Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
FDA Approves New Painkiller; Republicans Set to Confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?; El Salvador Offers to House Violent U.S. Criminals. Aired 11:30a-12p ET
Aired February 04, 2025 - 11:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:30:00]
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You can see, off in the distance, there's three different rings that they describe. At the far end, you have one that's nine meters high of concrete, and then above that, three meters of electrified fencing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's 15,000 volts.
CULVER: 15,000 volts.
(voice-over): More than 1,000 security personnel, guards, police and military, are stationed on site.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CULVER: So that is just a sampling. Our full piece is on CNN.com.
I mean, it's surprising to be in that facility just to see how wide it spreads. I mean, it's roughly seven football fields in total area. And we went into one of those units, and they have roughly eight of those in that entire space.
So the campus, Phil, has a lot of potential to really widen out and take in more, which now we're hearing could actually be U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Yes, it was remarkable reporting at the time, the fact that it's come back around in this moment that we're in.
And Priscilla -- I want to bring in Priscilla Alvarez.
You have been covering kind of all the different aspects of the Trump immigration policy every single step of the way, exhaustingly so. You have new reporting today about kind of the military flights carrying migrants. What are you hearing?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, U.S. officials are telling me and my colleagues Natasha Bertrand and Haley Britzky that a military flight carrying migrants will be heading to Guantanamo Bay today. Of course, remember President Donald Trump last week announced and
directed the government to set up -- or, rather, to expand a base on Guantanamo to hold migrants. There's already a migrant operations center that exists there.
Well, they are outlining plans to expand that to 30,000 people. I have spoken with sources who say they are currently setting up multiple tents to hold migrants there. One of the questions that attorneys within the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon were working on over recent days was whether or not they really could take the step of taking someone from U.S. soil and taking them to Guantanamo Bay.
Well, it seems that they may have resolved that because there is a flight that we know is going to be headed there today. But this is part of a massive undertaking by this administration, and an unprecedented one, at that, to set up such a massive facility, not only for migrants interdicted at sea, which is how it has been used before, but to take people on U.S. soil to this base.
MATTINGLY: David -- and Priscilla has reported a ton this about these safe third-party agreements, which is part of what the El Salvador leader is offering here.
CULVER: Right.
MATTINGLY: It's part of the negotiations that he had with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. We have seen a couple of them come online.
In terms of El Salvador's posture with the United States, what do they want? What is that bilateral relationship?
CULVER: Well, I mean, the initial exchange is for a fee. And they say it's going to be a nominal fee, really something the U.S. can afford. It's probably far cheaper than what we pay for imprisonment here in the States.
But it also seems that they're pushing for nuclear power as well. So they're certainly going to use this, and they have worked with China as well in the past to try to see what El Salvador and President Bukele can gain from this.
Overall, though, I take a step back and I say perhaps there's something bigger here, and that is that there's the messaging that the Trump administration really wants to put out there, because if you look at two of the most popular people in Latin America, it's President Trump and President Nayib Bukele.
Both are them are seen as strongmen, as individuals who don't get pushed around easily. And so perhaps, and migrants were even telling me this as recently as last week, this is going to be more of a deterrent factor than anything else. People who we spoke with said, because of what we're seeing with the deportation, because of then the potential that Priscilla was reporting of deportees going to Guantanamo, now you have CECOT, a place that is iconic in Latin America. Migrants are going to say more and more this is not worth it.
ALVAREZ: And can I just also say that, in speaking to Trump officials, this is part of their grand strategy with Latin America.
They had been working on this for weeks before even taking office. El Salvador is key to that strategy. They feel as though it is one of their closest allies, that, if they can work with them, then, to your point Phil, they can start to get other countries to strike agreements with them to send people of other nationalities to those countries.
So El Salvador is central to that strategy. When I was talking to a source about this agreement, they were telling me, well, Tren de Aragua, which is that Venezuelan gang and one that the president has talked about often. Well, this is a way to scare them by even throwing the idea of them being sent to this prison in El Salvador.
So, certainly, this is both a deterrent, but it's also part of the strategy that we are going to continue monitoring of how they build out these alliances in Latin America.
