Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Some May Be Able To Stretch Out Time Between Colonoscopies; U.S. Hits $31.4 Trillion Debt Limit Today, Emergency Measures To Begin; "Game Theory With Bomani Jones" On HBO/HBO Max Airs Tomorrow. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired January 19, 2023 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:33:26]

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: As the Buffalo Bills prepare to take on the Cincinnati Bengals Sunday in the AFC divisional round of the playoffs, safety Damar Hamlin is at the team facility almost daily, and that's according to his coach. It's only been 18 days since Hamlin suddenly collapsed from a cardiac arrest on the field during a "MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL" game against the same team that they will face on Sunday.

His teammates are celebrating having him around the team again and the positive vibes he has brought with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH ALLEN, QUARTERBACK, BUFFALO BILLS: You know, a few hugs here and there. Everybody's chomping at the bit to talk to him and we don't want to overload him with too much right now. But it's been good to see him -- you know, a smile on his face and the guys love having him back in the building.

DION HAWKINS, BUFFALO BILLS PLAYER: It just shows growth, you know. It just shows that for his individual battle -- and he's won and he's still winning. It's a positive thing. And to see three to smile and just wave, and just put his hearts up and keep pushing, it's -- like, it's a positive energy bubble that's just floating around the facility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Well, Jessica Pegula, daughter of Buffalo Bills owner and tennis star, showing her support for Hamlin at the Australian Open. The picture's up on your screen there. The world's third-ranked tennis player wearing Hamlin's number three on her shorts during straight sets win in the second round.

So, let's talk about health news right now.

We're always -- we always hear about the importance of colon cancer screenings. Well, right now, the recommended interval for colonoscopies is every 10 years, but a new study explored whether that interval could be prolonged.

[07:35:04]

So let's bring in CNN's chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta to explain this. Sanjay, hello to you.

So walk us through --

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

LEMON: -- what this new study found because this is an interesting and profound change.

GUPTA: Yes. I mean, when you look at screening studies overall, it's really interested -- really interesting in how they sort of figure out who to screen and when to screen. How long to wait in between screenings. How they look at this data.

First of all, to set the table, colon cancer, the third leading cause of cancer deaths. Some 50,000 people, roughly, die of colon cancer every year. But screenings have made a difference. We know that.

Let's show, for starters, what is the recommended screening. It starts as young as 45 now. We've known for a while 50 to 75 -- that was really the sweet spot, but they lowered it to 45 a few years ago. That's what we know. If you're older than 75, they say talk to your doctor and understand if the screening will still be valuable for you.

But the question has been you got a negative test in that first screening. How long should you be waiting until you get screened again? And that's what this study is really about. And again, I find it very interesting.

What they did -- this study came out of Germany. They looked at 120,000 people who had a negative test the first time and got screened again 10 years later, and said how many subsequent cancers did we find?

And what they found when they separated this by -- for men and women -- they found for women, 3.6 percent of the time did they find something. For men, 5.2 percent of the time. If they waited an additional four years, it went up a little bit, but not significantly.

And I think this is the sort of data now these task forces will be looking at and saying OK, what is the ideal, sort of, interval of screening time? And should it change, for example, based on whether you're a woman or a man, and how old you are.

They found that women were less likely, as you saw, to find a cancer 10 years later. Younger people, the same thing.

So this is how they start to look at the data. Nothing's changed right now, to be clear, but this is the sort of data they're looking at to determine that crucial interval period.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: So what's the takeaway here? That it could change? That -- or what should people be doing right now if they are someone who is coming up for their annual screening?

GUPTA: This is -- there's nothing that's changed. This is a new study that's come out that's basically looked at a large amount of data on that interval period.

The advice, I think, is very much still the same because the primary screening -- that first screening still makes a big difference. And I can show you quickly. I pulled some of these numbers.

If you say, look, what is the impact overall of colonoscopies what you find is that in terms of reducing overall cancer deaths, 40 percent reduction overall, and 68 percent reduction in risk of dying from cancer. That's not the right full-screen here but we can't put those numbers up that show you basically, what the impact of that primary screening is. There it is.

And that you should keep in your mind. That's probably the most important set of data when you look at colon cancer screening overall.

But, Kaitlan, to your question, based on this new data, the interval of how long you should wait and whether that should be different for men and women -- that's something we'll wait and see. We'll see what they do with this data.

