tax fraud, embezzlement and bribery. The practice provides an endless supply of organs for needy foreigners willing to pay top dollar.

Amnesty International says China executes more prisoners than all other nations combined. More than 4,700 in the last two years.

According to human rights experts, a single shot to the head, if chest organs are needed; a shot to the body, if the brains or eyes are needed. And recently, China started using what's called death vans, mobile execution vans where lethal injection is administered inside. Death by injection leaves the whole body intact. And according to Amnesty International, allows for a speedier and more effective extraction of organs.

SMITH: You can't take prisoners who are on death row, destroy them, murder them, and then take their organs. I mean, that smacks of Nazism, when people were reduced to mere commodities that were wanted only for the organs they could provide.

KAYE: Chinese law details the procedure. Transplant surgeons are actually poised at the execution site. Once shot, the prisoner's body is quickly placed inside an unmarked blue van like this one. Inside, doctors quickly and secretly remove the organs need.

(On camera): Just last year in a move that shocked the transplant world, China's deputy health minister acknowledged harvesting organs from Chinese prisoners, but said the organs come only from those who give consent.

But what constitutes consent? In the United States, death row prisoners aren't allowed to donate their organs. The government believes they can't truly give consent while behind bars.

(Voice-over): Still, the Chinese government by law considers a signed piece of paper, a fingerprint on a donor form or unclaimed body consent. Though that sounds straightforward, death notices like these are often posted not immediately, but days after an execution. So families have no time to collect the bodies of loved ones.

Regardless, the Chinese government maintains they are not doing anything wrong and are merely performing transplants in accordance with their laws.

DELEON: Good job, Dominic.

KAYE: Back in California, with two small children, the tumors on his liver growing, Eric DeLeon was getting weaker and weaker.

DELEON: My feeling -- my gut feeling was I wouldn't live that long.

KAYE: But what did he really know about what seemed like his last best opportunity to survive? How much did it matter where his liver came from? What would you do?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Eric DeLeon is running out of time. The hope that China offers is irresistibly tempting to a dying man.

But does he understand where his new liver might come from? And how far will Eric go to save his life? That's next on 360.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, before the break, we introduced you to a man named Eric DeLeon, a cancer patient facing a life or death decision. He had been taken off the waiting list for a new liver here in the U.S., and his only hope, it seemed, would be to travel to China and pay a huge fee, $100,000 or more for the transplant that could save his life. That money would go to the Chinese government.

And as unbelievable and ghoulish as it sounds, China has turned organ transplants into an enterprise with big profit margins. And it is said it is using vulnerable prisoners as a supply chain for desperate people like Eric DeLeon, a father of six.

Our story begins with CNN's Randi Kaye.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: For Eric DeLeon, it is a race against the clock. Nine cancerous tumors are eating away at his liver. Chemotherapy hardly made a dent. And because his cancer will likely come back, doctors in the United States have taken Eric off the transplant list. But Eric is refusing to give up, refusing to die.

DELEON: I said, I'm going to beat this. I'm going to do whatever it takes to get this done. I'm not going to leave my family behind.

KAYE: Eric's doctors aren't nearly as confident. A transplant coordinator at Eric's California hospital wrote this note, "I guess he is toast and is looking to get a TX (transplant) in China. Oh well life is sweet."

A world away, after mortgaging his home, Eric finds hope. China is offering organ transplants to foreign patients willing to pay whatever it costs. It's called organ tourism. Eric finds a Chinese transplant service. Two weeks later, Eric and his wife are in Shanghai.

(On camera): You were never given any indication that your husband's new liver may come from a prisoner?

LORI DELEON, ERIC'S WIFE: Not -- no. We weren't told beforehand that this is where it is coming from. We weren't told after.

KAYE (voice-over): With more than 4,700 prisoners executed in China over the last two years, according to Amnesty International, there is no shortage of organs. But thing organs may be coming from prisoners who did not provide consent. Critics say some organs in China are even taken before the prisoner is actually dead.