MATTINGLY: Yes, we talk so much about the domestic, kind of the interior capacity of it. I vividly remember you sitting in my office like shortly after the election being like the third-party agreements and how they're working through the carrots-and-sticks approach, plus the deterrent effect, this is thought out, and very well thought out.
CULVER: And might be scary, to her -- to Priscilla's point.
MATTINGLY: Yes.
CULVER: Because going through those halls, it is -- there's a piece of your soul, I have heard described, that leaves you when you walk out of that space. It is not a pleasant space to be in.
MATTINGLY: You looked remarkably composed.
CULVER: That was on camera. Then, afterwards, it was catch my breath, to be honest.
MATTINGLY: It was awesome work. Your P.J., your photojournalists did a sensational job as well.
CULVER: Evelio Contreras and Abel Alvarado. Yes, thank you.
MATTINGLY: David Culver, Priscilla Alvarez, thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
CULVER: Thanks. Well,
[11:35:00]
MATTINGLY: Well, in moments, GOP Senator Bill Cassidy will go to the Senate floor and explain why he voted yes to advance Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination to be HHS secretary after saying he had concerns about some of his views. We're going to bring it to you live. You see the Senate floor on your
screen right now. Quick break. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTINGLY: In just moments, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy is expected to speak on the Senate floor about his decision to vote in favor of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination to be health and human services secretary.
[11:40:00]
Now, the Senate Finance Committee just voted along party lines to advance that nomination to the full Senate.
I want to bring in CNN's Lauren Fox.
Lauren, you had a great story this morning about kind of how Bill Cassidy was working through this process. And he made very clear it was difficult for him. Do we know anything more about how he got to yes?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, just barely, Phil.
I mean, when they had this vote earlier this morning, when Cassidy walked into the hearing room, he was about 10 minutes' late. It was really unclear what was going on and what the delay was. Obviously, getting senators all in a quorum for one of these votes can sometimes be a little bit of wrangling on Capitol Hill.
But as he sat down, the room was just really tense inside, in part because a lot of people just were on the fence about what Cassidy was going to do. Moments before the vote, his office released a tweet saying that Cassidy had been having intense conversations with the White House and was receiving serious commitments from the administration.
So a couple of things that we're going to be watching really closely in this floor speech in just a couple of minutes is more details about what some of those commitments were. Obviously, there were two areas that Cassidy really focused on in his questioning over the course of two days with RFK Jr.
One of them was questions about what reforms Kennedy would seek when it came to Medicaid programs. And you really saw in that line of questioning Cassidy, who has worked really hard on Capitol Hill to think about reforms to that program, who's introduced legislation to introduce reforms to that program, he clearly was not satisfied with Kennedy's answers, because Kennedy seemed really confused between the Medicare and Medicaid program.
So I'm interested to see if there's any commitments that he got on that. I'm also really interested to see whether or not Cassidy got any kind of commitments from Kennedy about vaccines, specifically vaccine safety and efficacy, any promises that he got from Kennedy to use his megaphone, and these are in Cassidy's words, to really help educate Americans, rather than give them some distrust in the vaccine schedule program for children across the United States.
So those are some of the areas that I think are going to be really key to watch for. But I think it's always interesting to think and peek behind the curtain, who was Cassidy talking to in those final days? He did say in his tweet that he had a lot of productive conversations with the vice president.
We also know from our reporting that over the weekend he had additional conversation with RFK Jr. So, just what were those commitments and what specifically was he promised? I think that's going to be really interesting.
And let's not forget, Cassidy is staring down reelection in 2026 in ruby-red Louisiana. And, obviously, given his past vote to convict Donald Trump on impeachment the second time around, there's some questions about what kind of primary challenge he's going to be up against in the state -- Phil.
MATTINGLY: Yes, Lauren, it's such a good point. And with any other member of either Democratic or Republican Conference or caucus, you would say that's probably the driver here, right?
Donald Trump won that state by 22 points. Cassidy already has a primary challenger. It's going to be a tough road no matter what, given kind of his position within Trump world. And yet you have covered Cassidy closer than anybody over the course of the last several years. I mean, he's the guy that walks around with like the whiteboard and literally that walks you through policy provisions related to risk pools or whatever issue.
