Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

United Airlines Pulls Series of Planes after Engine Failure; House to Begin Voting on $1.9 Trillion COVID Relief Bill; Neera Tanden May Not have Votes in Senate for Confirmation as Director of Office of Management and Budget; Interview with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Skyrocketing Utility Bills in Texas after Winter Storm. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired February 22, 2021 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: United Airlines has temporarily removed all 24 of its 777s with Pratt and Whitney 4000 engines from its fleet. The engine of a United plane exploded Saturday shortly after takeoff. The jet landed safely with 241 passengers on board, but not before scattering debris over neighborhoods. Watch this.

It really is remarkable to see that. This morning, we have new reporting of what investigators are learning.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Meantime, on Capitol Hill, it is a consequential week for the Biden administration. Today a House committee will vote to advance the president's $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. Also, confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Merrick Garland begins in the next hour. All of this as the United States is on the brink of surpassing 500,000 lives lost to coronavirus. President Biden is planning to honor the Americans killed by the pandemic with a moment of silence and a candlelight vigil outside the White House tonight.

Let's begin our coverage now with CNN's Dan Simon who is live at Denver International Airport with the latest on the fallout in the investigation into what happened on that United flight Saturday afternoon. Dan?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Erica. Well, the NTSB says the likely culprit appears to be a fractured fan blade that then took out another blade. These are preliminary findings, of course, no conclusions have been made. But for regulators right now, they want to determine exactly how that uncontained engine failure took place and try to prevent something like from happening in the future to do that.

Now, to do that, the FAA is saying that all of these Boeing 777s that have this particular engine from Pratt and Whitney, they should be inspected, of course, thoroughly inspected before they can fly again. In the meantime, seeing those images, seeing all that debris fly out of the sky, it just continues to be mind-boggling. Here's how one passenger described the terrifying moments as she spoke to NEW DAY earlier this morning. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDA DOHN, PASSENGER ON UNITED FLIGHT THAT EXPERIENCED ENGINE FAILURE: I turned over just to talk to my daughter, and all of a sudden there was just this huge boom. Initially there was chaos. I did scream, and my daughter said, mom, don't scream. And I got out my rosary. I was scared.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIMON: United Airlines says it has pulled all these airliners out of service. We're talking about 24 planes. So the impact they say to passengers should be fairly limited. Keep in mind that United in the only airliner that has this particular 777 with this engine configuration. But we'll see how this investigation really unravels. We know a couple other countries, including South Korea and Japan, also have this particular model aircraft. John and Erica?

BERMAN: Dan, thank you very much, Dan Simon.

Joining me now, Richard Quest, CNN's business editor at large and host of "Quest Means Business." Richard, great to see you this morning. A fractured fan blade in this Pratt and Whitney 4000 engine, why would a fractured fan blade be of such concern?

RICHARD QUEST, CNNINT HOST: Because it is spinning at about at least 3,000 revolutions a minute, and there are a couple of dozen of them. And as they spin, it's always been known, John, that the fan blade is a sensitive and relatively fragile part. In the case of the 777-200, the Pratt and Whitney 4000 series, they're actually hollow. It's unique to this particular jet. And you can see that picture you're looking at now, you see that brown casing around it, the Kevlar casing. The engine designed and the cell is designed to hold those fan blade in, in the event that one is -- to use the phrase -- there would say liberated.

What we know about this engine, the Pratt and Whitney 4000 engine, from an incident on a United 777-200 back in 2018 is there have been inspection difficulties. The thermal inspections have not always been done correctly. As a result, the FAA has put out an instruction requiring these engines to be inspected more frequently even before this incident.

John, what happened here is clearly the FAA, United, looked at this, saw a fan engine, fan blades -- this is almost carbon copy of the incident, and the same in the plane back in December, and having learned the lessons of the 737 Max, and that's crucial, John. They have all learned the lessons of that, of not grounding a plane early. They've moved fast.

BERMAN: The problem here is one is inspection, as you say. They know there could be an issue. So Richard, how do you catch this going forward? Because that seems to be the issue here.

QUEST: Oh, firstly, the training of inspectors. There was a problem with the way these fan blades were inspected in the 2018 incident in terms of the new models and all of this sort of thing.

[08:05:06]

A lot of work was done by the NTSB in the reports about this. You have to go in there with bore scopes. You have to look at those fan blade, they know. This is not new, John. The aviation industry has known about the issue of fan blades becoming liberated, becoming damaged, for decades. The question is whether or not there is an inherent defect that need to be addressed with this particular aircraft.

