Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Health Care Reform in Danger?
Aired December 15, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Making news right now: the president is about to try and save health care reform, after it is slashed up again. We are minutes away from that.
The unkindest cut of all: Lieberman strands the Democrats and Republicans love it. But why did he say this?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: My proposals were to basically expand Medicare and Medicaid.
SANCHEZ: Was he for expanding Medicare before he was against it?
(on camera): They are no different than anybody who else has held that office that we have criticized for putting politics above the good of the country.
MATT TAIBBI, "ROLLING STONE": Well, that is absolutely true.
SANCHEZ: And part two of my interview with Matt Taibbi, "Rolling Stone" magazine's controversial contributing editor.
TAIBBI: A lot of people in the journalism business have really more of an issue with the style of writing that I use.
SANCHEZ: My access becomes your access with direct tweets from McCain, Cantor, Palin, Congress, and the president. A truly national conversation for Tuesday, December 15, 2009, starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez with the next generation of news. This is a conversation. It is not a speech. And as always, it is your turn to get involved.
Let me tell you where we are going. First of all, breaking news: the president, who is about to speak again on health care reform. And we may be watching this thing blow up right in the president's face. Remember this thing? This same thing blew up on President Bill Clinton's face, and many argued that he never recovered his footing from it.
Well, that is precisely what this president wants to avoid. It is why this White House appears to be bending over backward today, even if it means giving in to Joe Lieberman into what he wants, as we look at the very first pictures coming in from the White House now. This is where the president is going to be coming out any moment now.
We can stay with the picture. Or, if you want, Dan, you want to just put it in a box? Either way.
All right. Does that mean no public option? So be it. No Medicare buy-in? Fine. So be it. That appears to be the case, at least the case, the story that is coming out of the White House today, because they need that vote. They need Joe Lieberman's vote, the 60th vote, to get this thing through the Senate.
And they may have thought they had it, but the whole game suddenly changed on Sunday, when Senator Lieberman began to back away.
Well, just a short time ago, he stated his price explicitly. So, as we await the president's arrival, here is Senator Joe Lieberman setting the table for us, formerly a Democrat, now an independent, from the state of Connecticut. Here he is putting his price on his vote for health care reform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: If, as appears to be happening, the -- the so-called public option, government-run insurance program is out and the Medicare buy-in, which I thought would jeopardize Medicare, cost taxpayers billions of dollars over the long haul, increase our deficit, is out, and there's no other attempts to bring things like that in, then I'm -- I'm going to be in a position where I can -- I can say -- I'm getting toward that position where I can say what I have wanted to say all along, that I'm ready to vote for health care reform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Here is the translation for you, no public option, no expanding Medicare, otherwise, known as my way or the highway.
I want to call your attention now to the White House once again. Let's see if we got the Roosevelt Room up. You will be able to see the podium. I am looking down, and I don't see if anybody is there now. There it is.
The president called a meeting with Senate Democrats. And they, Senate Democrats, cannot be happy, not happy with Joe Lieberman, and perhaps not happy with the White House, because it appears to want to appease Lieberman in order to get his vote. That is right. The White House seems ready to appease Lieberman, maybe even more than Senate Democrats do.
So how can the Senate Democrats face their supporters if they vote for a bill on health care reform that doesn't have the public option, and that doesn't even have so-called Medicare buy-in?
But what about looking at it from the president's viewpoint? What if health care fails altogether and the president has to face the American people empty-handed? Are President Obama and congressional Democrats inextricably connected on this? Now, this is like a Greek tragedy, the way it's turning out for him. Remember, Bill Clinton lost health care reform, and one year later, he lost both houses of Congress.
One more thing, let's go back on Joe Lieberman again. Why the apparent turnaround? Why now oppose expansion of Medicare, when he used to support it? He is denying he has done a 180. But, here, judge for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIEBERMAN: My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid.
When it came to Medicare, I was very focused on a group post-50, maybe post -- more like post-55, people who have retired early or unfortunately have been laid off early who lose their health insurance, and they're too young to qualify for Medicare. And what I was proposing was that they have an option to buy in to Medicare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, he was once for expanding Medicare. But, as of Sunday, parts of yesterday, no way.
One other note: Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut. Connecticut has as many insurance companies as any state in the union. And without the public option, which is designed to create competition for the insurance industry, and without the expansion of Medicare, which would also compete with these insurers, guess what? Guess who really wins? Insurance companies.
They are going to get a whole lot more customers. Them's the facts, folks.
Let me show you something else that we're going to be doing for you that you can only get here exclusively on this show every day from 3:00 to 4:00. What you are looking at is what we affably call Rick's List.
