Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Passes Budget Plan; Biden Received COVID Report; Supreme Court Upholds Remain in Mexico Policy; Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired August 25, 2021 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Congress in recent days.

Let's have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: When did you learn that Congressman Moulton and Congressman Meijer had traveled to Afghanistan? And is that what prompted your letter instructing members not to travel to the region?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): When did I learn -- around the same time -- a little before it was in the public domain. I'll tell you why it wasn't in the -- we didn't make it known because it would be dangerous for them. So a matter of hours. But, still, until they were airborne, it would not have been safe for them.

The secretary of defense, secretary of state, there's a real concern about members being in the region. And so with the, shall we say -- shall we say knowledge of the secretary of defense as to what the risk would be to these members, a, the resources necessary to facilitate their visit and to protect them was an opportunity cost of -- of what we needed to do to be evacuating as many people as possible.

So it's not just about them going to Afghanistan, or them going to the region, because there's a call on our resources diplomatically, politically -- militarily and the rest in the region as well. So this -- this is deadly serious. We do not want members to go.

QUESTION: So you're -- so you're disappointed in them specifically? Wish they hadn't gone?

PELOSI: I haven't heard what their -- you know, in other words, let me just say, I think my letter speaks for itself in terms of you should -- people shouldn't be going there.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker --

PELOSI: Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Well, just on that front, I mean have you spoken to them since their --

PELOSI: No, I haven't. I don't -- I guess they're back now. Are they? I haven't spoken to them sense, no.

QUESTION: Do you see their trip as a distraction?

PELOSI: I don't see it as much of a distraction. I mean the point is, is that we didn't want anybody to think this was a good idea and that they should try to follow suit.

Again, I haven't -- I've been busy. It's an important thing. We wanted to make sure they were safe for themselves but also for what consequence could throw, ramification if something happened to them while they were there. So they have to make their own case as to why they went and this or that. But it is -- it was not, in my view, a good idea and --

QUESTION: Are you going to speak with them, then?

PELOSI: We'll see. We'll see. I mean there are other -- they have their committees. See, when you -- when you go -- and I'm sure this is not just like, oh, I think I'm going to go to Afghanistan. You need the -- the approval of your committee chair in order to do that. And we put out the word to committee chairs, there ain't going to be no planes or this or that for -- for people going to the region or any facilitation.

See, the Defense Department has to protect, but the State Department has to facilitate. Really? We're trying to get people out.

So, again, without having a fuller knowledge of -- I don't think they had any committee approval. I don't know that. I don't know what happened on the Republican side. But my understanding is they didn't have committee approval on the Democratic side.

But, in any event, it -- you know, interesting. I don't -- I don't think a major distraction because we put an end to any thought that anybody was going there right away.

Yes, sir. Yes.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker, thank you. (INAUDIBLE). Thank you.

And to that end on Afghanistan, with this herculean effort to try withdrawal these folks and get people out safely and evacuate them, what does it say about the fact that two members, a Democrat and Republican -- and I've talked to a number of officers who are working to (INAUDIBLE) to get people out, that they feel so desperate that people need to be evacuated, that they need to freelance on their own.

Does that speak to this problem about the evacuation?

PELOSI: No, I think it speaks to -- that they want to freelance on their own. I would not make anything bigger of this.

We have a big challenge to get people out safely and to get them -- to get them -- I talked to Malala (ph) last week. You know Malala. She's the heroine of the world. Personal sacrifice. Great leadership. And we talked about women and girls, which is part of what her foundation does. But she basically, in our conversation, and a follow-up letter said, most important thing right now is for us to have a strong -- the U.S. to have a strong military presence at the airport and the opportunity for people to get to the airport.

It is not in furtherance of that strength for us to have members going over there.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Mr. Crow (ph), who you mentioned, is leading the effort, you know, in your caucus on this.

PELOSI: Yes.

QUESTION: He said yesterday he's against withdrawing our troops by the 31st. He said, if we aren't willing to use the military to protect U.S. citizens and our partners and our friends, then what do we use it for?

[09:35:00]

Do you think that this is the wrong decision to -- to stick by this deadline if -- if there are potentially thousands, tens of thousands of Afghans, partners, their families that are -- that are left behind?

PELOSI: We it -- we, obviously, made a promise and we want to honor it. The -- and I had enormous respect for Mr. Crow. He's been a leader, just visionary. He saw what would happen early on and was a leader in passing the legislation in a way to facilitate.

The judgment about leaving is a judgment that the president has made. And he has to balance the equities of what is the threat to our military and the people at the airport and -- versus the advantage of staying. And that's kind of what he said yesterday, but I think we may -- more will unfold in that regard.

