Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pilots May Rely Too Much On Plane's Automated Systems; Pace Picks Up For Obamacare Sign-ups; Sebelius Questioned On Obamacare; Lawmakers Scrutinize New Budget Deal; Stocks Dip As Budget Deal Assessed; Milk Prices Could Soar; FDA Targets Antibiotics; Obama Foreign Policy

Aired December 11, 2013 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, we're learning startling new details about the moments before Asiana Flight 214 crashed. The National Transportation Safety board is holding a hearing in Washington. We have details.

Right now, the chances of a farm bill getting passed this year don't look good. If a deal isn't reached soon, milk prices could soar. We're going to tell you just how high they could go.

And right now, new questions about just who this man is. A translator for deaf viewers is now under fire. Was he a fake? And how did he wind up next to President Obama for the Nelson Mandela tribute?

Hello. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

As the NTSB probes the fatal crash of Asiana Flight 214, we're learning some disturbing new details about what was happening in the cockpit. The first officer aboard the flight told investigators he called out more than four times the plane's excessive sink rate in the two minutes before the crash, ultimately three Chinese teenagers were killed.

CNN's Rene Marsh has been looking into all of this for us, and we're learning more details. What are we learning right now?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you spoke about the sink rate warning. Well, that happened about 52 seconds before the crash and pilots we spoke to who have flown triple sevens tell us that's more than enough time to correct the problem. But for whatever reason, the problem was not corrected.

Now, we have brand new video the NTSB released today. It shows a different perspective of the Asiana crash. This was captured on airport security cameras. And you can see after the crash, the plane landed in that crash landing manner and it did that full spin.

Also, some incredible details coming out of this hearing. The pilot flying the plane was worried about landing. According to the NTSB, he told investigators visual approaches like the one he was tasked with doing at San Francisco's airport was difficult and stressful. When asked how confident he was about his knowledge of the triple seven's automated flight systems, he said, and I'm quoting, "not so confident." He felt that he should study more.

Now, this hearing is going on as we speak and we know that investigators, they grilled an expert on the triple seven and it's automated systems because they are looking into whether pilots are potentially relying too much on them. Take a listen to that grilling session.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CASHMAN, RETIRED CAPTAIN, BOEING: We accept the fact that pilots, as all humans, make errors. We try to make errors that can be corrected and noticed. And lastly, at least for today, as we apply automation as a tool to aid the pilot, not replace the pilot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARSH: All right. So, what we also know now is that this auto throttle which think of the auto throttle as the equivalent of cruise control in a vehicle. They thought that it was engaged, however, it was not engaged. So, that caused the plane to go dangerously slow. So we now know that possibly they didn't understand how this whole thing operated.

But if you're a passenger on that plane, Wolf, you don't want to hear that the pilot in the cockpit may not know how the automated systems work.

BLITZER: And they're also looking at Korean culture, this is a Korean airline, what role that may have played in the cockpit?

MARSH: Yes, that is one issue that they're going to be looking at. We can tell you that the pilot could have aborted the approach or made the decision early on to abort the approach. But that being said, when the student captain was asked whether he contemplated doing this, he said that would be a very difficult or very hard decision simply because his senior had not had made that decision. So, he felt it would put him in a very difficult situation to make that call without the more senior person making that call.

BLITZER: I know. We're getting more information all the time. Rene, thanks very much for that report.

There are new numbers out today and it -- they show that more people are signing up for Obamacare. According to the latest figures, almost 365,000 people have signed up through HealthCare.gov and the state run exchanges. That includes people who have selected an insurance plan. In addition, more than 1.9 million people have been determined to be eligible but have not yet picked a plan. That's still far below the 7 million people that were projected necessary to enroll for 2014.

Up on Capitol Hill today, the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, faced more questions about the Web site's flawed rollout.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN, ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE: Do you wish in fact that you had delayed the launch beyond October 1st?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: Well, I certainly wish we could have saved millions of people a very frustrating experience and had a smoother technology launch. I acted on the best information that I had. And going forward, I think that having an eight-week delay in a fully functioning site is enormously frustrating and to millions of Americans and their families. Having said that, I think there are millions of people who are going to begin receiving health coverage that they never had January 1st.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: When she was pressed again, the secretary said she would have done a slower launch and more beta testing.