How much money do you think Joe Lieberman has taken from the insurance industry? And where does he rank compared to other senators? We use Rick's List's get information like that. And that's exactly what we're going to do. I am about to show you by using my Twitter list and making my access become your access, because following the money is what I do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That was in October when he said that, Harry Reid then praising and trusting Joe Lieberman. You think he feels that way now? We have also just learned today that the White House is going to be sending up about 100 prisoners from Gitmo detention center to a prison in Illinois. Leaders from Illinois have also been at the White House today. And we expect to hear from them any minute.
So, as you can see, there is a lot of stuff going on right now. We're putting it all together for you. The president is expected to come out in moments. If it happens during this next commercial, we will break out and bring him in. Stay right there.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Hey, Rick. David from Maine.
Senator Lieberman is kind of the grim reaper of this bill. This bill has been sort of shredded down to almost irrelevance and impracticality. So I am not particularly impressed with the final product. God knows what will come out of conference. Don't even know if we can really call this health care reform.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Let's start off with the very first pictures that are coming into us now. This is the president, obviously, walking in with the first lady.
Now, keep in mind, here is what has been going on. Let me explain this to you. This is important. The president of the United States has been meeting, as we understand it, with members of the Democratic Caucus. Among the members of the Democratic Caucus is Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman seems to be throwing a wrench about yay big into the health care reform debate, essentially saying that, well, as we stated at the beginning of this newscast, it is his way or the highway on this thing, his prerogative. He is being praised by Republicans. He's being criticized, as you might imagine, by the left.
We mentioned moments ago how important Joe Lieberman is to the debate. We also mentioned that Joe Lieberman is from the state of Connecticut. I think it behooves us, since he is from the state of Connecticut, to mention the ties that the state of Connecticut has to the insurance industry, which does not want this reform to pass.
Joe Lieberman said today, in fact, that he was not pressured by the insurance industry. That's what he told reporters. Let's look at the record. What we find out if we go to my list on Twitter and we have been researching throughout the day is that after talking to at least one of the organizations -- there is the list, by the way -- now let's go to the specific items that we would address in this case.
And this is where we asked OpenSecrets.org. We have sent you there many times. We use them here. We think they are reliable. We also think they're down the middle as to who in Congress is getting what from whom.
Here is what they wrote us. For the 2006 election cycle, Lieberman ranked second among all federal candidates in money raised from the insurance industry. Again, let me read this to you. According to OpenSecrets.org, Joseph Lieberman, who today essentially threw a wrench into health care reform, was second in 2006, during the election cycle, ranked second among all federal candidates in money raised from the insurance industry.
When we come back, the president of the United States is going to be speaking. We also have two more that we want to share with you. We have got an important tweet from Senator John McCain. And we have a second tweet that we are going to be sending you as well.
Let's get a break in. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Once again, as you might imagine, this is the kind of story, as the president gets ready to come to that podium -- for those of you just now joining us, he has just moments ago met with members of the Democratic Caucus. And there are the members of the Democratic Caucus as we speak there. There is the president.
Let's take him.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We just had a very productive session about the final stages of health care reform in the Senate. And from the discussions we had, it's clear that we are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded Congresses and presidents for generations, a achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American.
There are still some differences that have to be worked on. This was not a roll call. This was a broad-based discussion about how we move forward.
But whatever differences remain, there is broad consensus around reforms that will finally, number one, protect every American from the worst practices in the health insurance industry. No longer will these companies be able to deny you coverage if you have a preexisting illness or condition. No longer will they be able to drop you from coverage when you get sick. No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments that you need.
We are all in agreement on those reforms.
We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums. Businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future.
This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program. And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
And I just want to repeat this because there's so much misinformation about the cost issue here. You talk to every health care economist out there, and they will tell you that whatever ideas are -- whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses and government, those elements are in this bill.
And in terms of deficits, because we keep on hearing these ads about how this is going to add to the deficit, the CBO has said that this is a deficit reduction -- not a deficit increase.
So all the scare tactics out there, all the ads that are out there, are simply inaccurate. Some of the same people who cited the CBO when it was saying it didn't reduce the deficit, saying CBO's the most credible possible arbiter of whether or not this adds to our deficit, now suddenly are ignoring what the CBO says.
Finally, we agree on reforms that will make coverage affordable for 30 million Americans who don't have it. Every day that goes by, another 14,000 Americans lose their health care coverage.
A recent study shows that in the next decade, half of all Americans under the age of 65 will be without coverage at some point.