So I'm not -- I think that our most -- I can't go into what happened as a caucus yesterday, but one impression that one might take of people coming out, which obviously are for, but people coming out is that people really wanted to encourage the president to stay longer. But he has to, as I say, weigh the equities of the danger versus the advantage. And I trust his judgment.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker.

PELOSI: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I'm curious about your reaction to -- your reflection on this week with the Gottheimer crew. You've been through a lot of these in the last 15 years.

PELOSI: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm curious what your reflection is on what they frame as a deal, you say is not much of a deal.

PELOSI: Well, no, it's not. It's a clarification. It's a clarification.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: OK, you've been listening there to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Her final answer there, enforcing, in effect, President Biden's decision to leave Afghanistan by the deadline, saying she trusts his judgment.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:21]

SCIUTTO: This morning, President Biden's sweeping economic agenda is moving forward after House Democrats approved a budget framework paving the way for Democrats to spend trillions of dollars on expanding the social safety net, as well as moving forward the infrastructure plan.

All this critical pieces of President Biden's domestic agenda.

What's next? Joining me now to discuss, Anita Kumar, she's White House correspondent and associated editor for "Politico."

So, rumors of the death of this plan greatly exaggerated perhaps. They have a deal, at least for now, and I know there are procedural, you know, jumps to go through going forward. But in effect do you expect to see the infrastructure plan passed in September and then the move forward on the budget after that?

ANITA KUMAR, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND ASSOCIATE EDITOR, "POLITICO": Well, it does look like it's going that way. I mean you're exactly right, for months we keep saying or hearing that things are going to die and then they continue on.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KUMAR: So it's clear Congress, you know, and the White House are really pushing forward on this. It looks like it's going that way. But, look, as you've mentioned, there is a really big, tough task ahead, which is coming up with this plan, the details of the plan. And as you know, moderates and progressives really still disagree on the -- on the scope of the plan and what should be in the plan.

SCIUTTO: They do. But let's be honest here, they both want to spend money, right? I mean the easiest thing to do in Washington is spend money. And virtually no one in either party seems to care about the deficit anymore. So, I mean, if it's really a debate about the top line figure and Manchin and the moderates in the House want to bring it down a bit. I mean are -- do you really expect that they're not going to come to agreement on spending some number of trillions of dollars?

KUMAR: No, I mean, it really does look, as you've said, that they will agree on something. We just don't know exactly what that looks like. And, remember, look, they want to spend money, as you've indicated.

They also want to keep the majority in the Senate and the House.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KUMAR: And they really need to pass something to show voters and constituents, look, we did this. This is a huge deal. Here's what we've come up with. A lot of the Democratic agenda besides this has not gotten anywhere, right? Immigration, voting rights, police reform, the minimum wage, all these things that President Biden and the Democrats talked about. This is really where they're putting their priority and they need to get something done.

SCIUTTO: The president, as you know, getting flak from both Democrats and Republicans for his handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, though there is broad, fairly bipartisan agreement on withdrawing from Afghanistan in general. But this evacuation, how quickly it's unfolded, the mess we've seen in Kabul.

What are the administration's concerns about this sticking with him, in effect? His approval ratings are down. Are they concerned that this is lasting damage?

KUMAR: Yes, you've seen a lot of Democrats who are really nervous about this. They think that this is right up there with a couple of the other issues that the Republicans are using. So we've seen Republicans talk about crime, talk about what's been happening, this surge on the southern border and how that continues on. And also Afghanistan.

I mean the good news for Democrats, of course, and the thing they keep trying to tell themselves is, it's still early. This may not be the issue voters are talking about next year.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KUMAR: You know, we've got more than a year to go. And oftentimes, as you've seen in the last decade, we haven't seen foreign policy really move the needle on some of these midterm elections. So they're looking at that.

But, look, they are nervous about it. There are people talking about how President Biden made a mistake. These are people in his own party that wish that he had done things differently, you know, a month ago or two months ago when he announced this withdrawal and that he had, you know -- and wished that he would go beyond August 31st. And so far we haven't seen the president budge.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I remember being in Baghdad in 2004 when George W. Bush was re-elected, amidst some of the worst weeks and months in the Iraq -- in the Iraq War.

[09:45:05]

Anita Kumar, always good to have you on.

KUMAR: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, President Biden has now been briefed on the intelligence community's review into the origin of the coronavirus. Are we closer to a definitive answer on how this pandemic started?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: It has now been 90 days since President Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to review their intelligence on how exactly the pandemic started.

[09:50:07]

And the intel community today is no closer to a conclusive answer as to whether COVID-19 resulted from a lab leak in Wuhan, China, or if the virus jumped naturally from animals to humans. That's the question.