Now, we had a Pratt and Whitney 4000 engine in Amsterdam, in Maastricht in the Netherlands that also lost fan blades yesterday. A coincidence some might say, arguably. But this Pratt and Whitney 4000 engine -- and by the way, for those passengers and those viewers who may be getting on a 777 today around the world, there are two other manufacturers of engines, GE with the GE-90 and the Trent 900 which are absolutely not affected by this particular incident. This is Pratt and Whitney 4000 engine engines which are only on Uniteds, a couple in South Korea, a few in Japan and a few cargoes.

BERMAN: I will say, the fact that it has been known may be of more concern, not less in this case. The fact that it was known and they still managed to slip through the cracks, no pun intended here, may be a greater concern.

And Richard as you see what happened on that flight, I guess the real issue, and you see what happened on the, ground, frankly, in Denver, also, it's the debris, the possibility for debris that is of such concern, yes?

QUEST: Completely. Because the first thing with the aircraft and uncontained engine, you want to make sure it's not going to blow up the plane through ruptured fuel lines, and you want to make sure it's not going to remove the wing or the fuselage by the explosion of shrapnel. But then, that's the only thing you can control, John. What happens on the plane is you cannot control this. Once apart leaves an aircraft. That's what you worry about. You worry about the people on the ground. And in the Amsterdam case, or the Netherlands's case, two people were injured.

You imagine that's front cowling falling on a house with people inside, or a school, God forbid, or anyway, you start to see why the industry takes this so seriously. Bits have always fallen off planes. But rarely have we ever seen anything of this magnitude of an incident where there has been something known about this. So, yes, I am not surprised United moved so fast. I'm not surprised Boeing moved so fast. I'm slightly surprised the FAA is still only saying inspections, not groundings. But then, maybe they will follow on as the day moves forward.

BERMAN: Give it to the end of the day. Richard Quest, thanks so much for helping us understand what we saw there because it really is interesting and important. Appreciate it.

HILL: We are embarking on a very busy week on Capitol Hill, and frankly, a consequential one for the new Biden administration. Today the House Budget Committee will advance the nearly $2 trillion COVID relief bill. Later this morning the confirmation hearing for attorney general nominee Merrick Garland begins, and Congress also begins hearings into last month's deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Joining us now, CNN Congressional correspondent Lauren Fox, and CNN White House correspondent John Harwood. John, as we look at the week ahead, it really is a consequential week. And let's start off with that COVID relief bill for President Biden, not only for his agenda, for the promises he made in getting this massive bill through, John.

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Erica, he's been president for a month now. Some relatively minor communications stumbles, mostly has hit his mark so far in terms of accelerating the distribution of vaccines, making more efficient the administration of vaccinations around the country. He's benefitted from a trend that we don't entirely understand now, which is the decline in cases and deaths.

But this is where they really have to deliver. This is the time to execute when they have the House vote. They can only afford to lose a handful of votes. Nancy Pelosi is a pretty good vote counter, so you can assume they will not put this package on the floor unless she believes she can pass it. And then you've got to go to the Senate, where, as we've seen from the controversy over, or the uncertainty around Neera Tanden's nomination for budget director, they can't afford to lose a single Democrat unless they get Republican help.

So it's a big challenge to pass this package, $1.9 trillion, very large expenditure of money on top of the $4 trillion that have been spent in the past year on COVID relief. And now the time is for them to try and deliver.

BERMAN: What about that, Lauren? John just brought up the Neera Tanden situation, which is very interesting. Susan Collins, Republican from Maine, came out against Neera Tanden. Joe Manchin, Democrat from West Virginia, did so on Friday. It seems possible she doesn't have the votes to get confirmed, which shows us that there is no margin for error for President Biden in the U.S. Senate.

[08:10:09]

So what does that mean for the $1.9 trillion relief bill going forward?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: This is an incredibly fragile majority that Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, has on his hands. And it really reveals the tension that exists between some of the progressive members of his caucus and some of the more moderate members of his caucus who are clearly flexing their muscles.

Senator Joe Manchin saying on Friday he was not going to support Neera Tanden meant ultimately that it will be up to Republicans on whether or not they would cross the aisle and vote for her. If they do not, then there are not the votes available. And what that means for that $1.9 relief coronavirus relief bill is that the moderate voices here truly matter. You have Senator Manchin, you have Senator Kyrsten Sinema both saying that the $15 minimum wage in this bill is not something they could support.

So what do they do? Does Schumer ultimately pull it out? Do they hope that the Senate parliamentarian rules that it's not allowed under the strict rules of this budget process that they're using that allow them to pass this bill with just 51 votes? That's really what Schumer is trying to struggle with right now. And I think that is the balance that you are going to see, not just on this vote over Tanden, but also on this vote over COVID relief, infrastructure, immigration, whatever they want to do there is a narrow majority in the Senate. And that's even when you are using something like the budget reconciliation process, which already gives you a little more room to pass these bills with just Democratic votes, John and Erica.