On the other hand, if this reform passes, when it passes, for the very first time in their lives, these Americans will be able to provide health insurance for their families.
And those Americans who are already covered will no longer have to live in fear that their family might fall through the cracks of the system we have now.
These aren't small changes. These are big changes. They represent the most significant reform of our health care system since the passage of Medicare. They will save money. They will save families money. They will save businesses money, and they will save government money. And they're going to save lives.
That's why this reform is supported by groups like the AARP, who represents most of America's seniors. That's why this reform has to pass on our watch.
Now, let's be clear. The final bill won't include everything that everybody wants. No bill can do that. But what I told my former colleagues today is that we simply cannot allow differences over individual elements of this plan to prevent us from meeting our responsibility to solve a longstanding and urgent problem for the American people.
They are waiting for us to act. They are counting on us to show leadership. And I don't intend to let them down and neither do the people standing next to me. There's too much at stake for families who can't pay their medical bills or see a doctor when they need to, or get the treatment they need. The stakes are enormous for them. The stakes are enormous for businesses, who are already seeing their premiums go up 15, 20, 30 percent. You know, a lot of the critics of this entire process fail to note what happens if nothing get done, and the American people have to be very clear about this. If we don't get this done, your premiums are guaranteed to go up. If this does not get done, more employers are going to drop coverage because they can't afford it. If this does not get done, it is guaranteed that Medicare and Medicaid will blow a hole through our budget.
Those things are guaranteed. That's the status quo. That is the trajectory that we are currently on.
I don't intend to have that happen. And I believe that the Senate doesn't intend to have that happen. And I think any fair reading of this bill will indicate that all the criteria that I laid out when I met before a joint session have now been met.
It is deficit-neutral. It bends the cost curve. It covers 30 million Americans who don't have health insurance, and it has extraordinary insurance reforms in there that make sure that we're preventing abuse.
By the way, it also does things that Tom Harkin has been a champion of for years, prevention and wellness, to make sure that people are getting the care they need and the check-ups they need and the screenings they need before they get sick, which will save all of us money and reduce pressures on emergency rooms all across the country.
So there are still disagreements that have to be ironed out. There is still work to be done in the next few days. I think it's important for every single member of the Senate to take a careful look at what's in the bill.
We welcome the scrutiny from the press. You know, recently, there was an article in The New Yorker that talked about all the cost savings and how important they are going to be in terms of bending the cost curve over the long term.
I am absolutely confident that, if the American people know what's in this bill and if the Senate knows what's in this bill, that this is going to pass. Because it's right for America, and I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that we can get this done and start rolling up our sleeves and getting to work improving the lives of the American people.
All right? Thank you, everybody.
SANCHEZ: We are watching the president leave now. He might take some questions. He is thanking the members of the Democratic Caucus. I'm not positive, but I don't think I saw Joe Lieberman walk into that room.
I'm not positive, but I don't think I saw Joe Lieberman walk into that room. I am positive about this, though. In all the times I have listened to this president speak, I don't usually hear him sound stern. I don't usually hear him sound angry. And I rarely ever hear him use threatening language, as I just heard him use now about this health care reform legislation that he seems hell-bent on getting passed that looks to be, frankly, folks, in a whole lot of trouble right now.
We also didn't get any specific answers from the president on where this thing stands. Is the public option in? Is the public option out? Is the expanded Medicare for people at 55 in or is it out?
We don't know, or at least I could not tell from that.
Let's bring in Candy Crowley. She is following the situation with us.
I don't know where to begin. I guess the first thing I have to ask you is about Joe Lieberman. Now, he caucuses with the Democrats, even though he is independent. That was the Democratic Caucus that we just saw walk in with the president of the United States.
Was Joe Lieberman in the audience, and if not, was he in the group there with those folks, and, if not, what does that say?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I was told that he did in fact walk out of the White House and not -- sorry, walk out of the meeting, and not go there. But, as I understand it, the only senators who were there were the people that are standing by him. Not being in the room, it is hard for me to tell, but I think you just saw the leadership, those who are working on the money angel and the policy angle of health care.
And the others got on the bus and left and went back. There were 60 people there, so, as far as I know, the only ones you saw were the ones standing by the president, which means that there's only so many people you can fit into the room and so many people that wanted to be there.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: But you are right about the implication here. And that is, right now, they are not very happy with Joe Lieberman.
Having said that, they need Joe Lieberman. They have to -- remember when Olympia Snowe was sort of the...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, who needs him? Because I know the president needs him, because it is starting to appear -- and I read this on Politico today, and maybe you can confirm it for us -- the Web site Politico.com -- it is starting to sound like the White House is desperate to get something out of this.