LEMON: Interesting stuff. Thank you. We always learn a lot from you, Dr. Gupta, and we appreciate you joining us this morning.

COLLINS: Thanks, Sanjay.

GUPTA: You got it. Thank you.

COLLINS: All right. In Washington, they are gearing up for a major fight over raising the nation's borrowing cap. The United States is expected to hit its debt ceiling today, which could have major implications for millions of you and throw the economy, potentially, into a tailspin. The White House has wanted to -- has said that they would like it to be raised with no strings attached. But Republicans who, as we all know, have a now slim majority in the House, are demanding spending cuts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, (R-GA): And we want to make sure that we have things in there that we have to have. I, for one --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

GREENE: -- will not sign a clean bill raising the debt -- the debt limit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: We should note Marjorie Taylor Greene is a congresswoman. She does not actually sign the bill. That would be President Biden's job. The Treasury Department has warned that it will start extraordinary measures when the United States hits the current $31.4 trillion borrowing cap, but those measures will only buy them some time -- just a few months, potentially.

Joining us now to talk about all of this is the director of the White House National Economic Council, Brian Deese. Brian, good morning, and thank you for being here.

I think the major question that everyone has is basically, what happens now?

BRIAN DEESE, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Well, thanks for having me.

Look, this is about economic stability versus economic chaos.

If you step back two years ago -- it was two years ago this week that President Biden -- President-elect Biden, at the time, spoke to the nation outlining an economic strategy. And since then, we've made extraordinary progress in recovering from the pandemic. The most jobs created in a two-year period ever. The lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Inflation's now coming down; wages going up.

[07:40:00]

We are making progress. Businesses want to invest in the United States. Build clean energy, semiconductor facilities here. We need to keep this progress going.

The good news is that because of what Congress did last year, we can make a lot of this progress this year on encouraging this investment in America. Encouraging this transition to more stable growth. But we have to not get in our own way. We have to not put this all at risk and jeopardize this by putting the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.

And so, what needs to happen is what Congress has done time and time again, which is prudently do its job -- raise the debt ceiling. That's happened 78 times since 1960. Seventy-eight times --

COLLINS: Right.

DEESE: -- Congress has done its job. That's going to need to happen again this year.

COLLINS: But since we're hitting a limit today, what happens now and how much time do you have to get Congress to get to an agreement here?

DEESE: Well, Sec. Yellen has explained the extraordinary measures that you mentioned will be initiated today. That is a practice that has happened in the past. And she has indicated that the exhaustion of those measures will not come any sooner than the beginning of June.

COLLINS: Yes. DEESE: But there is real uncertainty about what happens beyond then. But this is an issue where waiting doesn't benefit anybody. This is about certainty and stability for the U.S. economy. And so, what needs to happen is Congress needs to, again, do what it has done in the past.

This is actually not that complicated. This happened three times under our predecessor. And there is plenty of space and time to talk about how to continue the progress on the fiscal side as well.

I would note that over the past two years, we've seen the most deficit reduction in nominal terms in American history. The deficit's down $1.7 trillion. There's plenty of opportunity to continue to invest in the country and bring the deficit down.

This debt limit is a separate issue. This is about paying the bills and honoring the obligations that Congress has already --

COLLINS: Right.

DEESE: -- passed, and that's what needs to happen.

COLLINS: So is the White House going to negotiate with Republicans on this?

DEESE: We are going to make very clear what needs to happen. As I said, this is not that complicated. This is not about new initiatives or new opportunities. This is about meeting the obligations that this country has already made, to the commitments that this country has made. The bedrock of U.S. economic stability and, frankly, global economic stability is the commitment that the United States honors the obligations that it already made.

That's what this is about. It's not complicated. It needs to happen. It doesn't need to have conditions or anything else attached to it. And we can continue to have conversations about all manner of economic issues. But this is an issue that we can't take -- we can't play games with.

And I was here in 2011. Even just the specter that the United States might not honor its obligations does damage to the economy. We saw a downgrade of the U.S. debt in 2011. These are things that take years to recover from and, in some cases, it might be impossible to ever recover. You could end up with higher borrowing costs in the United States forever.

These are things that we just can't allow. We can't have. We need to continue the economic progress we've made.

