Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Tonight: House Expected To Debate, Vote On Debt Limit Bill; U.S.: Chinese Jet Made "Aggressive Maneuver" In International Space; CNN: Chris Christie To Announce 2024 Bid Tuesday. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 31, 2023 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: It all starts right now. House lawmakers gaveling in as the race to avoid default really heats up. Speaker Kevin McCarthy projecting confidence his debt bill will pass the House tonight as some Democrats signal they will vote yes even if they think it's a bad deal.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: China is calling it a deliberate U.S. intrusion. The U.S. calls it an unnecessary and aggressive action by China. New tension after a Chinese fighter jet intercepted a U.S. spy plane. This, over the South China Sea. The blame game now playing out as the U.S. worries the air between the two superpowers getting much colder.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Fly recently and feel like the seats are shrinking, well, it's not all the airline's fault. We'll be explaining. These developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: A key vote to avoid default on the nation's debts is now just a little more than an hour away. Lawmakers are heading to the House floor to begin debate on President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's debt limit deal. Leaders from both parties are expressing confidence it will get passed tonight. Just moments ago, President Biden was at the White House being asked if he thought the bill would clear the House. Watch his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to deal with the debt ceiling. We got -- we got -- and I think things are going as planned, God willing. I'll have -- I'll be landing in Colorado tonight in preparation for my commencement speech at Air Force Academy tomorrow. And God willing, by the time I land, Congress will have acted -- the House would have and we'll be one step closer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's take you live to Capitol Hill right now where House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is about to gavel in. Let's listen for a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are not alone in our efforts to serve this country. The concerns we harbor both personally and professionally are safely in your keeping.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: We are watching right now on the House floor as they gamble in getting set to begin debate on this debt limit bill. We want to go to CNN's Manu Raju now, who has been tracking all of this. We've heard both House Speaker McCarthy who's there and President Biden expressing confidence. What are the rank and file saying about this bill?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there are a lot of concerns within the rank and file. But a lot of these members recognize that this is really the only viable option at this moment to avoid the first-ever U.S. debt default. And that could have drastic ramifications across the economy.

And knowing that this deal that a lot of them simply don't like a lot of the provisions that are in there, many of them prepare to just simply just hold their nose and vote for it. That is the -- essentially, the message that Democratic leaders gave to their members and the rank and file this morning saying there could be a lot worse options.

A default could be a worse option. Perhaps there have been more concessions that the White House would have to give that you wouldn't have liked, but this middle-of-the-road approach they said get behind it. That is Hakeem Jeffries's message to his members.

Now, Kevin McCarthy himself is trying to ensure that he has a majority of House Republicans behind it. He told me earlier this today -- earlier today that he does expect to have a majority of his 223-member House Republican Conference behind it. Now, the Democratic leaders wanted to get up to 150 House Republicans.

[14:05:02]

He has not been willing to say if he's going to be able to get 150 House Republicans given that there are concerns among the some, a sizable amount, but not enough to derail it, of those members on the far right of his conference who believe that the speaker gave too much as part of this negotiation with the White House.

They believe that he agreed to a debt limit increase that would go up until January 2025. They thought it should have been much shorter so they could extract more concessions from the White House.

They also were concerned that the spending cuts are part of this deal simply did not go far enough. And that is what he has been hearing all along. Some of them have raised the prospect of even trying to oust him from the speakership.

That has not caused any concern publicly from the Speaker himself. He has batted down all those questions about whether or not there will be an effort to oust him from the speakership. Of course, a single member could call for such a vote.

He says he is not worried about that. But he does expect this hard- fought negotiation that came after weeks of talks with the White House will bear fruit. Tonight, the bill is expected to pass the House after a procedural vote this afternoon to essentially set the parameters for the floor debate.

Then by 8:30 Eastern tonight, they will vote to approve this bill likely by a healthy bipartisan majority here in the House. And then it's over to the United States Senate where any one individual Senator can hold up the process if they're concerned about it if they feel they're not getting enough amendment votes. That is going to be one big question, how quickly can the Senate act?