If it is not what 62 percent of the American people want, which is, according to "The New York Times," the public option, or maybe expanded Medicare, fine, as long as we get something, so I don't look end up looking like I have got egg on my face, right?
But I am not sure the rest of the Democrats in that room are willing to cut that deal? Or are they? You tell me.
CROWLEY: Well, they are. And here's why they are.
Let's just switch for a moment to the politics of it. And that is that you cannot go next November, as all of the House and a third of the Senate will do, to the voters and say, well, I know that we have a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House, but we just couldn't get health care.
The is just not a sellable item in a year that already looks bad, simply because it is a midterm. So there is the politics of it.
And when you listen to the president, I have to tell you, that was pretty much his campaign speech. We didn't hear a heck of a lot if at all about a public option. It wasn't that big of a deal.
What the president campaigned on was, we have to stop this business of having lifetime caps and yearly caps. We have to stop this business of your being able to pay, having to pay untold numbers of dollars, instead of having a lid on what you have to pay.
We have to stop turning away people with preexisting conditions, and we have to stop throwing people off health insurance that get sick. He also talked about bringing in the 30 million or so who are not, who don't have health insurance, because they can't afford it.
He didn't campaign a lot on the public option, and he never came forward and said, listen, no matter what, I have to have this public option. He was very, very cautious about that. He said he supported it.
SANCHEZ: But aren't many Americans, and don't many polls show that Americans wanted some kind of government involvement in this? Isn't this going to be seen by those people as, yes, legislation, but not the kind of legislation that the American people wanted?
You can put lipstick on the pig, but to quote Sarah Palin, it is still a pig.
CROWLEY: If you indeed do what the president just outlined, and you bring uninsured people and give them subsidies and make it affordable for them to buy health insurance and you mandate basically for most people health insurance, and if you get rid of all those things that the insurance companies do that so many people relate to, that is, the preexisting conditions, et cetera, I think most of the American people will look and say, that is better.
Now, the president can come back and say, we have got three more years. I will go back.
But, generally speaking, we are going to know whether the public is happy, and the public is going to know whether the public is happy, after this is signed into law and takes effect. I mean, if suddenly you find that your insurance is lower, lower cost, if suddenly you find that your sick brother or mother or aunt can get health insurance and get treatment, you are going to be pretty happy and you're not going to say, well, why don't we have that public option?
SANCHEZ: Can we nail down at this point that at least as far as the Senate is concerned, given what we have heard Joe Lieberman say over the past 48 hours, that the public option is D-dead, as is the plan to expand Medicare to the age of 55? Are those things dead?
CROWLEY: Well, the plan to expand Medicare pretty much was the public option, so, yes. It is math. It is simple math.
SANCHEZ: So, they're dead? OK.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: As you know, it has to go back with the House and this and that and the other thing.
But the fact is that it is math, 58 Democrats, two independents. There is no margin for error for Harry Reid. He needs all 60 of those votes. The White House is saying do what it takes. The Medicare option, expanding it to people 55 and 65, is going away.
SANCHEZ: So, can you do this? Can you stick around? Because now I'm confused, and I think I am thinking like a lot of Americans. All right, if that is gone, what is left? Can you try your best? And I know you are not Dr. Sanjay Gupta. You cover this from your perspective. But can you stick around? If I come back after a commercial, can you explain to us what is left in this bill?
CROWLEY: Sure.
SANCHEZ: All right. Let's do that, then, because I think there's like a hole left in this argument that, given what we just heard, we really still don't understand.
By the way, a lot of information coming in to us now via tweets. We have got this tweet just came in a little while ago from Senator John McCain.
It says: "Joe Lieberman, standing up for his principles on health care, is being viciously attacked by the liberal left. What a disgrace."
That is from Senator John McCain.
Now let's go to the other side. I think we have got Sestak, right? Do we have Congressman Sestak's? No. Let's stay right here, if we could. Let me read that one to you. This is Sestak. He is a Democrat, Pennsylvania, as you know. He sent this to me, CNN: "Rick, some senators just have the wrong idea about change. We need a change of policy, not position."
Now, he is kind of taking a shot at Lieberman. Obviously, McCain was defending Lieberman. You are going to see a lot of this going on throughout the day, and we are going to be all over it for you. Stay right there. This argument is not finished yet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are trying to get access to the individual involved, and we would expect the government of Cuba to honor its obligations under the Vienna Convention.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: An American contractor working in Cuba ends up in jail. How did he get there? And, by the way, what was he doing in Cuba? You are not supposed to go there, right, unless you have got a visa? We are going to examine how this mystery has ended up just ahead.