(On camera): Remember, not any donor is suitable because of the risk of rejection. Blood and tissue types must match as closely as possible.

In China, Eric and other would be recipients provide a blood sample. Then Chinese doctors find a match. But for some activists and physicians, that raises the question about the timing of certain executions.

DELEON: If somebody was killed for me, yes, I would feel bad. But there is no way of knowing that.

KAYE (voice-over): The Chinese hospital gave Eric a cell phone and instructions. He and his wife should enjoy the sites until the cell phone rang. That would signal a matching organ was available.

Though nervous, a new liver seemed all but certain, they did enjoy being tourists.

Then just two weeks later, the phone rang. After five and a half hours in the operating room, Eric had a healthy new liver. A second chance at life. U.S. doctors are seeing more and more transplant patients who have returned from China.

DR. THOMAS DIFLO, TRANSPLANT SURGEON, NYU MEDICAL CENTER: Whatever that source might be, one can speculate about. However, there is significant correlation between the actual number of executions that are done at any particular time and the number of transplants that are done.

KAYE: Some doctors like New York Transplant Surgeon Thomas Diflo believe what may be happening to prisoners in China is a gross violation of human rights. He refuses to treat people who have had surgery in China.

Dr. Diflo recalls the first time he heard about it. It was a female patient.

DIFLO: I said where did you get your organ? And she said from an executed prisoner.

KAYE: Dr. Diflo was horrified. So what is the United States doing to stop organ tourism?

Chris Smith and more than a dozen other Congressmen wrote this letter to the president of China, demanding the practice be changed. No response.

SMITH: The Chinese government, unfortunately, is largely tone deaf when it has come to human rights.

KAYE: The Chinese government refused our request for an interview, But issued this statement to CNN: "The reports about China's random transplant of organs from executed criminals are untrue and a malicious slander against (the) Chinese judiciary system." Adding, "In China, it is very prudent to use organs from death penalty criminals."

SMITH: The bigger the lie, the better people will swallow it. And this is a big lie.

KAYE: As for Eric DeLeon, he says the answer is more donors in the U.S. More than 90,000 people are on the transplant waiting list in the United States today. Last year, 6,268 people died while waiting.

Still, Dr. Diflo call's Eric's decision ethically irresponsible and unacceptable. Eric has no regret.

(On camera): What if they didn't consent?

DELEON: If they didn't consent, that's a hard question.

KAYE: Would you still want that liver?

DELEON: No, I don't think I would. But, I don't think I'll ever know that.

L. DELEON: Everybody has the right to their own opinion. If you're not in the shoes that my husband was in, or my position where, you know, you're so close to home with it, it is very hard for you to even judge somebody or state what you would or wouldn't do.

KAYE (voice-over): So while the foreign powers figure out how to come to terms on organ tourism, Eric's children continue to celebrate their dad's recovery.

DOMINIC DELEON, ERIC'S SON: And I looked in there, in his shirt, I felt the liver.

KAYE (on camera): You felt the liver in his shirt? Did you hug him and tell him you loved him?

D. DELEON: Yes.

KAYE: What did you say to him?

D. DELEON: I love you.

KAYE (voice-over): With a 90 percent chance his cancer will return and no spot on the transplant list, Eric is making the most of his time with family. And quietly thanking the stranger who saved him, whether he did so willingly or not.

Randy Kaye, CNN, San Mateo, California.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Impossible choices.

Well, coming up, he was once governor. He might have been president. Now he's running for attorney general of California. Coming up, we'll talk to the 21st century edition of Jerry Brown. How would he get along with Arnold? Well, we'll talk to him about that.

Plus, a preview of my exclusive interview with Angelina Jolie. Her dispatch from the delivery room, when this special edition of 360 from San Francisco continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: And you're looking at a live shot of Alcatraz, once the military prison and then, of course, the federal penitentiary, now a tourist attraction, out here in San Francisco.