But the expectation is after tonight, it will end that very risky standoff between the White House and the House Republicans that a deal will have been reached. And we're expecting the speaker here to walk by any moment here and give a sense of this. He's walking right by right now, guys, so just hang with me right here. Here's the -- here's a speaker.

Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, what do you -- what -- Mr. Speaker, what do you say to -- what do you say to folks on your right flank who are concerned about this deal and don't think that you cut the best deal by authorizing about four trillion dollars of new borrowing in exchange for some spending cuts?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): Oh, yes. You want truth in advertising, OK? So, don't think of things that aren't true. This is the largest cut in American history.

This goes to the debt ceiling to January first. It also brings you work requirements on welfare, something we've never been able to get through in our modern time outside of 1995. Yes.

RAJU: But CBO says expands those work requirements.

MCCARTHY: I'll bet you dinner that you'll find that it actually saves more money because it cuts -- adds the age group. But at the same time, it cuts the states that have the loopholes to do the 12 percent down to eight percent. And you know, if you've been here long enough, CBO always gets that part wrong.

RAJU: Do you -- are you worried that this may make your speakership less secure?

MCCARTHY: Not at all.

RAJU: So, there you have the speaker brushing aside concerns from his far right. I tried to ask him about the concerns of this -- some of the folks on the far right had said about the size of the debt limit increase. So, the -- given that, there's no dollar amount. It just simply suspends the dollar -- the debt limit until January 2025. Some of those folks on the right said that could be four trillion dollars of new spending that essentially could be authorized by the federal government before they have to come back and raise the debt ceiling again. He downplayed that and talked about the cuts are all part of that. Also trying to tout the new work requirements that are part of the food stamps provisions that are in this bill.

That would expand the age in which people would have to actually seek a job in order to get food stamps. Certain individuals would benefit from that program. The CBO says it would actually cost the government more money.

That's the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The speaker though you hear that downplaying those concerns and confidence of passage tonight.

SANCHEZ: Not just downplaying those concerns, Manu, also betting you dinner on them. Probably worth following up on that. Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks so much.

RAJU: Thank you. Right, sure.

SANCHEZ: Briana, over to you.

KEILAR: I bet you dinner that Manu is oh dinner. So, I want to talk more about this now with Democratic Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, longtime former House Majority Leader. Sir, thanks for joining us this afternoon.

REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD): Glad to be with you, Brianna.

KEILAR: So, there of course, what we're watching next is going to be this key procedural vote ahead of the actual vote on the deal. But it's very important, and it's something that is usually up to Republicans to get the votes on. It's normally a party-line vote.

It's hard to see how that may happen that some Freedom Caucus members may not go along with that. You're the former whip, you know how these things work, are Democrats going to help Republicans out here?

HOYER: Well, first of all, let me say the Democrats believed all along that the falling on the debt is not an option. Speaker McCarthy said that in his speech at Wall Street. Unfortunately, they've conflated both appropriations and the debt should be separate issues.

And when they talked about spending more money or less money on the debt, they're really talking about the appropriations process. But let me say that I think the overwhelming majority of Democrats believe -- and in fact, almost unanimously, default is not an option and would hurt literally everybody in the United States and around the world.

[14:10:03]

So, that -- we need to make sure that that gets passed and gets passed tonight. Whether it's June first or June fifth, we would default at some point in time. And that's not an option because it would be catastrophic consequences to America and to the global economy.

KEILAR: Yes, the repercussions would be huge. So, how -- explain to us how you see this playing out. Is this going to be a situation where Republicans are casting every vote they can first and then we see Democrats casting votes?

HOYER: Look. I think that the Republicans voted against every rule that we are offering. And that tends to be the practice. We think this rule ought to allow some amendments to this bill to improve it. To lessen some of the harsh phases of it.

But having said that, the administration, Shalanda Young, Steve Richetti, and others who are involved in this negotiation, did I think a wonderful job in protecting the economic progress and the investments that we made in the last Congress to lift up business, to make people healthier to bring their costs down. So, that was a success.

Did we get everything we want? No, you don't get everything you want in a negotiation. It's a give and take, which means some -- you have to give some, you get -- and you take some.