And stay with us. We have got the after-show coming up. And, as promised, I asked Candy to stick around to try to explain to us what is left on this health care debate. She is going to do that for us. She will wrap that up when we come back.
Stay right there, because I want to know, too.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We have got some information I want to share with you right now. It is sad news for those of us who grew up with the man, but we at CNN have just confirmed and can now report that Dr. Oral Roberts has just passed away. Dr. Oral Roberts, as you know, founded his ministry back in 1947. He has remained involved in the ministry that he founded and obviously Oral Roberts University, which we've all come to know.
His ministry -- he has been succeeded, I should say, by his son, Richard Roberts, currently serving as president of the ministry and the university. He continues to serve as well as chancellor of the university that he founded in 1963. So there you have it. CNN confirming moments ago that Dr. Oral Roberts, at the age of 91, has passed away. Our condolences obviously to his friends and family.
Meanwhile, Candy Crowley coming back to us now to try and take us through this, because I think we probably got as clear a picture as we're ever going to get, maybe not so much by what the president said, although I tended to learn a lot from his demeanor. He usually is very professorial and he didn't come off professorial this time, in fact, he came across downright stern, talking about the implications of what is going to happen if we don't do this, as he continued to say.
If this is not get done, premiums will go up, and on and on the president said. But it does seem given what the president did not say that we're not going to have the government involvement in this plan. So then, you are probably wondering at home, well, what is left? What is this thing going to have? What is it going to offer me? This is why we kept Candy around for this block. Candy, can you take us through that?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh dear. OK. First of all, we should say that don't have a final bill yet, I know people can't quite believe it. But eventually the Senate, we believe, will pass something, and then the House and the Senate will kind of work on melding their two bills together so things could change.
But here is what it looks like, and I think we saw the president give a pretty good outline. It is, first of all, the crackdown on some of those health industry -- health insurance industry practices of refusing to cover people with pre-existing, of capping how much in a lifetime one can get in health insurance, either annually or through a lifetime, those kinds of things that have kept people from getting health care. there will also be subsidies for people who cannot afford health care.
There will also be subsidies for people who cannot afford health care. There will be a requirement that most people get health insurance with the subsidies to help them do that. There will also be -- there also is sort of smaller things in here, you heard the president refer to a premium on wellness, some of those things that we have been hearing about, why don't you give more on the health insurance industry for just going and staying well as opposed to, you know, giving most of the money for when you get sick. There is that kind of thing.
There are lots of -- remember, it is a 2,000-page bill at least in the Senate. So there are those things. There are also how to pay for it. And here I have to tell you the House and the Senate disagree, will there be a tax, a surtax on the wealthy? Or will there be a tax on the so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans?
So there are plenty of things in this and again, things that I think people totally relate to, because you're...
SANCHEZ: But the burden is still going to be on the employer to have to fund that health care in large measure, and it is going to be very -- suppose I'm a small business owner, and I only have 10 people, because I'm not a huge organization, it costs me a lot of money, and if one of those 10 people in my organization happens to come down with diabetes, I have got to charge everybody a whole lot of money, I may be paying out more to cover my employees' health care benefits than I do what I pay them in salary, who is going to help that guy? Is there something here for him?
CROWLEY: Well, again, some of those employees could probably get subsidies, but we don't know at the level of detail...
SANCHEZ: Subsidies.
CROWLEY: ... and certainly when it comes to small businesses, because small businesses -- and I would think someone with 10 employees are exempt from this sort of thing, because it is just too small and it is a huge burden, as you say.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Yes, and I picked that number out of nowhere, but we're just trying to get a sense, and I know it is hard at this point to try and understand if the employer has to do it and the employer says, I am sorry, I can't without going broke, and I have got to shut down, then is there any alternative for the government to coming in and helping those people stay employed and also stay insured?
CROWLEY: There are business incentives as well on both sides, and again the level of detail, I can't tell you, but to do precisely that, to help out some of these businesses that are struggling. Now, there are cost-saving things that they have put in these bills, provisions that they believe are restrictions on insurance companies that they believe will drive down the cost, and make this less costly.
And again, when the president was a candidate, he talked not about a public option, he talked about driving down costs of health care. And within that, you know, and he talked about bringing everybody in, because you are necessarily going to bring in young people who are not that costly to insure, because they're generally healthy, and that that would help to pay for others.