HILL: John, that's really one of the unity issues here, too. We hear President Biden talking act unity, wanting to have bipartisan support. Put that aside for a minute, it's about having unified support of Democrats and his vision of this big tent, you know, is not the same, perhaps, as the rest of the party's vision. That's a challenge.

HARWOOD: Well, that's right. But if you look at the polling, he has near unanimity of support among Democratic voters. Upwards of 95 percent of Democratic voters support this package. That puts measure on members of his party to come together. And there is a lot of sentiment within the party, especially after the turbulence over the past four years, that the party needs to come together behind this new Democratic president and get something done right out of the gate. That's what the significance of this package. It has a lot of how to do with how we get out of the pandemic, getting the economy going again. So everyone understands the importance of it.

They also have support of a substantial majority of independents, and a decent sized minority, or close to 50 percent in some of the polling, of Republicans. So public opinion is lining up well. But it's a challenge when you get down to the specifics of the bill. You know is the bill -- I read a piece published on CNN.com yesterday about is this piece too big? There are some Democratic economists who think it spends more than is necessary. And they're going to have a follow-on bill, maybe $3 trillion for infrastructure and other priorities, child care, things going forward that the Democratic Party also believes in. How do you hold people together not just on this bill but on that bill? Juggling act for the administration.

And again, this is the week where the votes start to get real. Everyone is going to see whether or not the range of opinion within the Democratic Party, it's a more cohesive party than we've seen in the past, more homogenous party left of center, but there is still some diversity of opinion depending on what parts of the country Democrats come to. And it's a challenge for the Biden administration to hold them together. Lauren and our colleague Phil Mattingly wrote a terrific piece over the weekend about the attention to detail of the Biden White House team of working with outside groups, with people within the Democratic caucus to try to hold them together. This week's the test.

BERMAN: All right, John Harwood, Lauren Fox, thanks, so much for being with us this morning. Erica? HILL: In the next hour, confirmation hearings begin for Attorney

General nominee Merrick Garland. So what will he say? And what can we expect in terms of the questioning? We'll speak to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:52]

BERMAN: Next hour, President Biden's nominee for Attorney General Judge Merrick Garland will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing. This comes five years after a Republican-controlled Senate refused to give Garland a hearing of President Barack Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court.

Joining me now is the Democratic whip, Senator Dick Durbin. He is the chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for being with us.

In your opening statement, which we've had a chance to look at, you talk about this as a crucial moment for the Justice Department. Why is it so important?

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Well, because under President Trump and Attorney General Sessions and Barr, we saw a demoralization of this department. We saw political favors being handed out right and left and we saw the morale of this department sink to a new low.

We have reached a situation now facing domestic terrorism, which we saw personally in the Capitol Building here just a few weeks ago is a threat to the stability of this country. We need an Attorney General that can lead us forward.

BERMAN: Why is Judge Merrick Garland in your mind the right person to do that?

DURBIN: Well, two reasons, first, this man when he worked for the Justice Department, he was given the most difficult assignments. He was sent to Oklahoma City to deal with the bombing there. He was the one who down -- not track down, but prosecute the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. He was given these tough assignments because he did it and did it well.

Secondly, Judge Garland is giving up a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land to take this job. You know, he is serious.

BERMAN: Republican who are on the committee have telegraphed they're going to press Judge Garland on issues surrounding Hunter Biden, whether he will commit to, I guess, a separate investigation or to continue the investigation, the same thing with U.S. Attorney John Durham.

How do you think Judge Garland should answer these questions? DURBIN: Well, I think the President has also answered it when it came

to the U.S. Attorneys being replaced. He said that in Delaware, he was not going to replace the U.S. Attorney there because there is an investigation underway. His handoff approach to the whole thing and that's the way it should be.

I am sure that Judge Garland will back up the President and take that same position. We can't presume any guilt on the part of Hunter Biden or should we, but we want to make certain that the investigation is complete and allays any concerns that people have.

[08:20:16]

BERMAN: And so, Chairman, I do want to ask you, and this is connected to the hearing now because you brought up the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and Judge Garland's promise to prosecute those who offended there.

CPAC, which is this conservative conference, which I am sure you know although, I doubt you have ever attended. They meet this Friday, Saturday and Sunday in Florida.

The former President will go speak, but so do U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, they are all going to talk there and the agenda for Friday: Part one, we must protect elections; Part two, other culprits, why judges and media refuse to look at the evidence. They are talking about their allegation of election fraud, which didn't exist, and Part three, the left pulled the strings, covered it up and even admits it.

