Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

North Korea Nuclear Fears; Interview With U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley; Interview With California Congressman Adam Schiff; Interview With Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter; Bipartisan Health Care Bill Approach; The Trump Taj Mahal Clearance Sale; CNN's Original Series "The Nineties". Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 09, 2017 - 09:00   ET




DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Face to face. Trump and Putin meet for the first time.


BASH: But did Trump confront Putin about Russian meddling in the U.S. election?

TRUMP: We've had some very, very good talks.

BASH: Depends who you ask. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley will be here in minutes.

Plus: Spies in our midst? A spike of Russian agents posing as businessmen to enter the U.S. Why now and what are they up to? A top member of the House Intelligence Committee joins us live.

And first strike?

TRUMP: Some pretty severe things that we're thinking about.

BASH: Trump puts North Koreans on notice after they some launch fireworks of their own on the Fourth of July. How far is Trump willing to go to stop them?

Plus, the best political minds will be here with insights on what happens next.


BASH: Hello. I'm Dana Bash, in for Jake Tapper, where the state of our union is deconstructing talks with the Russians, news this morning of a previously undisclosed 2016 meeting with the Trump team and a high-profile Russian national.

This time, it's Donald Trump Jr., who, according to "The New York Times," set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower two weeks after his father won the Republican nomination. The lawyer is best known for fighting a law President Obama signed that blacklists Russian human rights abusers. Putin retaliated by banning American families from adopting Russian children.

And Donald Trump says the (AUDIO GAP) which was also attended by Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was primarily about the adoption of Russian children.

And President Trump's outside counsel says: "We have learned from both our own investigation and public reports that the participants in the meeting misrepresented who they were and who they worked for."

Now, the story comes as President Trump touched back down on American soil after his trip to the G20 summit in Germany, where he met face to face with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, for the first time.

Let's talk about it with the president's ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley.


BASH: Ambassador Haley, there were conflicting reports about what happened inside President Trump's much anticipated meeting with President Vladimir Putin.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that President Trump heard and quote accepts Putin's very clear statements that Russia did not interfere in the U.S. election. Is that true?


So, I think we need to all step back and just look at what we wanted to have happen. We got two very important leaders together and said, OK, it's time for them to meet. This was long time coming. What we know is that when President Trump meets with a leader, things do start to move. So, from my standpoint, and a lot of the administration, it was important.

What he did was bring up right away the election meddling, and he did that for a reason. One, he wanted him to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it. Cut it out.

And I think President Putin did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. And I think that is what it is. They're going to always have two different stories on this. They're going to always have two different stances on this. But at the end of the day, what was most important was for President Putin to hear from President Trump, we know you did this, we didn't like it, don't do it again.

BASH: I want to play what the President himself said about Russian interference, and casting doubt on the fact that they were really behind the election hacks. Take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) TRUMP: I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.


BASH: Now, Ambassador Haley, that was just a couple of days ago. "Nobody really knows for sure."

With statements like that, can you understand why the Russians -- at least they say that they took -- what they took from President Trump's private statements to Vladimir Putin?

HALEY: You know, what I understand is that President Trump let them know that, look, we know you did this, and cut it out.

And President Putin is never going to admit that they did it. And so they have to come back and they have to defend themselves. This is Russia trying to save face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections.


Everybody knows that they're not just meddling in the United States' election. They're doing this across multiple continents, and they're doing this in a way that they're trying to cause chaos within the countries.

And it's not just going to be us saying this. I think you're going to hear other leaders come out and say, cut it out. We're not going to put up with it.

BASH: But you said everybody knows that the Russians meddled in the U.S. elections, and that the president said so behind closed doors with Vladimir Putin.

If that's the case, why won't the president say this in public? It would put a lot of these questions, and, frankly, the fact that a lot of your fellow Republicans are perplexed, it would put it all to rest. Why won't he do it?

HALEY: I think that you can ask him.

I mean, I think that that's one of the things. Let him say this. We heard a lot of people saying that about Article 5 and NATO, that, why didn't he say it, why didn't he say it? He didn't say it then because he wasn't changing policy.

So, you heard this -- when he was in Poland, give a fantastic speech, and he said that he supported Article 5. And he said that he supported our NATO allies.

And so I think everybody's trying to nitpick what he says and what he doesn't, but talk is one thing. Actions are another. He confronted President Putin. He made it the first thing that he talked about. And I think we have to now see where it goes from here. BASH: Right.

But you know, as a chief diplomat, that talk is very important because it sends a signal. And I would love for our reporters to be able to ask the president, but he's not doing any press conferences.