So you know, and that will help the insurance companies and so -- you know...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: No, I know. And to a certain extent, it may not be fair to beat them over the head with this and say, you promised, you didn't deliver. I don't think we are that point yet. Let me continue to try and make this the Rick and Candy hour. I'm going to ask you to hang out here with me in a little bit and this conversation that you and I are having I think is very informative, but I've just been told that Dick Durbin has come before the mikes.
Can -- he just walked away? Angie, let me know if we can turn any of that. Who is this now? Who is speaking here? Candy, can you help me? Oh, this is Jim Jones.
CROWLEY: I don't have my...
SANCHEZ: This is news being made as we speak, Candy, the 100, as I understand it, and this is what I read before I came on air, 100 detainees from Guantanamo Bay are going to be shipped to Illinois and I understand that several representatives obviously from Illinois, Dick Durbin being one of those, was just speaking. Let's listen in to Jones, if we possibly can.
JAMES JONES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: ... this is going to be a facility that will be very safe, will pose no danger to the community, and we will take all steps necessary to maintain the security of the people of Illinois, the surrounding neighborhoods, and also enhance our national security. So again, thank you very much to you, Senator, and Governor, for stepping forward on behalf of the people of Illinois, and we are most grateful to you for this action.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Would he say the same thing about President Bush's call to close Guantanamo? Would he say the same thing about Secretary Gates who served under both administrations, that they somehow forgot 9/11. That is an unfair statement. We will never forget 9/11. And we will make certain that the people who are responsible for it are held accountable either through military tribunals or through the courts of our land.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DURBIN: We are going to appeal to members of Congress, many of whom have wondered where this was going to be ultimately resolved. And I think the president in coming to his home state has made it clear that we think this is not only a safe facility, but a great opportunity for our state. So I'm hoping we can get bipartisan support to do it.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: What is the funding level?
DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that we are still negotiating between the...
SANCHEZ: All right. So what you are listening to is Dick Durbin essentially explaining from a positive standpoint exactly why it is that he is in favor of moving these 100 detainees to his home state of Illinois.
But Candy Crowley back with us now. There is also a reticent perspective out there from people who aren't sure this is a good idea, and you heard -- you didn't hear the question, but you pretty much knew what that question was, it was asked of Dick Durbin, are we turning our backs on 9/11? Have we forgotten the message of 9/11 by allowing these people to come here? What is the politics behind this?
CROWLEY: Well, 9/11, as you know, is a flashpoint in history as well as -- at least in the aftermath a huge political word that now comes up about, let's remember this, let's remember that, and this is not safe. And what you are finding here is you are hearing Republicans, both in the state and on Capitol Hill saying, this is a bad idea, let's not bring terrorists to U.S. soil, they should stay in Guantanamo, that is where we kept them (INAUDIBLE) not safe to bring them here.
And you see people like Dick Durbin and Democrats in the state and some Republicans saying, wait a second, this is a prison totally capable of keeping the 100 or so terror suspects that would go there. It is partially empty, so there is room for them.
I think the only question here is, will it require some sort of federal funding, because I think if those who oppose this want to begin to sort of push back. That is where it will be on Capitol Hill, because, of course, they have the purse strings. SANCHEZ: Interesting argument, good arguments obviously made on both sides and something that is going to stay in the news this week, as this story moves forward. That was the first news conference that we had heard at least from that delegation.
Candy, I asked you to be with us for first five or six minutes of the show and now it is 41 minutes after, as usual. Thanks for co- anchoring with me, I appreciate it.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. Any time.
SANCHEZ: All right. We have got somebody else we are going to bring in in just a little bit. Can we have them, by the way? Can we show Eric Cantor, he is the GOP whip. I told you yesterday he is a good guy. And he has been with us before. And he tweeted me something yesterday that I thought was interesting, especially because -- Robert, go in that tweet real quick. Let's show that.
He uses the word "overregulation." And I want to challenge him a little bit on that as to whether or not it is possible given what we have seen going on on Wall Street in the last 10 or 20 years if there is such a thing as overregulation. Isn't it the opposite problem? Mr. Eric Cantor, I'm going to ask you that in just a little bit. Stay right there, and we will get at it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We have spoken on this show so many times about some of the things that went wrong that put us in the situation that we are in now with this crisis with Wall Street and our economy, the repeal of Glass-Steagall which eventually allowed investment banks to act and get in cahoots with regular banks. We talked about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which essentially allowed those default-tax swaps which were really schemes, they were -- they were selling nothing but - well, certainly nothing for the American people, and a lot for themselves on Wall Street.
And we have also talked about regulators who never got anything done because they were too busy looking the other way while people were doing things, because they wanted a job on Wall Street one day. That is what has been told to us from people on the inside, by regulators who were there, by experts, by economists.