My question is, if you have a major political organization that clearly has the support of a big part of the Republican Party, holding a conference like this, the title for Friday might as well be, so you want to launch an insurrection? I mean, that's what it reads to me, their agenda there, how do you deal with that on Capitol Hill?

DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that we're having an investigation in the Rules Committee at this point. Senator Klobuchar was on this morning discussing it and we know that they are going to move forward.

It's a bipartisan approach to take a look at the insurrection and the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the head of FBI in, in a week or so and certainly, that's going to be one of the major topics.

We're not going to brush this under the rug. This is an important issue because it gets down to the question of domestic terrorism and what is going on here.

Some of these groups, which the President encouraged, ended up coming up here and literally killing a Capitol Hill police officer and harming 140 other law enforcement officers. This sort of thing is unacceptable.

And the people who are headed down to this conference in Florida, be my guest. I wouldn't consider even walking through the door. It's a bunch of people with a theory and a conspiracy for every issue facing America.

BERMAN: But it's literal revisionism going on here. You have Senator Ron Johnson saying it want an armed insurrection.

DURBIN: Ron Johnson is in his own orbit here, politically. I hope you understand that. He doesn't speak for many other senators. He is entitled to his point of view and he can express it.

But I will tell you, the revisionism is something that I loathe. The Soviets did that for years, if there was a chapter in history that embarrassed them, they just rewrote it and said it didn't happen.

Well, at this point in time, the Republicans are trying to rewrite history. But there is too much blood on the pavement here in Washington, D.C. to ignore. We have paid a heavy price for the provocation of that mob by the President and if you think that's a partisan statement, it is the same thing that was said by Mitch McConnell.

BERMAN: I want to talk about the Democratic Party, the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate. Do you have a Joe Manchin problem, Senator?

DURBIN: Listen, we have a 50/50 problem. In the United States Senate, any senator can stop the train on either side of the aisle and I respect each individual senator making principled decisions on their own. Hopefully, we can come together and do something constructive for the American people that's why we were sent here.

BERMAN: Joe Manchin says he is going to vote no on Neera Tanden. How do you get the 50 votes you need to her confirmed at OMB?

DURBIN: It's simple math. Being whip does not require Calculus. In this case, we need a majority and if we've lost one, we are down 51/49, you can do the math. We need to pick up support on the other side.

BERMAN: Do you have any Republican votes as you sit here this morning?

DURBIN: I haven't worked it yet, so I can't report.

BERMAN: But you said it doesn't requires Calculus. You don't know whether you have a Republican vote.

DURBIN: That's exactly right. I couldn't put a gun to my head, I couldn't answer the question because I don't have the information.

BERMAN: And in terms of the minimum wage, which now Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, both say they are not inclined to vote for a relief plan that includes the minimum wage, how do you intend to deal with next week?

DURBIN: Listen, I support an increase in the minimum wage. I think President Biden is right in saying the American people need a boost, need a helping hand. We preach about inequality in America, for goodness sakes, if we can't

pay a person a basic living wage, how are you serious about the issue of inequality? When it gets down to it, I hope we can sit down at the table, with Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and any senators with questions and reach a compromise.

BERMAN: Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, I hope you noticed I started sweating when you said Calculus. The mere mention of Calculus makes me nervous.

DURBIN: I didn't get close to it.

BERMAN: I appreciate you being with us this morning. Thank you, Senator.

DURBIN: Thank you.

BERMAN: So after days of these huge power outages, some Texas residents are now literally paying the price. We are going to hear from two Texans who received these astronomical bills since the winter storm. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:28:56]

HILL: Families across Texas have endured not only the frigid temperatures over the past week. Many, of course also went days without power, which, of course, meant no heat, no safe drinking water in a number of areas and now some are seeing these, frankly, unimaginable utility bills, thousands of dollars.

Joining me now Rachel Stevens, she is a mom of four from Austin and Deandrew Upshaw who recently received one of those bills, a $6,700.00 bill from his energy company.

I really appreciate both of you being with us this morning. I am glad to see that you are both doing okay. But you obviously had a lot of challenges that you both face in the last several days.

DeAndrew, I saw the number for that bill, $6,700.00 for your 900- square foot two-story townhome. As I understand it, you were warned by the energy company and said, you know what, your bill is going to skyrocket. You should switch now, and you tried, but you couldn't. What happened?

DEANDREW UPSHAW, RECEIVED $6,700.00 ENERGY BILL AFTER CRIPPLING WINTER STORM: They sent e-mails at the end of the week like right before the storm got bad and I intended to switch, but the new service provider that I switched to kept moving my switch date.

[08:30:08]