The new budget deal is also a big focus today up on Capitol Hill. The bipartisan agreement was brokered by the Senate Budget Committee chair, Patty Murray, and the House Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, after weeks of negotiations. The deal sets the government spending for two fiscal years and would avoid another government shutdown but it still needs to be passed by Congress. Republican and Democratic leaders reacted to the agreement today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), MAJORITY WHIP: The deal is something that accomplishes deficit reduction, permanent pension reform for government employees and it doesn't raise taxes. And it is consistent with Republican efforts all along to try and replace the sequester with permanent savings that just make a lot more sense.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE: It is a small step in the right direction because we are able to restore many of the cuts that would otherwise take place as a result of the sequester, those very deep and immediate cuts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The White House also issued a statement welcoming the deal. The budget deal sets the spending level for the current fiscal year and the next physical year just over $1 trillion. It eliminates $63 billion in forced budget cuts. Remember, those are known as the sequester, the bulk of which were set to kick in next month. The package has a total deficit reduction of $23 billion.

So, President Obama getting some good news on the budget and a little bit of good news on Obamacare as well. But when it comes to public perceptions, results, at least so far, remain mixed. Take a look at this "New York Times" CBS poll. It shows 41 percent of the people approve of the way the president is handling health care. That's a nine-point gain over last month's rating.

But then there's this. In a new NBC News "Wall Street Journal" poll, only 37 percent of people say they believe the president is honest and trustworthy and that's a five percent drop since May.

Our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger has been crunching all of these numbers for us.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

BLITZER: I think it's way too early to say the president is over the hunch right now that he's out of the woods.

BORGER: Yes. I think that these things are going to fluctuate. They're going to go back and forth. He may be over the worst of it.

But my theory, Wolf, is that there's kind of a set point now, that you're going to see this range whether it's between 38 percent and 40 or 45 percent for the president. He's heading into the sixth year of his term, the public knows who he is. It's very hard to get back to where he was on competency or likability or trustworthiness. But the public kind of knows who he is. He's not as transformational as they had hoped. They like him more than they like either of the Democrats or the Republicans. But they kind of know this guy and they've sort of moved on and they've got him in a place in their mind right now.

Now, the economy is a huge variable. If you get three percent GDP, the Affordable Care Act starts working, he gets an Iranian nuclear deal, you know, his numbers might shoot up a bit. But he's kind of where he is.

BLITZER: Right, and those --

BORGER: And that -- and he's --

BLITZER: -- are all still big ifs.

BORGER: And they are big ifs. But at a certain point in his presidency, people feel they've figured you out.

BLITZER: Here's what was really encouraging when Patty Murray and Paul Ryan, a sort of liberal Democratic senator from Washington state, a conservative Republican Congressman from Wisconsin who was the vice presidential nominee from last year, they come out and they speak positively about compromise and bipartisanship on this budget deal.

BORGER: Shocking.

BLITZER: Not a one-year deal, a two-year deal --

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: -- to avert any government shutdowns. That's pretty significant.

BORGER: Yes, I think that both sides understand that the public appetite for going over the brink again is zero. OK? The public doesn't want to do that again. Both sides understand that. And I think that also there's a sense in the Republican Party, from the leadership at least of the Republican Party, that if they just cool it, don't have another shutdown, that they can actually make some electoral gains because the problems they had was when they did do the government shutdown. So, their feeling is politically, let's just take a step back, do this incrementally, get this deal done, don't have another government shutdown which didn't do them any good, --

BLITZER: Right.

BORGER: -- if you'll recall, and move on. Now, the next big issue is, of course, the debt ceiling and I don't know what they're going to decide to do on that.

BLITZER: That deadline is February. I assume they'll --

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: -- raise the debt ceiling as they do all the time. It may be painful at some point but they'll probably do that.

Where does this put Paul Ryan? Because some very conservative Republicans are irritated by this deal.

BORGER: Yes, they are.

BLITZER: They're not going to vote for it.

BORGER: They are.

BLITZER: And looking ahead to 2016 because his name is out there potentially as a presidential candidate.