So with that on the table, yesterday I get this tweet from GOP Whip Eric Cantor, and he suggests in the tweet, and that is why I wanted to have him on, that not Washington overregulation. Overregulation? And I am just sitting here thinking, and I think a lot of you all are as well, overregulation, isn't the problem underregulation?
So I asked him on the air and we called him today if he'd be kind and come here and join us and take us through this, and he has. So allow me to introduce now the GOP whip, Congressman Eric Cantor, who I said yesterday was a good guy and would come on, and by golly, here he is.
Congressman, thanks for being with us.
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA), MINORITY WHIP: Very good to be with you.
SANCHEZ: Can take us through this? Because I think the basic thinking out there is they didn't do enough regulating and let these scoundrels on Wall Street do all of this stuff to us, and you are suggesting that we are overregulating them?
CANTOR: Listen, Rick, everyone knows what the problem was that produced this great recession of '08. It was easy money. It was perverse government incentives. It was irresponsible government spending combined with too much leverage on Wall Street and ill- conceived lending and borrowing on Main Street. I mean, that is what got us to where we are. And so we've got to go back...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But it wasn't -- but hold up, wait, hold on, you're saying the guys on Wall Street who did these default tax swaps where they were -- they came up with a scheme where they were essentially taking their loans and then divvying them out and selling them in groups of other banks and investment groups around the world, that we should have let them do that? Somebody should have regulated that, right?
CANTOR: Listen, it was way too much leverage on Wall Street, and not enough...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: What does that mean? I don't speak Wall Street talk. What does way too much leverage mean?
CANTOR: No, I mean, because you know that the SEC, we saw some of these financial institutions leverage over 40-to-1. Nobody can do that and expect there not to be consequences.
SANCHEZ: So the SEC was asleep...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But the SEC was asleep, right?
CANTOR: Oh, no question. There was perverse government incentives involved in what happened in '08. So we've got...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: And the SEC is supposed to -- and the SEC -- well, hold on, hold on. But the SEC is supposed to regulate, right?
CANTOR: Rick, Rick, you wanted to ask about risk. Let me tell you about risk. I will give it to you. I will give it to you the regulators didn't do their job, Congress had some perverse incentives in place, there was a lot of irresponsible government spending, plenty of blame to go around.
SANCHEZ: Right.
CANTOR: All right? But at the end of the day, we know what makes America prosperous, and that is the entrepreneurial spirit. You have got to have the ability to take risk and allow for the possibility of failure in order for there to be success. That is the capitalist system. We believe in free markets, that is how America has always been the land that provides more opportunity than anywhere else in the world.
That is why coupled with their transparent judiciary we can attract global capital here. We are not going to be able to compete if somehow we are going to put Washington in charge to tell everyone the proper way to take risk. You can't do that and have a free market system.
SANCHEZ: But, are you suggesting that risk should be unbridled? That there should be no regulation of these guys?
CANTOR: Rick. Rick, did I say that? Come on.
SANCHEZ: No, you didn't. But you seem -- pardon me, but it seems like you are suggesting that maybe we have had too much, that we shouldn't be watchdogs over these guys. And I am thinking that we should be looking at them with a magnifying glass every day, because I don't trust them.
CANTOR: Right now what you have got is you've got overreaction on the part of a lot of auditors working with the regulators on the streets, on the streets of our communities, of the banks, the community banks saying to banks, look, we don't want you to take any risk. You know, that will never get back to a growth-oriented posture in the country. We have got to be more prudent about this.
We can't overreact right now, we have got to right the ship. And the way we do that is not by cranking up government spending, which seems to be the only plan coming out of the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid majorities here in Congress.
We have got to make sure that we empower investors to go about their normal calculation of risk, to go ahead and put capital to work so we can see jobs again for the American people.
SANCHEZ: But for the record, before you leave us, you are also for regulation. Do you believe that some of the regulations, like Glass-Steagall, and the Commodities Modernization Act ended up hurting us, and causing the situation we were in, as most economists have said on this show?
CANTOR: I am for smarter regulation. We have got very sophisticated players in the global financial arena. And when you see Congress passing the type of bill that was passed in the House of Representatives last week, this consumer financial protection agency, along with the other elements of that package coming out of Barney Frank's committee, that's a clear signal to entrepreneurs and investors that America will not be open for business and we won't see jobs created again if that's how we're going to treat risk-based investment.
SANCHEZ: You know what I respect? I respect that you have a point of view, and we asked you to come on and explain it, and you've been darn good about doing so. Let's do this again. Congressman...