But let's move on to one thing that you mentioned, which is cyber- security. Vladimir Putin did say that the U.S. and Russia agreed that the two countries would work together on a number of different issues, including cyber-security.

Congressman Adam Schiff argued that it -- quote -- "tacitly adopts the fiction that the Russians are a constructive partner on cyber- security, instead of the worst actor on the world stage."

Does he have a point?

HALEY: I think that we have to talk about cyber-security not just with Russia, but with everyone.

And, look, you are always going to see the Democrats are repeatedly criticizing the president. That's unfortunate. Republicans are going to criticize Democrats. That's unfortunate.

But let's just look at the situation. You now have a Russian who's in charge of counterterrorism in the United Nations. That was a position that the secretary-general gave Russia. And then you also see that from a cyber standpoint, we need to get together with Russia. We need to tell them what we think should happen, shouldn't happen, and if we talk to them about it, hopefully, we can cut this out and get them to stop.

It doesn't mean we ever take our eyes off of the ball.

BASH: Do you think that they can be trusted?

HALEY: It doesn't mean we ever trust Russia. We can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia.

But you keep those that you don't trust closer, so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check. And I think that's what we're trying to do with Russia right now.

BASH: Rudy Giuliani is an adviser to the president on cyber-security, and he was asked in Poland this week why the U.S. hasn't punished Russia for interfering in the election. Listen to how he answered.


RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK: I do think we have taken action. I just don't think we've announced it.


BASH: So, he's suggesting that the U.S. has taken some covert action already to punish Russia. Can you confirm whether that's true? HALEY: No, I can't.

I don't know what the context of his comment was. And I can't -- I can't confirm that.

BASH: You can't confirm that because you're not sure about it, or you can't confirm it because it's covert and you don't want to talk about it?

HALEY: I don't know what he's talking about. I don't know what it's in reference to. So, no, I can't talk about a conversation that he had in a different forum where I just heard a sound bite.

BASH: Ambassador Haley, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile this week that could potentially strike the state of Alaska. This is how the president responded. Take a listen.


TRUMP: As far as North Korea's concerned, I don't know. We'll see what happens. I don't like to talk about what I have planned. But I have some pretty severe things that we're thinking about.


BASH: He also said, just on Saturday, with the Chinese president, something has to be done about it. "Something has to be done about it, pretty severe things."

Is he talking about a preemptive strike?

HALEY: I think that there are a lot of options on the table when it comes to dealing with China, and now the ball's in their court.

China has a choice to make. They're either going to go along with us and the rest of the international community and say, yes, we think that what North Korea did was wrong, or they're not.

And I think that the president knows what all of his options are. All the options are on the table, as always, with President Trump. And I think that we'll handle it accordingly.

But ammunition comes in multiple forms. And I think that we always have to look at what those options are ahead of what the actions are going to be by China.

BASH: What if the Chinese don't go along with that U.N. resolution?

HALEY: Then I think there will be a response.

If they don't go along with that, the president has made it clear that he will start looking at trade relations with China. And so we have to see. I think that the -- President Trump-President Xi meeting is extremely important right now and extremely timely, and I think it's going to be telling in the next few days what happens and what that relationship's going to look like. [09:10:05]

And you'll see how the U.S. responds accordingly.

BASH: Ambassador Nikki Haley, thank you so much for joining me this morning. I appreciate it.

HALEY: Thanks, Dana. Good to be with you.


BASH: The president's new plan, working with Putin to stop election hacking, but is it letting the fox guard the henhouse? Fresh tweets from the president next.



BASH: Welcome back.

The president woke up on American soil this morning, after returning from the G20 summit, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time.

Both sides have given conflicting accounts on the over-two-hour meeting, with the president just tweeting this morning: "I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently -- vehemently denied. And he gave the opinion. We negotiated a cease-fire in parts of Syria which will save lives. Now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!"

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

And, Congressman, you just saw the president's tweet. He wants to move forward in the face of Putin's denial. What's your response?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, my response is, how can we really believe that the president pressed Putin hard, when, only the day before, he was denying whether we really knew that Russia was responsible?

What kind of a tough negotiator -- and this is the way the president likes to portray himself -- goes into a negotiation betraying his own position the day before, calling into the question the probity of his own intelligence agencies?

That just doesn't make any sense. And then to say, OK, it's been resolved now, we can move on, I don't think we can move on. And I don't think we can expect the Russians to be any kind of a credible partner in some cyber-security unit. I think that would be dangerously naive for this country.