BORGER: I think he's decided to be the pragmatist here and telling conservatives that this has no tax increases so this is good for us. But the original Paul Ryan that I met and when he was running for the vice presidency was somebody who saw himself as transformational. Big things, reform the tax code, change Medicare. And what did -- what did we see him do yesterday? A plan that was very incremental because he knew that the whole kind of global let's push a big thing through doesn't work in this kind of a divided Congress.

So, I think he's kind of tamped down a little bit of his sort of major goals and decided to work with what he can get done in this Congress and not be overly ambitious because it's in his self-interests and it's in the Republicans' self-interests to just kind of move on, right?

BLITZER: Yes, and basically admonishing some of those Republican --

BORGER: Yes, he was.

BLITZER: -- conservative critics saying, remember, we just control the House of Representatives. We don't control the Senate. We don't control the White House. We can't do whatever we want.

BORGER: Right, and he didn't want to have another fight that left more casualties on the battlefield, particularly for the Republican Party which is what another shutdown would have done. And so, he needed to avoid that. And now he's a -- you know, he's a leader in the house. And as chairman of the budget committee, it was his responsibility.

BLITZER: He got the backing of Eric Cantor and John Boehner on this deal.

BORGER: And John Boehner.

BLITZER: All right, Gloria, thanks very much.

Members of Congress can't seem to agree, at least not yet, on a farm bill. And that gridlock could have a dramatic impact on milk prices across the country. Just how high could those prices go? And a deal to avoid the sticker shock even remotely within reach? We've got some answers when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's quickly take a look at the markets right now. Wall Street opened lower this morning as investors eye the budget deal, wait to hear whether the Federal Reserve will keep pumping money into the economy. Checking the big board right now, you see it's down almost 73 points. We'll continue to watch. Right now the Dow Jones down almost 73.

Members of Congress, who have been unable to pass a farm bill all year, admit they probably won't get the job done in 2013. And if they don't reach a deal in January, we could see milk prices skyrocket, guess what, to $7 a gallon. Athena Jones is covering this story for us here in Washington.

So tell us what's going on. Give us the background. A lot of people don't pay a whole lot of attention to the farm bill in Congress.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, they don't, but they pay attention when they go to the supermarket. Folks are calling it the milk cliff or the dairy cliff. Whatever cliff you want to call it, it's a cliff we don't want to go over.

And the issue is, it's not just milk that would be affected. The current law affecting dairy product price supports expires at the end of the year. So if there isn't a new farm bill, we'll revert to what's called permanent law. What's that? That's a law put in place back in 1949. And under that law, the government, the USDA, would have to step into the market, buy big amounts of milk, butter and cheese in order -- at about twice the going rate.

So, of course, producers of these products are going to want to sell it to the government at twice the money, and so that will lead to shortages in the supermarket eventually, not immediately but eventually, the prices of things like a gallon of milk could go up beyond $7 and, of course, cheese, yogurt would be affected and down the line other commodities would be affected eventually.

BLITZER: All the stuff I like, is that what you're saying?

All right, so where do things stand right now? What are the big issues? Is this a liberal, conservative, Democratic, Republican battle or a battle between farm states and agricultural states, nonagricultural states? Because there are a lot of issues in that farm bill that folks don't necessarily understand are part of the farm bill.

JONES: Certainly. And it's kind of all of those bottles wrapped up into one. I've talked to the staff of these negotiators. They're getting closer. They don't believe they're going to reach a deal now. They have just a few days before the House and people begin to leave for the holiday break. But the hope is that they'll reach a framework on a deal in January and get something passed then.

But there have been some big sticking points. There's been sticking points over food stamps. Republicans on the House side want to make big cuts to the food stamps program, eliminate folks they say are getting food stamps when they shouldn't be. Senate Democrats don't want to see that.

There's also been a loss of discussion about replacing direct payments to farmers with crop insurance. So there's a lot of thorny issues, big and small, that go into this farm bill, and that's what they're working on. The hope is that they'll take care of that in January and avoid all of these big sticker shocks.

BLITZER: Yes, that food -- that food stamp program is part of the farm bill and 50 million people in the United States rely on food stamps. A huge number. It's gone up dramatically in recent years. So that's part of this battle that's unfolding right now.

JONES: Right.

BLITZER: All right, Athena, thanks very much. Athena Jones reporting.