In a moment, I'll talk live with Former California Governor Jerry Brown. Long story short, it used to be that Jerry Brown was always in the headlines. He was new age, back when new age was still new. But in case you're young enough to need some background on him, here is CNN's Joe Johns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is Jerry Brown 2006.

People like to talk to you.

MAYOR JERRY BROWN (D), ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: Everybody talks to me.

JOHNS: More than two decades ago, Jerry Brown was the high profile California governor, known for his sometimes liberal politics and unorthodox governing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You'll be our president too.

JOHNS: But as mayor of Oakland for the last eight years, he's been uncharacteristically flying under the national radar, which is to say who knew he's a law and order kind of guy.

BROWN: I have been battle tested. Two blocks from here I built a place, right here, first one. Two blocks away, there have been two murders since I moved in. That's why for me crime fighting is not an abstraction, it's not a political rhetoric, it's about survival. It's about life and death.

JOHNS: And that, he says, is why he's making a surprising run to be California's attorney general, the state's top cop. It's a long way from the Jerry Brown of old, even if much of that is a myth.

Son of a California governor, but elected twice on his own merits, Brown even ran for president three times. BROWN: Stand on the truth.

JOHNS: A political rock star, he dated a real rock star. Linda Ronstadt was tagged with the nickname, "Governor Moonbeam." This is the guy who vetoed the death penalty in California, forcing the legislature to override it.

Today, Brown says forget his opposition to the death penalty. Forget that old liberal image. He wants you to believe he'll be a take no prisoners, tough on crime, on the side of the cops, prosecutor.

BROWN: I'm not naive. I've got the full grasp of what we're up against. And we are up against something no less than urban terrorism.

JOHNS (on camera): But if Brown wants to leave the past behind, his opponent, State Senator Chuck Poochigian, isn't about to let him. He paints Brown this way -- once a lefty, always a lefty.

STATE SENATOR CHUCK POOCHIGIAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: I will win with more people knowing about who he is and what he believes. The truth is going to hurt.

JOHNS: But other than his runs for president, the label has never really spoiled Brown's political aspirations. Partly because he's become skilled at rejecting the old labels. Take the death penalty...

BROWN: The attorney general is under the overall authority of the governor. And the responsibility for execution does not rest with the attorney general. I will carry out the law.

JOHNS: Have you moved to the right? Or is it just mellowing? Or is it both?

BROWN: Well, it is very simple. I mean, I call it the way I see it. And I know from the way the cops are here, people are complaining about him, they lie about him and yet they got to go out there and stop the criminals.

JOHNS: Watch Jerry run for governor, senator, president, mayor, attorney general.

(Voice-over): He's always drawn extreme reactions, but he just can't seem to stop running.

BROWN: OK, you got more than you need.

JOHNS (on camera): Thanks.

Joe Johns, CNN, Oakland, California.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, tonight Candidate Jerry Brown is here in San Francisco.

Mayor Brown, appreciate you being with us. You're 68 years old. You've been the governor, you've been the mayor now of Oakland. You've run for president. Why attorney general?

BROWN: Well, just look at this beautiful state. I care about California. I care about the environment. It's under assault in Washington. I care about women's rights. I care about preserving this wonderful state that has given my family, myself so many opportunities.

COOPER: Well, but I mean, people don't think of you as like the law and order guy. I mean, that's what an attorney general is. You're against the death penalty. Why attorney general?

BROWN: Well, yes, the law and order. The law of the environment, the law of working families, the law of making the streets safer. I've been the tough big city mayor in the city that is very challenging. We brought down the crime rate dramatically. I've learned a lot. If you want and attorney general, you want someone who's had a breadth of experience and there's nobody who's had more experience in California and throughout the world than I have. And I think I can be the legal adviser to the governor, to the state and the lawyer for the people.

COOPER: You said you brought down the crime rate in Oakland. But recently, there has been an upsurge then and your candidate is going to be using that against you.