And so what do you -- do you think it was politics or do you think he actually got substantive policy commitments?
FOX: Yes, I think that's why the speech is going to be so important, Phil, because there's so many times in Cassidy's career where there were just some issues that are more important to him than the politics of a situation.
I just think back to infrastructure. He injected himself in that bipartisan negotiation, when he does not come from a swing state. He comes from a Republican, solidly Republican state of Louisiana. And Donald Trump, if you remember, came out against that bipartisan infrastructure deal that they struck. He still voted for it, because, in his view, helping the state of Louisiana shore up any kind of flood mitigation programs, helping them get that money directly to the state, that was more important.
And I also think back to 2017. House and Senate Republicans were struggling to pass an alternative to Obamacare. He threw sort of a last-ditch effort in Graham-Cassidy as an opportunity for Republicans to rally around. A lot of his colleagues did not like that bill. Ultimately, it didn't even get a vote on the floor, but that just kind of shows you.
He's sort of always working on policy, always thinking about what he wants to accomplish. And I do think that's what made this such an interesting moment, because we really didn't know which way was he going to go? Was the politics of the moment going to outweigh this, or was he really going to stick to his guns on some of the concerns about RFK and vaccine skepticism, Phil?
MATTINGLY: Man, the Graham-Cassidy name-check, that's a deep cut there, Fox.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTINGLY: I mean, those are some long nights for us back in the day.
Lauren Fox, we're going to stay with you. We're going to take a quick break. Then we will come back to you. Stick around.
We do want to hear what Senator Cassidy has to say. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:49:37]
MATTINGLY: Relief medication has been approved by the FDA. It's the first new painkiller to be approved since the late '90s and could bring relief to millions without the use of opioids.
CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us now.
Sanjay, what's so unique about this new pain medication?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the way that it works is it blocks pain specifically without causing a lot of sedation or euphoria. That's the biggest thing.
[11:50:03]
And, as you mentioned, Phil, I mean, it's really been since 1998 that we have had a new pain medication that's been approved. FDA typically approves dozens of new medications every year, but it's been a long time on pain medications.
When you think about opioids you just mentioned, the way that they typically work is really in terms of impact on the brain specifically. The brain is where all pain in the body is processed. This new medication called suzetrigine or Journavx, it basically changes the way that pain signal is actually transmitted from the site of pain.
So it doesn't cause euphoria, doesn't cause sedation, and, hopefully, it makes it less addictive as well. So a lot of excitement around this, Phil.
MATTINGLY: Yes, it seems significant. Do we have any sense of how big of an impact it could have?
GUPTA: Pain is a big deal. We don't talk about it enough, in part because there haven't been new options. But about 20 percent of the population, frankly, 20 percent of the world population, suffers with pain, a lot of it chronic pain. It's growing at a faster rate than other chronic diseases.
MATTINGLY: Sanjay, we have to interrupt you, because, as we have been covering, you beside me through much of it...
GUPTA: Yes.
MATTINGLY: ... Bill Cassidy just got to the Senate floor. We want to take you now to the Senate floor to listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): ... our country.
And I have been contacted by text, by phone, by e-mail. And if I didn't respond to anyone, it was not to be rude. It's just I was getting hundreds of messages a day personally and thousands through the office. And I just physically could not.
Now, Mr. President, believe it or not, of these hundreds of people calling me and contacting me however they did, many of them disagreed with each other diametrically. Three-dimensionally, they disagreed.
But the unifying factor is that they all desire the best for our country, even though they differ from each other so much. And maybe that kind of frames my feelings about this nomination.
For context, before entering politics, before ever thinking about running for political office, I practiced medicine for 30 years in a public hospital for the uninsured, caring for those who otherwise would not have been able to afford the access to the care that I provided.
After seeing patients die from vaccine-preventable diseases, I dedicated much of my time to vaccine research and immunization programs, personally witnessing the safety monitoring and the effectiveness of immunization.
Put simply, vaccines save lives. This is the context that informed me when considering RFK as the nominee to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. It was a decision I studied exhaustively, I took very seriously.