CANTOR: Thank you, Rick. We'll (ph) be back (ph).
SANCHEZ: ... thanks for being with us, we appreciate it.
Coming up next, an American detained in Cuba. The question is, what was he doing there? You're not supposed to be able to go to Cuba. They are, quote-unquote, "the enemy." You need a visa. We'll be right back with Rafael Romo, stay there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Rafael Romo is good enough to join us now. And he is going to take us through this explanation on what's going on with this guy in Cuba. It's interesting. Look, the fact of the matter is, in Cuba you're not supposed to be able to go there unless you have a visa. It turns out this guy may have been some kind of subcontractor. What kind of subcontractor goes to a country that's considered an enemy of the United States and now we understand that he's in some high-security prison. So many questions. What's going on here?
RAFAEL ROMO, CNN LATIN AFFAIRS SENIOR EDITOR: Yes, well, apparently he was working as a subcontractor for USAID, delivering, some sources say, laptops, communications equipment...
SANCHEZ: That's like a human rights agency, right?
ROMO: ... cell phones -- human rights agency, yes.
SANCHEZ: Tied to the U.S. government.
ROMO: Tied to the U.S. government. But the problem is...
SANCHEZ: Did he have a visa?
ROMO: ... apparently he had a tourist visa as far as we know, which is the first problem, and then being an American with a tourist visa, working with civil organizations in Cuba, you know that you're at risk.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know, the Cubans are going to say he's a spy, I mean, this is what -- I don't know if they've said that yet, but that's what have done in the past. But what have they said so far?
ROMO: They haven't said anything. And they haven't allowed the U.S. Interest Section in Cuba any access to this person, so the U.S. government is not releasing the identity. They feel that this may compromise any negotiations to take him out of Cuba.
SANCHEZ: The law says if you go -- you're allowed to go to Cuba, but you're not allowed to spend any money there, right? That's essentially the way the law is written. So if he has a visa, I suppose then he's allowed to do things in Cuba, right?
ROMO: There are some agreements by which you can do some sort of humanitarian work.
SANCHEZ: If you're a journalist, if you're a charity, or if you're doing some kind of educational research, right?
ROMO: But back in 2003, 75 Cubans were arrested for receiving equipment from Americans, and so that tells you the kind of hard stance that the Cuban government would have in a situation like this.
SANCHEZ: Do we know anything about this guy? I mean, does he have a history? Is there anything we know about him in the past? Who is he?
ROMO: All we know is that he works for a company out of Maryland that is a subcontractor for USAID. They won a contract last year to go into Cuba and to support civil organizations. They're not describing specifically what kind of work they're doing, but like I said before, cell phones, laptops, other telecommunications equipment, the Castro regime would not allow that.
SANCHEZ: Stay on this for us, will you? Because there is a lot more here than meets the eye. I think there's a mystery involved in this story. Thanks so much. Appreciate it, Rafael.
Fascinating new clues that show octopi are not what Aristotle said about them. They're not coconuts, huh? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back to the world headquarters of CNN. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Yesterday was by far one of the foggiest days that we've had in the city of Atlanta in years. And all I saw on the highway were cars pulled over for fender-benders, a group of 10 cars here, a group of seven cars there. Another group of about 15 cars as I drove further, and a whole lot of officers losing a lot of patience. Note to drivers in the future, when in fog, leave more room between you and the car in front of you. It's foggy. Not less, more room.
Let's do "Fotos."
All right. Take a look at this massive crash in Canada. This is what happens when something happens in front of you that you don't see coming, like having a car stop when you're driving in fog. This is a 70-car pileup. And guess what? It occurred in heavy fog. Both lanes of the highways were shut down almost four hours. The good news, the amazing news, no one was seriously injured.
To the Philippines we go, which lies along the Pacific Rim known as the "Ring of Fire," and ring of fire is why thousands are fleeing the erupting Mayon Volcano, which is about 200 miles northwest of Manila, by the way.
Fire and lava oozed down the hillside toward the villages, below the entire region is covered by plumes of smoke and ash. Believe it or not, this could get worse over the next couple of days.
And finally, it was Aristotle who wrote the octopus is a stupid creature. Clearly he never met this guy. This fist-sized octopus in Australia combs the ocean floor in search of coconuts. No, it's not going to make a fancy tropical cocktail. It actually hoards them and uses them to build a fort to protect itself from predators. I can almost hear the octopus saying, hey, Aristotle, what do you think of me now, baby?
Speaking of that, here's Wolf Blitzer. He's standing by here in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