Another story we're following, a growing concern for so many people out there, how safe is the meat and the chicken we buy in supermarkets? Now the Food and Drug Administration has announced new measures to keep unnecessary antibiotics out of our food. Our senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is joining us.

Elizabeth, what is the FDA going to do about this?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, Wolf, the FDA is trying, big picture, to save lives because 23,000 people a year die because of something called "antibiotic resistance." So you take antibiotics, I do, pretty much everyone does, and animals do, too. And those bacteria, they're smart. They learn about these antibiotics and they outfox them and the antibiotics stop working.

So the FDA is saying today, look, what we're going to do is that in the future there are certain antibiotics that farmers are not going to be allowed to give animals unless the animals are sick. Because right now, farmers give antibiotics to animals just to get them to grow faster and bigger. So the FDA is saying, no more of that for certain antibiotics and no more over the counter antibiotics for certain antibiotics. If a farmer wants to give an animal certain antibiotics, they have to get a vet involved. And they're really hoping that will limit the number of antibiotics that are going out to these animals. And that, in the end, will help us.

BLITZER: I know you're speaking with a lot of experts, so here's the question, will this work?

COHEN: You know, some of the experts I've talked to are really concerned about the way that this new law is written. So consumer advocates, some members of Congress, says there's not enough teeth in it and that the way it's written, there are all these loopholes that farmers and vets could use in order to give animals antibiotics just to get them to grow bigger and faster and that they say that's not a legitimate reason to be giving them. So there's a little concern that this law isn't strong enough and that some measures that are stronger have been resisted by agribusiness and by the pharmaceutical company. And some people say those are the ones that would work but they've been resisted.

BLITZER: Elizabeth Cohen with that report. Thanks very much.

COHEN: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Coming up, a nuclear deal with Iran, a handshake with Raul Castro. We're taking a closer look at how engaging America's enemies is shaping President Obama's foreign policy, at least it seems to be the case right now. Commentators Paul Begala and Ben Stein, they are both here. They'll join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: President Obama attempts to reach out to America's enemies and it's showing how diplomacy is helping shape at least a big chunk of his foreign policy right now. Consider the interim deal to curb Iran's nuclear program. It loosens sanctions on Iran while some in Congress want to tighten those sanctions. The Israeli prime minister calls the deal a historic mistake. The Saudis, the Emirates, other friendly countries in the Arab world don't like it either.

And the president's handshake with the Cuban leader, Raul Castro, at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela has touched off a serious debate over whether it was simply a cordial gesture or something more.

Joining us now to talk about the president's foreign policy, the political commentator Paul Begala, along with actor, economist, commentator Ben Stein.

Guy, thanks very much for coming in.

You have a problem with the president shaking hands with Raul Castro?

BEN STEIN, ACTOR/COMEDIAN/ECONOMIST: Not at all, Wolf. I keep thinking of President Nixon, the world's greatest peacemaker there's ever been, shaking hands with (INAUDIBLE) and (INAUDIBLE), even as they were in the process of murdering many of their fellow citizens. And I think if it's -- hey, if it's for peace, it's a great idea. If it's for peace, working out -- working out something with Iran, it's a great idea. But it's got to be peace through strength. Diplomacy is the shadow cast by military might. And as long as we can maintain our military superiority in the world, I'm all for reaching out for peace.

BLITZER: Here's what you wrote, Paul, on cnn.com. You said the president did the right thing. You said, "I am not naive enough to believe Raul Castro will emulate Mandela simply because Obama shook his hand. But I do believe in the transformative, unpredictable power of sending out a ripple of hope from the right side of history." So explain. This puts, you believe, the president on the right side of history.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think so. First off, America's been on the right side of history. We've had a contentious relationship with Cuba, but the Castro regime -- and the left I think too often apologizes for this. The Castro regime has a horrendous human rights record and they have for a long time. If -- it's a big if. Well, right now they're holding Alan Gross, an American citizen, who they should release.

BLITZER: For four years.

BEGALA: They should release him. You've been all over this story, Wolf, for years.

BLITZER: Yes.