And the good news is we are making real progress. We are better positioned than almost any country --

COLLINS: So --

DEESE: -- in the world to continue this economic recovery.

COLLINS: Brian, is the White House's position still that there should be no conditions attached to this?

DEESE: Yes, that's our position. And again, it's consistent with how Congress how approached this issue --

COLLINS: Right.

DEESE: -- historically as well.

This has happened under Republican presidents. It's happened under Democratic presidents. It needs to happen again.

COLLINS: Yes. We saw how, obviously, Republicans raised it several times under former President Trump.

But if Democrats negotiate a deal here with Republicans, is President Biden going to accept that -- going to sign that?

DEESE: Look, there's a lot of hypotheticals. I just want to be very clear this is what needs to happen. We need to see the debt limit raised. We need to take the specter of that uncertainty out of -- out of view. And we need to focus on how we can keep this economic recovery going.

As I said, good news on that front. Good news for the American people. We're seeing prices come down and wages -- real wages. A lot of investment opportunity in America. That's where we need to train our focus and we need to take this uncertainty off the table.

COLLINS: Does the White House think that the president has the authority to raise it on his own?

DEESE: Look, the -- we are solely focused on the way that this has always been done and the way that this needs to be done now, which is this is Congress' obligation. This is a basic fundamental obligation that Congress has to meet the commitments that Congress has already made and the United States has already made on behalf of the American people. And that's -- that is our -- that is our sole focus right now.

COLLINS: OK. Well, Sen. Schumer said that he believes that may be an open question, whether or not President Biden does have that authority.

Brian, before I let you go, I have to ask you about the documents investigation that is underway. Is it affecting work inside the West Wing?

[07:45:00]

DEESE: Not at all. We are totally focused on the economic issues at hand that this conversation underscores. We've got plenty to focus on. And frankly, two years in, if we look at where we now need to go in terms of implementing the president's economic agenda, we've got an extraordinary opportunity this year. That's our focus and it's not -- it's not affecting that at all.

COLLINS: All right, director of National -- of the National Economic Council, Brian Deese. Thank you for joining us on such an important issue that could affect so many people.

DEESE: Thank you.

LEMON: Very, very good interview there. They've got a lot on their plate, especially when it comes to the debt ceiling and the economy. And also, State of the Union is coming up as well.

COLLINS: Yes. They have a lot going on.

LEMON: Yes. All right.

So, how will LeBron James' legacy be impacted by the player empowerment era of the NBA? Bomani Jones in the house. He has a few thoughts and here -- I want to hear his take on that and the new season of his show.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:50:14]

LEMON: Over the last 15 years or so, the NBA has become more of a players' league rather than the focus being on the owners and teams like years past.

Now, the term "player empowerment" was popularized after LeBron James decided to take his talents to South Beach to play alongside Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh because all three players wanted to create a super team, and it worked with the Miami Heat winning two titles during their four years together.

But the definition of player empowerment hasn't always been clear. Season two of the -- of "GAME THEORY WITH BOMANI JONES" -- it kicks off -- game -- what is it? "GAME THEORY WITH BOMANI JONES" kicks off and it explores what player empowerment really means and the impact that it will have on LeBron James' legacy.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOMANI JONES, HOST, HBO/HBO MAX "GAME THEORY WITH BOMANI JONES": Now, who told you LeBron's getting too old for this basketball thing/

Lebron's officially become the old man at the club.

JONES: He's stayed around long enough to get the leg as that coveted 12 seed.

Real Talk -- only thing miss, that full head of hair. Well, that ain't coming back, but "GAME THEORY" is. We don't miss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: All right. So the second season of "GAME THEORY WITH BOMANI JONES" premieres tomorrow on HBO and HBO Max. And joining us now is Bomani Jones. Bomani, you had me at help on "GAME THEORY." Very few shows that I

like right out of the gate and yours is one of them.

First of all, hello. In this first episode of season -- the second season, you say that "Player empowerment hasn't been properly defined." So, what is your definition?

JONES: Well, aggression is where the player empowerment has actually existed in the ways that we think about it, right?

So, after LeBron makes the move to go to Miami with the decision, right, and there was a lot around it. The decision, in particular, was the big thing that jumped out to people. After there was such a backlash, there was a move to say that this was an idea of empowerment. That this is players taking a troll of what's going on.

Well, what happened was LeBron was playing for Cleveland and the management was not very good, and he realized that he wasn't going to win with bad management. So he goes and calls Dwyane Wade and says hey, how about I come to Miami and maybe we can get somebody else down here? And then, the Miami franchise is like wow, that sounds like a great idea. We can build around that.

How much of that is actually power, though, right? He worked out a contract. He got to the end of the contract. He went to go sign somewhere else to play. Good for him.

But in the midst of the backlash, I think on the other side, there was a need for a lot of people to then come up and try to make that into more of a revolutionary act than it actually was. When in reality, the thing that made it feel revolutionary was just that it made people mad. And I feel like making people mad is a low threshold for defining your revolution.

COLLINS: But you mean -- you were saying that the bar was kind of set low before that, and that's why it seemed so different to people. Why wasn't this something that we saw previously?

JONES: Well, because I think that people really thought about -- especially, with free agency -- and we have to remember that the concept of free agency is really pretty new when you think about it. This is something that you've had in sports since the 1940s, right? You go look at the different sports. The NFL didn't achieve true free agency, for example, until the 1990s.

So the idea for so many people had been you get to the end of the deal and then you wind up staying with the team that you were always with. There's a loyalty argument and everything else.

But in the NBA, there was a previous set of incentives that allowed them to pay players more to stay with those teams. Then they put in a max salary that said OK, teams can only pay you but so much. Well, then that made staying feel a lot less important because you could not break the bank by doing that. That's the thing that people weren't used to. So a dude from Ohio who played for the team Ohio, looking up and

chucking Ohio the deuce of plays where, by the way, they tend to be really big on you staying home. And even if you leave, you come back. It hit people like on those basic levels there.

But prior to this, I do think, yes, a lot of people were inclined to stay with the teams that they were on. Something changed a little bit. But again, changing a job -- that's not changing the world.

LEMON: Yes.

OK, so I don't know if we're going to fight on this or if we're going to agree on this. Let's talk about woke in the NFL because you say you're looking at the NFL this season and you say that the NFL is more woke than people think. I want to know how so. But, you know, that term has been co-opted --

JONES: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

LEMON: -- and it doesn't actually mean what people are saying it is now.

JONES: Well, that's the thing. Like, we use -- we use woke in our internal discussions facetiously.

LEMON: Right.

JONES: I wish they hadn't quite sent that across to you all --

LEMON: Right.

JONES: -- because it makes us look a little bit crazy.

But the thing about the NFL and social justice, particularly in the last two years and change -- they've done a much better job on those things than people have realized. And as we've gotten into our research and seeing this, our question is why is it that people don't realize how much the NFL and the Players Coalition has actually done? So, something to keep in mind.

The 2022 election that we just saw come around -- the NFL had logos on the field for people to register to vote.

[07:55:00]

Barack Obama jumps on "MANNINGCAST" with Peyton and Eli Manning on ESPN the night before the election to tell people where to vote. Now, in theory, that's a nonpartisan act but we all understand there's one party that wants more people to vote, and the other one is like hey, we're going to lose if you all keep doing that.

That's the NFL that did that. The NBA was not nearly as out-front about people voting and those sorts of things in this last election cycle. The NFL has kept a lot of the imagery on the field that was post-George Floyd that we see in the NBA, for example, take back. So there are things that the NFL has done and the people that work in the NFL office who have wondered why people don't give them more attention. But then there's also reason to wonder if the NFL actually wants that much attention on those efforts, perhaps for fear of offending some people who don't think that stuff is nearly as cool as I think that it is.

So that's something that one of our episodes in February that we're going to explore is what the NFL is actually doing on social justice and why exactly it is that you and I might know that much about it.

LEMON: Yes. OK, so --

COLLINS: That's fascinating.

LEMON: -- we're good on that one. We're good.

I like the outfit this morning.

JONES: I appreciate that.

LEMON: Very nice.

Thank you, Bomani.

COLLINS: Thanks, Bomani.

JONES: All right.

COLLINS: You can watch season two -- the premiere of "GAME THEORY WITH BOMANI JONES" on HBO and HBO Max tomorrow.

Also this morning, in a newly-unsealed deposition, former President Trump mistook a picture of one of the women accusing him of sexual assault, who he said he didn't know and wasn't his type, for his ex- wife. We'll tell you more, next.

(COMMERCIAL)