If that's our best election defense, we might as well just mail our ballot boxes to Moscow. I don't think that's an answer at all. BASH: I want to talk to about cyber-security in a minute. But are

you saying that the president is not telling the truth about what happened in that private meeting?

SCHIFF: I'm saying that, as much as I like Nikki Haley, she wasn't in the room anymore than I was.

And it just strains credulity to think that the president took such a very different position privately with Vladimir Putin than he took publicly the day before. Why on earth would you do that? Why would you go into that negotiation and so undermine your own position?

We're, I guess, meant to believe that he's much stronger in private than he's willing to be publicly. But why does that make any rational sense?

On the contrary, if he was really determined to press Putin, he would have gone into that meeting and said unequivocally, this is what Russia did.

Even by an account from the secretary of state, apparently, the president asked Putin whether he did it. He didn't go in there and confront him and say, as Nikki Haley would suggest and we would all love to believe, we know you did this. You have to stop.

It's just really hard to imagine, given what he said only hours earlier.

BASH: You mentioned cyber-security.

I want to put up what the president tweeted again this morning about this. He said: "Putin and I discussed forming an impenetrable cyber- security unit, so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded."

What do you make of that?

SCHIFF: Well, I think we have to remember the president just went into a meeting with a man who ordered hacking of our democratic institutions.

So, Putin wasn't a tangential player here. He wasn't just a disinterested party. He was one who ordered this orchestrated effort to interfere in our democracy, and do so through cyber-means.

And to now suggest or believe that we can count on Mr. Putin or his government to be a constructive player ignores not only what he did in our election, but what he's doing currently in German elections, what he did in French elections, what he's doing in other parts of the world.

The Russians want to take down liberal democracy. That is what they're about right now. We're in a new ideological struggle. And I think to gloss over that, to ignore that, to try to bury that with the idea that we can work in a cyber-security group is a dangerously naive view to take of Russian intentions and how much we can count on them. Look, I think something constructive did come out of this meeting. It

was the cease-fire in Syria. So, it wasn't a total loss.

But on the issue of hacking, it was a loss for the country, because the president went into that discussion having really undermined our own position.

BASH: The president also tweeted again about the DNC server.

Here is what he said again this morning: "Questions were asked about why the CIA and FBI had to ask the DNC 13 times for their server and were rejected. Still don't have it."

Can you clear this up, Congressman? Did the DNC actually refuse to turn over its server to the FBI during the 2016 election, when they were hacked?

SCHIFF: First of all, Dana, I'm not sure what the president is saying there. Is he saying that questions were asked at the G20 about the DNC server? I find that hard to believe.

But, on the merits of it, this is one of the issues that we're looking into. Was there a request by the FBI for the DNC server? Was there a reluctance by the DNC to give it over?

The only thing that we have seen publicly so far -- and, again, we still need to probe beyond this -- is Director Comey's testimony that what they got was essentially the blueprint of the server from a very credible cyber-security firm that satisfied the FBI's needs.

So, I still want to test that testimony. But this is something we -- we will get to the bottom of.


But, again, it doesn't excuse what the Russians did. You don't blame the victim for the hack. No matter what kind of security precautions the DNC took or what they did afterwards, this was still an orchestrated effort by an adversary of the United States.

BASH: Congressman, I want to ask about something "The New York Times" is reporting this morning, that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met at Trump Tower last June -- again, during the campaign -- with a lawyer who is a high-profile Russian national.

The president's eldest son told the newspaper that the meeting was primarily about an adoption program.

Does this story raise questions for you?

SCHIFF: It certainly raises questions for a variety of reasons, of course.

The president's son had denied having any kind of meetings like this. They claim that this meeting had nothing to do with the campaign, and yet the Trump campaign manager is invited to come to the meeting. And there's no reason for this Russian government advocate to be

meeting with Paul Manafort or with Mr. Kushner or the president's son if it wasn't about the campaign and Russia policy.

Obviously, they were trying to influence one of the candidates, the leading candidate at that time on the Republican ticket.

So, what we have heard thus far doesn't make much sense. What we just heard from the spokesman for the president's lawyer suggesting somehow that this was contrived, maybe by Hillary Clinton, also doesn't make sense.

So, yes, we need to get to the bottom of it.

BASH: And does getting to the bottom of it mean potentially calling Donald Trump Jr. before your committee, which is investigating this?

SCHIFF: You know, I think we're going to want to question everyone that was at that meeting about what was discussed.