BROWN: Well, I mean, we just had an upsurge in Sacramento, Fresno, St. Louis, Baltimore, all over the country. But we're taking means to fight it. We're taking every measure that we can to put the felons in jail. And basically, we're fighting a battle against the state that dumps 100,000 felons onto the streets of California every year, untrained, unsupervised and as angry as when they went into prison. So, there is a real failure in the Sacramento scene there, of which my opponent happens to be one of the 20-year incumbents.

COOPER: You said that when you were governor, you had to play defense, but as attorney general, you can play offense. What do you mean?

BROWN: Well, I mean, as attorney general, you send out the subpoena, you take action against the polluters, the people who want to drill offshore in California, who want to dump toxic chemicals into the fields or into the waters of the state. This is a major position of responsibility to protect California. The public trust, the integrity of the public officials, the honesty of corporations, the efficiency of the nonprofit sector. This is a very broad based job, not just a narrow focus for the extreme right ring. This is a job about justice and fairness, and also about compassion.

COOPER: Let me ask you on national politics, when you ran for president, you were critical sometimes of the DNC, about some of the positions they took, about their willingness to take a stand on issues. How do you think the Democrats are doing right now nationally.

BROWN: Well, look, I'm a Democrat. I think we need a new president. And I'd like him to be a Democrat. But, look, we got a lot of squabbling there. We're not dealing with global warming, we're not dealing with the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We're not getting off of foreign oil. We're not dealing with alternative energy in the way we should. This country is overcommitted, it's underfunded and we need discipline and vision and I don't see it in Washington.

COOPER: Why do they call you Governor Moonbeam?

BROWN: Because I wanted to have a space satellite for California, which if we had had it, we would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. I also was pretty creative. I had a lot of different ideas on solar, on wind energy, on the environment. And I was 20 years ahead of my time. Now, most of the ideas, if not all of them, have already been adopted. And I'm proud of that.

COOPER: Mayor Brown, I appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much. We'll watch the race. Appreciate it.

A preview of my exclusive interview with Angelina Jolie coming up.

But first, Erica Hill has some of the other business stories we're following tonight -- Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, we begin with another rally on Wall Street today. The Dow climbing 198 points to push it above the 11,000 mark. The NASDAQ jumped 58. The S&P 500 gained 26. Now, this is the second straight rally for the market and it ends nearly two weeks of sluggish trading.

Just how, though, will Wall Street react tomorrow to the stunning news from Bill Gates. Today the Microsoft founder said he'll give up day-to-day operations of his company in 2008 so he can concentrate more on his charities. The announcement came after the bell. Gates is the richest person in the world, with a personal wealth estimated at about $50 billion.

And if you are flying this summer, expect to pay a little more for that seat. Several major airlines are raising ticket prices. The reason? You guessed it, higher fuel costs. Today's hikes are aimed at one-way walk up fares and first-class tickets -- Anderson.

COOPER: Well, before we go to break, a quick look live at the House of Representatives debating a resolution on Iraq. The debate has been bitter throughout the day. It is going late into the night. The vote is expected tomorrow.

That is Representative Louie Gohmert speaking now, a Republican from Texas. And we have been hearing from Republicans and Democrats, and often very divided House today. We'll have more on that. We'll continue to follow the debate that is going on. Also ahead tonight, memories of madness, starvation and war. "Dispatches from the Edge," my journey to Somalia and update on what is happening in Somalia right now.

Also ahead, Angelina Jolie, a preview of my exclusive interview with the actress, the activist and mother, when 360 continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, over last few weeks we have been updating some of my dispatches from around the world. The many of the experiences are in my new book, "Dispatches From the Edge, A Memoir of War, Disasters and Survival."

Tonight a follow-up on Somalia, one of the poorest countries in the world. Somalia is now nearly completely controlled by Islamic militants. They seized much of the country, including the capital Mogadishu in recent days. The violence has left hundreds dead. And the country is also believed to be a haven for al Qaeda members.