And as I said I would, I spoke with Mr. Kennedy not once, but multiple times over the weekend, including this morning. We had in-depth conversations about the medical literature, about the science behind the safety of vaccines. He referred me to studies and to people. I reviewed them and spoke to those whom he mentioned I should speak to.
Now, the most notable opponents of Mr. Kennedy were pediatricians on the front lines of our children's health, who regularly have to combat misinformation, combating vaccine skepticism with correct information, correct information that comes from their education, their training and experience as physicians.
They are aware of the falling vaccine rates and the inevitability of increasing hospitalizations and deaths of children from vaccine- preventable diseases. They are aware that children are now contracting diseases that they would not have contracted if the child was vaccinated.
Now, I heard from others impassioned about the need to address chemicals in our food and a belief that we are victims of large impersonal forces maximizing profits while sacrificing our health. And there is evidence for that.
Although food safety is principally a USDA concern, I strongly agree that this is an issue society must address. Other RFK supporters are concerned regarding environmental risk. They fear these risks are being ignored by authorities. Mr. Kennedy's history of environmental activism motivates their support.
I pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors this, not the Department of Health and Human Services, but they still feel that he can make a difference.
So, as I looked how to resolve this, I returned to where I began. Would it be possible to have Mr. Kennedy collaborate in helping public health agencies re-earn the trust of the American people?
[11:55:02]
Now, regarding vaccines, Mr. Kennedy has been insistent that he just wants good science and to ensure safety. But, on this topic, the science is good. The science is credible. Vaccines save lives. They are safe. They do not cause autism.
There are multiple studies that show this. They are a crucial part of our nation's public health response. But as someone who's discussed immunizations with thousands of people, I do recognize that many mothers need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and, most of all, safe.
While I'm aligned with Mr. Kennedy as regards ultra-processed food, reforming NIH, and taking on chronic disease, once more, it leaves vaccines.
Now, Mr. Kennedy and the administration reached out, seeking to reassure me regarding their commitment to protecting the public health benefit of vaccination. To this end, Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed that he and I would have an unprecedentedly close collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed.
We will meet or speak multiple times a month. This collaboration will allow us to work well together and therefore to be more effective. Mr. Kennedy has asked for my input into hiring decisions at HHS beyond Senate-confirmed positions, and this aspect of the collaboration will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who are contacting me over this past weekend.
He has also committed that he had worked within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not established parallel systems. If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendations without changes.
CDC will not remove statements on their Web site pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism. Mr. Kennedy and the administration also committed that this administration will not use the subversive techniques used under the Biden administration, like sue and settle, to change policies enacted by Congress without first going through Congress.
Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed to a strong role of Congress. Aside from he and I meeting regularly, he will come before the Health Committee on a quarterly basis if requested. He committed that the Health Committee chair, whether it's me or someone else, may choose a representative on any board or commission formed to review vaccine safety.
If he is confirmed, HHS will provide a 30-day notice to the Health Committee if the agency seeks to make changes to any of our federal vaccine safety monitoring programs and Health Committee will have the option to call a hearing to further review.
These commitments and my expectation that we can have a great working relationship to make America healthy again is the basis of my support. He will be the secretary, but I believe he will also be a partner in working for this end.
If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority as chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of HHS to rebuff any attempt to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad causational scientific evidence that can be accepted and defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress.
I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongfully sow public fear about vaccines between confusing references of coincidence and anecdote. But my support is built on insurances that this will not have to be a concern and that he and I can work together to build an agenda to make America healthy again.
We need a leader at HHS who will guide President Trump's agenda to make America healthy again. Based on Mr. Kennedy's assurances on vaccines and his platform to positively influence Americans' health, it is my consideration that he will get this done.
As I have said, it's been a long, intense process, but I have assessed it as I would assess a patient as a physician. Ultimately restoring trust in our public health institution is too important, and I think Mr. Kennedy can help get that done.
As chairman of the Senate committee with oversight authority of his position, I will do my best to make sure that that is what we accomplish. I want Mr. Kennedy to succeed in making America healthy again. His success will be tied to the health of our nation. He has the opportunity to address the most pertinent issues affecting Americans' health.