But we think on the -- on the whole, this admin -- this bill is worthy of support. And then there'll be a lot of work on the Appropriations Committee in the years ahead. But what we have done has been protected by the administration. And so I think that we'll pass this bill.

But yes, on the -- on the rule, we'll see what the Republicans do. They have the responsibility as the majority party. They passed a rule out. They had the votes to either kill or pass a rule. And they need to step up to the plate. If Speaker McCarthy comments that default is not an option, then every one of the Republicans ought to vote for this bill, and all to vote for the rules.

KEILAR: So, clearly, you just set it there, you think that President Biden largely protected Democratic priorities from Republicans? Progressives, a number of them have said that they don't want to vote for this. They don't like the deal. But clearly, you think that they should like the deal.

HOYER: I think there are people who rightfully believe that there are provisions of this bill that we don't like and would not support. But that's not the issue. The issue is this bill is before us, as it is.

I think it has done -- I think, as I said, the administration has done very, very good work at protecting the most important -- that protecting our veterans. Republicans wanted to cut veterans' benefits very deeply, particularly those who had been exposed to toxic substances as they served in the armed forces. They protected the homeless. They protected their foster care children. They protected Social Security and Medicare.

So that -- yes, are there some things I would oppose? Absolutely. But again, the harm that would be caused by defaulting far exceeds the harm that would be caused by this bill. And we can -- we can work and will work to correct those things that we think are wrong. And very frankly, this bill is a two-year bill as opposed to a 10-year bill that the Republicans proposed, which would have been extraordinarily harmful to the United States. I think the administration has gotten an agreement that is supportable.

It's not perfect. It's not everything we would have done. But it is a bill which does, in fact, for the threat that Republicans made to the creditworthiness of the United States in paying its debts. Had we -- had we not done that, if we do not do that, every American will be harmed.

KEILAR: Mr. Hoyer, thank you so much. And we'll be watching this vote as you head over there to the House floor. Thank you, sir.

HOYER: Thank you, Brianna.

KEILAR: Jim?

SCIUTTO: Lots of drama on the House floor. Well, tensions between the U.S. and China already not particularly good, worsening after a close encounter over the South China Sea. Beijing says that the U.S. military spy plane "deliberately intruded" into China's training area. Now, this is the view from the cockpit of that U.S. reconnaissance plane. That is the Chinese fighter jet approaching from the right side. You can see here.

The Pentagon says the Chinese pilot carried out what it calls an aggressive maneuver, cut right in front of the U.S. jet. You'll see that in a moment here. And as it does, watch it bank there, turn in front of the nose of the plane. Then you're going to see the pilot here.

[14:15:00]

That's the cockpit shuttering in the turbulence resulting from that fly-by. National Security Council's official John Kirby weighed in from the White House podium just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESPERSON: You all saw the video for yourself. As you can see, they forced that RC- 135 to go through the jet lash of the Chinese fighter which just tells you how close it was. Several hundred feet. That's dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: CNN's Oren Liebermann is at the Pentagon. Oren, I've been in one of those surveillance planes over the South China Sea when the Chinese challenge. I wonder what the Pentagon's view is. Because this is not isolated.

Just in the last few days, we had a snub of Defense Secretary Austin who wanted to meet with his Chinese counterpart. And this followed efforts by U.S. officials in recent weeks to try to cool things off a little bit between the two sides. How do they see this incident, and how do they fit into the broader picture?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The incident itself is part of a pattern of more aggressive behavior we're seeing from Chinese fighter jets. This being the latest instance. We can take a look at that video again.

This is from Friday in international airspace over the South China Sea with an RC-135 Rivet Joint, a reconnaissance airplane flying straight and level. You can see that in the video when the Chinese fighter jet cuts in front and you can see the shaking there as it passes through the wake turbulence of that Chinese fighter jet which disturbed that air and caused that shutter there.

In terms of this being a pattern, not the first time we've seen something like this. If we go back to December, there was a very similar incident in the same piece of airspace, in the international airspace above the South China Sea, when a Chinese Navy fighter jet came to within 20 feet of another RC-135 Rivet Joint, another U.S. reconnaissance plane according to the U.S., forcing the larger, heavier U.S. aircraft to take evasive maneuvers.

The Chinese position has also been the same thing. Saying effectively, this is Chinese airspace and the U.S. is in the way. That gets into a dispute about the South China Sea itself, much of which China claims as its own territorial waters and airspace, a position that the U.S. doesn't recognize and neither does international law.

The broader perspective here is, is that with this sort of tension, the U.S. is looking for communication but that not happening at the highest levels right now. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was trying to meet his Chinese counterpart --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

LIEBERMANN: -- in the coming days at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore. That not happening. Here is Secretary of State Antony Blinken talking about the risks of the lack of communication right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There have been a series of these actions directed not just at us, but at other countries in recent months. But I think it only underscores why it is so important that we have regular open lines of communication. The most dangerous thing is not to communicate and as a result, to have a misunderstanding and miscommunication. And as we've said repeatedly, while we have a real competition with China, we also want to make sure that doesn't veer into conflict.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIEBERMANN: There are some levels of communication with China, for example, at the Defense Attache Office, but it's not at the highest levels. And there's the concern, Jim. The real question is what conditions would be necessary to resume those lines of dialogue? SCIUTTO: Yes.

LIEBERMANN: And is it even possible to get to those conditions, given the current level of tension?

SCIUTTO: You know what struck me, Oren, as I'm watching this, they had a camera in that cockpit, ready to record this. Do we know if is that deliberate?

LIEBERMANN: I don't know if deliberate but again, we see a pattern here.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

LIEBERMANN: So, not surprising if they carried a camera in there just to be able to record this --

SCIUTTO: Right.

LIEBERMANN: -- just to show that it happens and refute the Chinese narrative.

SCIUTTO: No question. Man, that's quite a piece of video. Oren Liebermann at the Pentagon, thanks so much. Briana.

KEILAR: Coming up. The race for the Republican nomination is about to get more crowded, see who's jumping in next. Plus, a new report says the special counsel investigating Donald Trump is looking into the firing of a top cybersecurity official who contradicted the former president's lies about fraud in the 2020 election.

And Russia facing attacks on its own soil. What the U.S. and Ukraine are saying after recent drone attacks? That and much more next on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:23:02]

KEILAR: Add another podium to the Republican debate stage because sources tell CNN that former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will announce on Tuesday that he's running again for the GOP nomination. He last ran in 2016. Christie's super PAC, Tell It Like It Is, also launching a website to boost messaging for Donald Trump's former pal turned critic.

We have CNN's Omar Jimenez joining us now with more on this. So, Omar, what are you learning about this new Christie campaign so far?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Brianna. And as you mentioned, multiple sources have told me that former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie plans to announce his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election on Tuesday. We're expecting this to happen in a town hall format in New Hampshire at St. Anselm College.

And over previous weeks, folks in his camp had been telling me that he had been talking things over with stakeholders and people that mattered to him about whether to jump into this race. And clearly, it seems he has gotten to that point. That said, it -- polling does suggest he has an uphill battle ahead of him.

Just looking at a CNN poll that was conducted less than two weeks ago, polling Republican and Republican-leaning voters you see Trump and DeSantis polling at the top and then Chris Christie, multiple spots down below and -- at just two percent. Again, based on this polling.

But then also critically, among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, they also -- we also polled them on who they would never support. And Chris Christie right at the top of that list. 60 percent of the Republican and Republican-leaning voters that were polled said that there. So, again, clearly, some work to do on that front.

And he's joining an already crowded GOP field. But Chris Christie has not been shy about attacking former President Donald Trump saying that Trump has failed this country. And even people I've spoken to in Christie's camp have said, there's no going around Trump at this point. It's just going through him.

And even Christie himself at a previous town hall has said that, if he runs for president, he plans to do something directly about former President Trump. So, it'll be interesting to see if he makes that the mainstay of his campaign and moving forward as he tries to differentiate himself from what we've seen as an ever-growing GOP field here.

[14:25:16]

KEILAR: Yes, they were friends, but things did not end well as he sort of left the Trump fold following those election lies. So, it's possible he'll draw some of Trump's ire. We will see. Omar Jimenez, thank you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: We have some new details to share with you in the investigation into Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The New York Times is reporting that special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed Trump White House staffers who may have been involved in the firing of a top election security official.

You might remember that shortly after the 2020 election, Christopher Krebs was dismissed after releasing a statement emphatically contradicting Trump's baseless election fraud claims. He and his agency said the election was "the most secure in American history."

Let's discuss the legal implications with CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. He's also a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Elliot, thanks for being with us.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Where does Christopher Krebs fit in the context of the special counsel's investigation?

WILLIAMS: So look, Boris, if there's any one thing I can get conveyed to the non-lawyers of the world, it is that criminal intent is all that matters when you're -- when you're building a criminal investigation. So, you're getting in the head of the defendant, whether it's former President Trump or someone around him, and did they know, for instance, that they lost the election?

Krebs's claims about the security of the election could speak to that fact. So, that's relevant to, for instance, charging a crime called conspiracy to defraud the United States. Does the person know that they are taking an action that's based on faulty information? Is it some other form of obstruction through the determination of Christopher Krebs? All of it comes down to what was in Donald Trump's head or the head of anyone else's being investigated of a crime. (INAUDIBLE) yes.

SANCHEZ: And potentially also for fundraising off of those claims. If you know that something is false and that you fundraise based off of it, that could be --

WILLIAMS: Are you a lawyer too, yourself, Boris? Because what you just --

SANCHEZ: No, but --

WILLIAMS: What you just articulating --

SANCHEZ: I'm predicting where you going to go. Yes.

WILLIAMS: It's wire fraud or mail fraud.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

WILLIAMS: If, in fact, they are making claims based on faulty information that hey, we still think we're in this election, even though they knew they lost. The moment they click send on that e-mail or put a stamp on that envelope and mail it, that's mail or wire fraud, which can come with very significant penalties.

SANCHEZ: But the actual firing of Krebs -- he was a political appointee.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: He works essentially, at the whim of the president. And if the president fires him, he couldn't be charged for that, right?

WILLIAMS: Well, not necessarily. Now, it all gets back to why he fired him. Look, I was a political appointee for seven and a half years. And you do serve at the pleasure of the president, including if you are seen to be as disloyal to the aims of the president's policies.

If a political appointee today were to be out making statements about not agreeing with the debt deal or whatever it might be, they could lose their job over that. Now, the question is, why did Donald Trump take that action? And was it to interfere with an investigation or get in the way of something else? That's what the special counsel is trying to get to the bottom of right now. SANCHEZ: So, there's overturning or attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: And then there's the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- which we know that the special counsel was looking into, and there is reporting from The Times -- or rather, there is reporting from CNN that indicates that someone at Mar-a-Lago, and a state employee was going to the technical folks asking about security cameras, asking how long images stay stored on security cameras there. I'm assuming that goes back to the question of intent.

WILLIAMS: That's exactly it. It -- and then it could be a perfectly innocuous question, someone who works there might want to know how long videos are stored, or someone who's trying to commit a crime and tamper with evidence would also possibly want to know how long video was stored.

And I think what the special counsel is trying to get to is, number one, what did that person know at the time? And number two, what did the people this person was talking to, know about the footage, and who had access to boxes, who had access to the footage, and so on? It can all go to criminal intent and knowledge.

SANCHEZ: And there's also reporting out there that indicates that there were Mar-a-Lago staffers that were moving around boxes. Apparently, they're alleging they don't know what was -- what were in them when they were making those moves. But could they potentially face some kind of legal repercussions from that?

WILLIAMS: They could. They got some explaining to do because think about it. Why was it -- and this -- here's going to the question, within days of the Justice Department coming to Mar-a-Lago, why were boxes being moved? Why were -- why did Justice Department officials receive evident -- information that they were not allowed to look in certain boxes that were in a room?

All that seems fishy. Could be perfectly plausible. There might be an explanation for it. But investigators have every right to get to the bottom of facts that just don't seem to add up, particularly given that hundreds of classified documents were found after that fact.

SANCHEZ: We look forward to seeing what happens next in the case of the potential indictment looming of the former president by the special counsel. Elliot Williams, always a pleasure. Great to have you.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Jim?

[14:30:03]