CNN's David Culver joins me now from Beijing.

So, no closer to a definitive answer. That's kind of rare in the intelligence community, though. Are they any closer to an answer?

DAVID CULVER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And for folks who were hoping that this might be what brings this all to some sort of conclusion, yes, we're not there. And it's not looking that that's likely in the near futures.

And scientific experts that I've spoken with, Jim, they say it is so heavily politicized right now -- on both sides but I would say mostly from Beijing -- that it's unlikely we're going to get to the truth in all of this any time soon, at least from a scientific perspective.

So you've got lawmakers who are going to be briefed in the coming days on the findings of this 90-day intel community review. And then we do expect some of the information to be declassified and released to the public.

But, again, in the midst of that, nothing that will indicate anything of a smoking gun evidence, if you will.

And so what are we looking for then if you're talking about that one piece of evidence that would say this, in fact, jumped from animals to humans. Well, for that, scientific experts say you need that host species, that -- these -- that one animal that initially carried it. That's going to be tough to find because you need to be on the ground to find that.

Same thing with the lab. You need to be on the ground and you need to be talking to the Chinese experts in a transparent, open way. You need to have access to the lab books in order to see whether or not the virus was present in the lab before the outbreak.

Well, that's not going to happen. Neither of those are going to happen because the Chinese have said they essentially have closed the door to any phase two of the WHO investigation. Not only that, Jim, they are pushing a relentless campaign of propaganda to try to change the narrative to say, don't investigate China, go to the U.S.

SCIUTTO: Wow, that classic disinformation by China. No evidence of that.

David Culver, in Beijing, thanks very much.

Here at home, the Supreme Court blocking the Biden administration from ending a controversial Trump-era immigration rule. The so-called remain in Mexico policy forces migrants to stay in Mexico as they await immigration court dates here in the U.S. The White House argued that reviving the program would, quote, result in irreparable harm.

CNN's Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic joins me now.

Joan, I'm old enough to remember month ago when the conservative court had an expansive view of presidential power, and we saw that in many decisions about Trump administration policies, now this.

What happened?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It was the first major confrontation between the Biden administration and the Roberts Supreme Court. And it's not off to a good start.

You know, you mentioned the context of deference to the administration, especially in an area of immigration like this. Something that, you know, touches on foreign policy and --

SCIUTTO: National security.

BISKUPIC: Exactly. And the justices not only shot it down, they shot it down quickly.

What the Biden administration had said was, you know, please intervene. Just pause this -- this order from the lower court that has said that the Biden administration had to, was going to be compelled to revise its remain in Mexico policy and said, just wait, just wait. And not only did they shoot it down, they shot it down like within an hour of the final filing from the Biden administration.

And the contrast to what happened in president -- former President Trump's early months on his immigration policy was really stark. And one other thing I'd mention is that the justices did this in a very brief order. The only three justices who protested this and said that they would have granted the Biden administration's request were the three liberal justices. So this was definitely one that broke along familiar ideological lines. But the only thing they wrote in that short order was a reference to a ruling that they had issued last year in President Trump's DACA policy, the dreamers program. But that was a case that had been -- where the justices said that President Trump had not fully explained why he wanted to roll back the dreamers program.

But that was a case that had been briefed over a series of months that was seriously considered.

SCIUTTO: Yes. BISKUPIC: This was handled in a matter of hours and it's such a different kind of policy.

SCIUTTO: So explain to me how -- I mean the Supreme Court's supposed to be on principle and precedent. How could you have conservative justices who for years have been talking very publicly about the president has these powers, we expect -- you know, we respect and support, you know, a broad executive power. How -- you know, how do they manage that?

BISKUPIC: Well, I think it's -- you know, it's all in what -- what someone can argue, in the eye of the -- eye of the conservative beholder here. I'm sure what the justices who wrote that order were thinking is that, you know, back in 2020 we told Trump he had to go back and justify his dreamers program. And -- but that was a -- that's a -- that was a domestic program where the consequences of ending what -- you know, intervening there would have -- would have so disrupted so many young people's lives.

[09:55:07]

SCIUTTO: Right. Yes.

BISKUPIC: Whereas this was not a domestic program. This is one that obviously, as you know, impinges on foreign policy. And the consequences would have been the opposite, frankly, and could be the opposite because of all the people who are being sent back to Mexico or having to remain in Mexico in dangerous conditions.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BISKUPIC: So quite the opposite, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Goodness gracious.

Joan Biskupic, always good to have you break it down.

BISKUPIC: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead this hour, an update within the hour from the Pentagon on the ongoing evacuation efforts in Afghanistan. We're going to have our live team coverage, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]