BEGALA: If, though, if that small gesture of courtesy begins to open that, then it will have been well worth it. I would also call to mind, right after that handshake, he gave a terrific speech, the president did, at the memorial service in which he called out dictator who claim the Mandela legacy. He said this in his speech, they claim the legacy but then they oppress human rights and they don't follow democracy and they stay on too long. So I thought what he did yesterday was terrific.

BLITZER: And I think the ball is now, correct me if you disagree, in Cuba's court. The president was the one who took the initiative. He reached out. He didn't have to go through that line and shake everyone's hand. He made the gesture knowing, because we've been talking about it for days in -- you know, since the death of Nelson Mandela, we knew Raul Castro would be there, we knew the president would be there. He made the gesture. Now it's up to Cuba, I believe, to respond.

STEIN: I was fascinated that you described him as reaching out to America's enemies, because I think there are probably no people in the world more pro-American than the Cuban people. And I think that the government obviously not. But I think if he can reach out and in that way reach out to the Cuban people through the Castro dictatorship, just the way Mr. Nixon reached out through the communist dictatorship to the very pro-American Chinese people, he will have accomplished a great deal. But again, military strength. We've got to be strong, friendly, peace loving out of strength, not out of weakness, not Chamberlain-Eisenhower.

BLITZER: What about the deal, the interim deal, reaching out to Iran right now? Because as you know, they're not just Republicans but plenty of Democrats who don't like it either.

BEGALA: I've talked to several on The Hill. These are very loyal pro- Obama Democrats. BLITZER: Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chuck Schumer, the number three Democrat in the Senate, they don't like it.

BEGALA: Well, here's what I -- actually I don't understand. A lot of Democrats and Republicans on The Hill feel like they would strengthen the president's hand by passing contingent sanctions, not sanctions that are required, but that give him one more stick, as well as the carrots that he's offering in terms of relieving sanctions. I think that would be a good thing.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, right? This is just an interim agreement. I think it's a good start. You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. And let's see now how the Iranians perform. We will know whether they have stopped enrichment, whether they have limited it to 5 percent, the uranium level which they can enrich. So we'll know whether this interim agreement will lead to something more permanent. But now, as Ben said with the Cubans, the ball's in the Iranians' court. I think this president has pushed as far as an American president ever has in 30 years for Iran.

BLITZER: And it's a strongest gesture to the Iranian people. $7 billion in benefits -- you're an economist -- for them by easing these sanctions over the next six months if they go ahead and accept the conditions the U.N. Security Council, the permanent members have put forward, including the United States. They could benefit even more.

STEIN: But then we have another -- we have a situation similar to the one with Cuba, which is the Iranian people love America. There are probably no people in the world except for the mullahs and the extreme Islamists in the world who love America more than the Iranians. We have an awful lot of them in Beverly Hills and, boy, do they love America. And we -- I think we can try to make an opening to them, but again through strength. And I -- and I say at this point, open, smile, negotiate, eyes open. They'll (ph) build an anti-missile defense system for Israel, for Saudi Arabia, for America, but absolutely reach through to that core of pro-American sentiment in Cuba and Iran.

BLITZER: You've got to give the president and the secretary of state, John Kerry, a lot of credit. They're trying to do some things that people would normally think would be, you know, a mission impossible, like an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement. John Kerry, this week, he's going back to Israel. He's meeting with the Israeli prime minister again and meet with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president. He's really working hard on this even though so many, quote, experts think this is a -- you know, there's false hope there.

BEGALA: Enormously risky, enormously difficult. It does go with the job. You know, you get the White House, you get Air Force One and you get the Middle East. And this president has engaged here. The secretary has engaged.

You know, I worked for President Clinton in his second term. I think he brought us as close to peace as we have ever been. But, frankly, the Palestinians wouldn't take yes for an answer. They had the best deal they'll ever get put on the table by Ehud Barak and President Clinton and they didn't take it. So I admire what the president is doing in the Middle East. But you do have to keep your eyes wide open because the track record on the Palestinian said has been, they've been unwilling to make peace.

BLITZER: All of us hope that John Kerry will succeed.

STEIN: Israel has always -- Israel has always been willing to make peace.

BLITZER: Let's hope Kerry gets a deal.

I want to show you a picture from Air Force One. You've been on Air Force One. I've been on Air Force -- have you ever been on Air Force One?

STEIN: Yes, I have.