The U.S. backed the warlords, hoping they would capture the terrorists. But now the warlords are losing to those Islamic extremists. That's a setback for the war against terror.

Back in 1993 when I was working with Channel 1, I went to Somalia. Back then it was bad. There had been months of famine, but things seemed to be getting better. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(SINGING)

COOPER (voice-over): The sounds of an English class in Baidoa, Somalia. It may be only as basic as the ABCs, but for these Somalia orphans, it may mean they have a future. At 7:30, classes begin. English, Somali, some math. The classrooms are bare. Paper and books are hard to come by. So is space. Each of these children has lost somebody. Each has been touched by tragedy.

(On camera): Most of these kids, most of their parents died because of hunger or...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Because of hunger and because of the war conflict itself. Most of the children and parents die on the way coming here.

COOPER (voice-over): Some kids still come in from the countryside. And for them there is medical care. A volunteer nurse from an Irish relief group called Goal runs the clinic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Same problem with the last two (inaudible). They're so malnourished, that they can't actually walk. Like this girl here, she has been with us for a few weeks. She's a lot weller, but she's still not strong enough to walk. We're still getting quite a few admissions in and out, but nothing to the number that we were getting before. COOPER (voice-over): So, overall the number of malnourished children you're seeing is down?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's down, but it's still there.

COOPER (voice-over): Seeing the success of the orphanage, it's easy to forget what Baidoa was like just a few months ago. But right outside, there is a grim reminder. What used to be the playground is now a children's cemetery.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All these mounds you see is a grave for a nameless child. They are at the age from 2 years to 15 years.

COOPER (on camera): What is the mortality rate now, compared to how it was?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On May 1, when we started, 80 kids -- we had 15 to 18 would die a day.

COOPER: Wait, 15 to 18 kids dying per day?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, dying per day. And we have their graves here, but now we don't have even one per month.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, as you can probably tell, I was a lot younger back then. That was 1993. I wish I could tell you that things have gotten better in Somalia. But here are some had facts from today.

Somalia has the 19th highest death rate in the world. Life expectancy there is 48 years. Less than 30 percent of the country has access to safe water. And eight children have died of malnutrition in the past week.

A programming note about my exclusive interview with one of the most talked about people on the planet, Angelina Jolie. Yesterday I sat down with the actress and the activist, just four days after she and Brad Pitt returned from Namibia with their new baby.

We spoke for about an hour, covering a lot of ground -- her causes, her work for the UNHCR as a goodwill ambassador. We also talked about her celebrity, being hounded by the paparazzi and yes, we even talked about the birth of her daughter.

Here she describes what it was like in the delivery room.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANGELINA JOLIE, ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: I just wanted to hear her cry. I was sure everything would go -- at the last minute I became the mother that was sure everything was going to go wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: We're going to be airing all of our exclusive interview with Angelina Jolie on World Refugee Day, next Tuesday. It's a very special edition of 360. I think you'll like it. I urge you to tune in.

We'll have more of 360 in a moment from San Francisco at sunset.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Tomorrow, on "AMERICAN MORNING," 10 months after Hurricane Katrina swept these shrimp boats out of the water, the federal government cannot seem to get them back in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We didn't have the funds, you know, the money to have these boats removed and then to have it removed, this is a lot of money we're talking about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Trying to cut through the bureaucracy and the red tape, tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING," starting at 6:00 a.m., Eastern Time.

That does it for this special edition of 360, live from San Francisco.

Tomorrow, we move our West Coast tour to Seattle. Join us at 10:00 p.m., Eastern; 7:00 p.m., Pacific.

Next week, we'll have Angelina Jolie.

"LARRY KING" is coming up next tonight. His guest, Gene Robinson, America's first openly gay Episcopal bishop.

Have a great evening.

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

CNN U.S.
CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNNAvantGo Ad Info About Us Preferences
Search
© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines