Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Senate Ruling: $15 Minimum Wage Cannot Be Included in Relief Bill; U.S. Carries Out Airstrikes in Syria Targeting Iranian-Backed Militias. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired February 26, 2021 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Senate parliamentarian decided that the minimum wage increase as part of the COVID relief package did not meet the standard.

[05:59:58]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to honor the rules of the Senate and work within that system to get this bill passed.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): It's a big setback for lots of Democrats who wanted to see this $15 minimum wage.

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. aircraft struck a site in Syria that defense officials say belonged to Iranian-backed militias operating in Syria.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was ordered directly by President Biden. This was a proportional response based on the rocket attacks over the course of the last several weeks.

LLOYD AUSTIN, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We're confident about the target that we went after. We were very deliberate about our approach.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Friday, February 26. It's 6 a.m. here in New York.

And major developments overnight in the coronavirus relief bill and in U.S. foreign policy. It appears an increase in the minimum wage is dead for now.

The Senate parliamentarian ruled it cannot be included in the $1.9 trillion package because of procedural reasons. The Biden administration says it's disappointed with the decision.

Now, ironically, the ruling may actually make it easier to get the overall bill through Congress. It is expected to pass the House today. ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Also developing overnight, the Biden

administration launching air strikes, targeting a location in Syria used by two Iran-backed militias.

The move is retaliation for recent rocket attacks on American forces in that region. The Pentagon says a, quote, "handful" of militants were killed. We'll have more on those air strikes in a moment.

But let's begin with CNN's Lauren Fox. She is live on Capitol Hill with all of the developments on the relief bill. What's the latest, Lauren?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, not even halfway through Biden's first 100 days, the House of Representatives is on track today to pass his $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill.

This legislation includes direct checks, $1,400 checks to Americans making $75,000 or less. It also includes money to get kids back to school, more money for small businesses still dealing with the effects of this pandemic. And of course, direct aid to state and local governments, with an impact and emphasis on those governments that have experienced higher unemployment.

Now, looking forward, this bill is expected to have overwhelming Democratic support. Republicans have been whipping their members against it. This version today will include a $15 minimum wage increase.

However, last night, Senate Democrats learned that their version of the bill will not be allowed to include that increase. That's significant. The parliamentarian ruled that they did not comply with the strict standards required through this process known as budget reconciliation.

Now, what this means going forward is it could actually make things a little simpler for Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass this legislation through his chamber.

That's because there had been two moderates, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, who had both expressed concerns about including that provision all the way through it.

So I think one of the things to remember about this is, even though this minimum wage hike is a disappointing setback for many Democrats, many progressives, it may actually ultimately make it easier for Biden to get this bill signed into law by March 14, their self-imposed deadline.

BERMAN: Lauren, that's an important point you make there, just to follow-up on that. It may very well make it easier to get this through the Senate. And what about people like Bernie Sanders? Do they say they're going to keep on pushing for a minimum wage increase, if not as part of this bill, independently of that?

FOX: Well, I think you certainly should expect that progressives and Democrats are going to going to keep trying to push, in separate legislation, a $15 minimum wage increase.

Of course, without the rules of budget reconciliation, you are looking at a bill that would have to have 60 votes.

Now, I'm told that the Senate Finance Committee chairman, Ron Wyden, is looking potentially at some kind of tax incentive for businesses, perhaps that would be a way to try to move this forward in the COVID relief bill. But that is not the same, of course, as a blanket, across-the-table, $15 minimum wage increase, that so many Americans are really counting on, John.

BERMAN: All right. Lauren Fox, terrific reporting. Thanks so much.

Joining us now, Senate parliamentarian emeritus, Alan Frumin.

Alan, thanks so much for being with us here. One of the things that you will hear from the left this morning -- when I say the left, progressives who still want very much to see the minimum wages be part of this, they say, Well, look, the parliamentarian ruled it can't be included in reconciliation, but that can be overruled from the chair. We can decide to ignore what the parliamentarian said.

How would that work? Would it work? And what would it entail?

ALAN FRUMIN, SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN EMERITUS: Good morning, John. Thanks so much for having me here.

To answer questions about what it would be like to disregard the -- the woman whose sole purpose in life, whose sole professional goal, is to guard the integrity of the Senate's institutions. So we naturally do not recommend ignoring her advice.

Now, you are correct. She simply gives advice. The presiding officer of the Senate has the absolute right and discretion to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian.

[06:05:05]

However, that almost never happens. It never happened during my 35- year tenure at the Senate. It's simply something that would create procedural chaos, if whoever presides over the Senate decides that the advice of the professional, non-partisan career professional, whose sole career objective is to give procedural advice in the Senate, is to be ignored.

CAMEROTA: Mr. Frumin, can you explain in layman's terms, I mean, not just the process but the substance. Why can't a minimum wage provision live in this bill?

FRUMIN: The purpose of reconciliation bills is to affect the federal government's budgetary bottom line. And it's most important in this context that the provisions contained in this bill have an immediate and direct effect, either on spending, or on revenues.

And my understanding of the nature of the minimum wage increase is that there are no federal dollars immediately impacted and that whatever affect there is on the federal government's bottom line is as secondary or tertiary effect of the proposed increase in the minimum wage.

BERMAN: And when you hear people like Ron Wyden or others suggest, well, they may try to amend the overall bill to create a budgetary impact. They say they may create tax incentives or refunds to companies for the minimum wage, that would potentially create some budgetary impact that might allow it to be included in reconciliation?

FRUMIN: That strikes me as a reasonable alternative. I am not familiar with the specific language that Chairman Wyden has in mind, but conceptually, it strikes me that that's feasible.

And based on the content of this massive bill, it wouldn't surprise me if they can't accomplish that while this bill is being considered on the floor of the Senate.

BERMAN: All right. Alan Frumin, Senate parliamentarian emeritus, thanks so much for joining us. I think the important thing to remember again as of this morning, the minimum wage all but dead unless changes are made, not even going to be part of the Senate bill likely at all.

Thanks so much for being with us this morning.

FRUMIN: You're very welcome. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Let's move onto other news. This developing story.

The U.S. carries out air strikes in Syria targeting Iranian-backed militias. This is the -- these are the first known air strikes by President Biden. The air strikes are in response for recent attacks against American and coalition forces in Iraq, and CNN's Barbara Starr is live at the Pentagon for us with the latest.

What do we know, Barbara?

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Alisyn.

These strikes carried out yesterday after President Biden made the decision to go ahead. There had been a number of rocket strikes by these Iranian-backed militias inside Iraq and then the recommendation to strike back.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin talked to reporters briefly about the target and why they made the decision to go ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AUSTIN: We're confident that that target was being used by the same Shia militia that -- that conducted the strikes. We allowed and encouraged the Iraqis to investigate and develop intelligence, and that was very helpful to us in refining the target.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: So what you have here is this first action by President Joe Biden, and the world watches any time an American president, especially a new president, orders military action. There was a very definite message in mind.

The Pentagon press secretary, John Kirby, issuing a statement saying in part -- and I quote -- "The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel."

Act to protect them against these Iranian-backed militias but a very narrowly-focused, precision defensive strike, really, also aimed at not escalating tensions with the Iranian regime -- John, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Barbara, thank you very much for all of that reporting.

So how is the Middle East responding to U.S. air strikes this morning? We have a live report for you from Baghdad, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: The U.S. air strikes in Syria overnight targeting Iranian- backed militias come at a time that the Biden administration is making diplomatic efforts with Tehran over the nuclear deal.

CNN's Arwa Damon live in Baghdad.

Arwa, these strikes overnight, carefully chosen and calibrated. How are they being received?

ARWA DAMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, very little reaction at this stage from the Iranian government. No direct comment regarding these strikes.

And also, no comment, really, as of yet, from the Iraqis. It is, perhaps, though, quite significant in a certain sense that the U.S. military decided to carry out this strike against a target inside Syria versus one inside Iraq.

Even though there are plenty of targets for them to choose from here. And that is because the stability of Iraq is very much at stake.

This country is the main proxy battlefield between the U.S. and Iran. And what we're really seeing now is something of a return to this rather sordid game that is being played out between these two powers, where you have these Iranian-backed militias, repeatedly lobbing mortars and rockets at U.S. interests in Iraq, the Americans then carrying out calculated air strikes.

[06:15:07]

But it's also worth noting that that sort of a posturing is what we had prior to the killing that took place almost a year ago, of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on Iraqi soil, a killing that really threatened the stability of this country, as well as escalating this proxy warfare happening between the U.S. and Iran to an entirely different level.

So there is right now a certain degree of awareness among all parties that, while they do have to continue sending these messages to each other, escalating right now may not be in anyone's best interests, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Arwa, thank you for explaining all of that and giving us that context.

Joining us right now is CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. He is a White House and national security correspondent for "The New York Times."

So David, give us your analysis. What do these air strikes mean going forward for the relationship, for the Iran nuclear deal, everything?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Alisyn, I think it -- it's interesting that they did this in such a sort of narrow, proportionate way.

And last night, Lloyd Austin, the defense secretary, told reporters that they actually allowed the Iraqis to go out and conduct an investigation, so that they could sort of figure out how this -- how this attack happened and help pinpoint the targets.

So I think that was an interesting element, because you're showing -- showing that the Biden administration is very concerned about making sure that the Iraqi government is sort of a partner in this.

The message for the Iranians, I think, is simply that they won't tolerate these kinds of attacks, that there would be retaliation. But they did it in such a quiet way that I think they're just trying to avoid blowing up whatever diplomacy could be happening now in the -- in the nuclear field.

And you didn't see President Biden get out and talk about it the way President Trump did in his first strikes in Syria, when he was down at Mar-a-Lago. The whole thing was sort of done without presidential comment at all.

BERMAN: David, another significant moment, foreign policy moment we are expecting today, which is the imminent release of this intelligence report on the murder of "Washington Post" columnist, Jamal Khashoggi.

Now, the content of the report is pretty much wildly known, thanks to reporting from papers like "The New York Times." It's going to place a lot of the blame on the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, saying he was directly responsible for these attacks.

So it may not be the information in this report that makes the news. It's how the Biden administration and President Biden deals with the public release of this information and approaches the relationship with Saudi Arabia going forward. What do you see here?

SANGER: That's exactly right, John. This is sort of the first big test that President Biden has in how he's going to go deal with what is essentially a rogue ally. Remember that during the campaign, he said at one point that Saudi

Arabia was essentially a pariah state. And at another point, he said that their government right now, in his view, had no redeeming social value.

That would make you think that he's going to hit pretty hard at the crown prince, who as you say, this report will indicate was at least knowledgeable of and may have ordered the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, who was a Saudi dissident, and as you said, a columnist for the post.

So here's the choice it set up. Do you sanction the crown prince, who is likely to become the king of the country pretty soon, say that you can't travel to the United States, leave him open to potential criminal prosecution if he did, because Khashoggi was a U.S. resident.

Or do you simply say, you know, that just threatens the relationship too much, that they just can't go that far with somebody who they're going to have to deal with, like it or not, when he takes over as king of the country and as essentially as the de facto ruler now.

My guess, John, is that you're going to see President Biden be a lot more cautious than candidate Biden was.

CAMEROTA: That's interesting. I mean, obviously, it won't be the relationship that the Trump administration had with the crown prince, where it was complete cover -- I mean, providing complete cover for any bad act, particularly this Khashoggi murder. But why would he be cautious? Why not send a message that you can't, you know, butcher a journalist?

SANGER: It's a really good question and we'll have to see what he does. My guess is that they will do everything short of that. That they'll find some ways to send a message to the Saudis.

I don't think that you're going to see Mohammad bin Salman, the crown prince, invited to Washington. I don't think the Saudis would want to send him here, because they know what the protests would look like.

[06:20:03]

But you know, it's a very big decision to go say you are going to sanction somebody who is -- who is a leader of a country. We've done it with some actors in the past, Mugabe, for example, and others, but not those who were American allies.

And that's really the choice. And this is going to be a really hard one for the president, because he's said stronger things about the Saudis during the campaign than I've ever heard a candidate say about -- about allies.

And now he's got to decide whether he's going to live with those words or sort of go back to a, we have to manage a relationship, the Saudis do a lot for the United States, counterterrorism. And he doesn't want to drive the Saudis into the hands of the Chinese and the Russians, where they may be tempted to go anyway.

BERMAN: Watching it very closely. David Sanger, thanks so much.

SANGER: Thank you.

BERMAN: A stark warning from the acting chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. A direct threat of an attack on the U.S. Capitol when the president addresses Congress over the next month.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:25:26]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YOGANANDA PITTMAN, ACTING CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF: Members of the militia groups that were present on January 6 have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: That is a jarring warning from the acting chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, telling lawmakers about a threat to Congress when President Biden delivers his first address to a joint session.

Joining us now, Elizabeth Newman. She was the assistant secretary of homeland security during the Trump administration. She's now the director of the Republican Accountability Project.

Elizabeth, thanks so much for being with us. As I said, that's a pretty stark warning right there. How seriously do you think lawmakers should take that this morning?

ELIZABETH NEWMAN, DIRECTOR, REPUBLICAN ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT: Well, I'm more concerned that law enforcement takes it extremely seriously. I think we've already learned from the mistakes of January 6, that we should not underestimate the threat that is posed by domestic violence extremist groups.

We know that -- I'll take one segment that was there on January 6, QAnon. QAnon is starting to plan for what they think might be another opportunity for President Trump to become president again on March 4.

It's this kind of bizarre conspiracy surrounding the original date during which we did inaugurations over a century ago, on March 4. And they think that, magically, Trump is going to become president again.

They're going to be discouraged when that doesn't actually happen, and that could be a trigger for certain entities to take action.

The -- as she noted, the State of the Union address is another opportunity. You might see more other types of threat actors like white supremacists or anti-government militia taking up arms.

But these groups are very passionate right now. They're very -- they're actively recruiting from disheartened MAGA, meaning, you know, the Trump supporter that's not an extremist. They're trying to radicalize and they're trying to mobilize to violence.

So it's a very dangerous period that we're currently operating in, and law enforcement should be taking the threat seriously.

CAMEROTA: Elizabeth, I'm so glad you brought that up. Yesterday, I sat down with a focus group of QAnon folks. Three who had been in it, had been radicalized, clawed their way out of it; and three whose loved ones are still trapped in it and are trying to figure out how to reach them.

And they said exactly this. March 4. So March 4, as you know, is the date that's swirling around, where they think that Trump is going to be reinstated as president. And when that doesn't happen, they said, the confusion, the anger, the vitriol, they predict, will just bubble up and will need an outlet somewhere.

And so, I mean, obviously, I have to assume that the FBI is listening in on some of these same chats and calls, and that they know that all of this is happening. But the point is, it's not over. January 6 wasn't the end of anything. That was just sort of a fire drill for what's next.

NEWMAN: About the only thing we have going for us right now is that Trump doesn't have that large platform without a Twitter handle. And so January 6, he -- he gave them the date. He told them to show up. He told them to march down to the Capitol. He's not able to do that right now.

So there's a little bit more disorganization among the various groups. Because what showed up on January 6, while there were coordinated aspects, it was a lot of different groups and a lot of different ideologies all coming together in one moment of a lot of anger and a lot of, you know, a lot of people brought a lot of weapons and so -- so, thankfully, we don't have that precise moment except maybe around State of the Union.

But again, I think the law enforcement preparations are going to make it much more difficult for them to try to plan something of a coordinated nature.

CAMEROTA: Well, we hope so, except that this weekend is CPAC. I mean, they will be hearing from Donald Trump for the first time. And as you know, they parse everything he says to the syllable and hear things, even when he doesn't say it overtly. So I mean, I don't know. They could hear a message this weekend of some kind.

NEWMAN: You're absolutely right. I hadn't thought about CPAC, Alisyn. That is -- that is a concern. And hopefully, it doesn't translate to a specific location or a specific activity.

I mean, but I'm fascinated -- I can't wait to see your focus group, because so much of what is happening, it defies logic. It's really hard to predict, which is why I get really frustrated with like these January 6 assessments that we're hearing from members -- or from like the Capitol police chiefs and the sergeant of arms that that, well, the intelligence didn't tell us that it was going to be that violent.