You know, by trying to frame it's about adoptions, it ignores what it sounds like the meeting may really have been about, and that is the Magnitsky Act, which is legislation, very powerful sanctions legislation that goes against Russian human rights abusers.

So, if this was an effort to do away with that sanctions policy, that is obviously very significant. If they're talking to the president's team, then candidate Trump's team, that contradicts, of course, what the president and his people have said about whether they were meeting with any representatives of the Russian government.

BASH: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you so much for joining me this morning.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Dana.

BASH: "Something has to be done."

President Trump says North Korea's nuclear ambitions must be stopped, but what would a preemptive strike really look like? Obama's secretary of defense will be here to game it out right after the break.

Stay with us.



BASH: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Dana Bash.

President Trump met with his Chinese counterpart yesterday and warned something has to be done about North Korea after the hermit kingdom launched a missile capable of hitting Alaska.

But what can be done? With me here is someone who has thought long and hard about the options to deter a nuclear North Korea, Ash Carter, former defense secretary under President Obama.

Thank you so much for being here with me.


BASH: I appreciate it. Thank you.

So, back in 2006, you and former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry called for a preemptive strike against North Korea. Do you think that is still viable?

CARTER: Well, that was a very different circumstance now.

BASH: Sure.

CARTER: And we do have a very high level of preparation on the Korean Peninsula. I'm sure that the Department of Defense has options that are available to the president.

But, you know, this Washington -- I -- I see what people are writing about now, and there's option A and option B.

BASH: Right.

CARTER: And then they look at diplomacy, war, conclude, rightly, that war is -- on the Korean Peninsula is not something to trifle with -- it's a serious, serious matter there -- and then decide that there are no good options.

In the real world of diplomacy and strategic affairs, these are not alternatives that the president of the United States choose. They're an unfolding pattern of coercive diplomacy.

And so you do have to begin with diplomacy and with a process that makes the choice not for the American president to choose between starting something on the Korean Peninsula and giving in to North Korea, but make it North Korea's choice whether this is going to lead to a coercive outcome for them and China as well.

And if you take those paths, if it does come to some kind of altercation in the future, we would be better prepared, because we have had that time to ready our forces, possibly reinforce our forces.

BASH: Is the American -- is America prepared? I mean, that's what Americans want to know.

CARTER: Of course. Of course. We've -- we've been -- we've been at this since 1953.

BASH: America is safe from a North Korean missile that could hit?

CARTER: I personally have been at it since 1974. We have consistently improved our military capabilities. South

Korea's capabilities have improved. We have deployed missile defenses, both short-range and long-range, consistently in -- in advance of what we anticipate the North Koreans will be doing, so that we always stay one step ahead of them.

So, we're very prepared. But I think it's important not to take the idea of military action on the Korean Peninsula or war lightly. And this is a situation in which we need to get North Korea and China in a corner, and not put our president in a corner.

BASH: Let's turn to Russia. You have known Vladimir Putin since he was a low-level aide.


CARTER: Yes, I did.

BASH: Do you think he can be a legitimate partner on cyber security?

CARTER: I -- you know, the Russians pulled out the old playbook. I've seen all this going back to Russian and Soviet days. When confronted with something they've done wrong, ask for U.S. intelligence -- old trick. Propose a working group, in this case on cyber.

But this is like the guy who robbed your house proposing a working group on burglary. It's they who did this. And --

BASH: So was it a mistake for the Trump administration to buy it?

CARTER: Well, I don't think they can buy or we should -- that's -- that -- that can -- it's fine to talk to the Russians about lots of things. It's never a problem talking to people. It's a matter of what you say.

But in this case, this isn't just a matter of looking backward. This is a matter of looking forward. We're going to have elections in a year and a half.

There are state elections, municipal electrics as well as national elections. There are elections in other countries. It's important that there be consequences for the Russians in regard to this.

And to me, this is just -- getting to your question about Putin, a pattern with Putin. In defense, this is why we thought it was so important to stand strong against Russia in Europe. Put new U.S. formations in Europe. Write a new playbook for NATO.

Why I'm very skeptical about cooperating with Russia in Syria. Why I think it's important that we capitalize our nuclear arsenal because they're doing a nuclear buildup. There are a lot of dimensions to the (ph) Russia problem (ph).

BASH: OK. So you mentioned things that you did during the Obama administration to confront Russia. But President Trump continues to -- he has a point. We'll talk about this -- fault President Obama for not taking action against Russia when it comes to meddling in the U.S. election.

Listen to what he said.


TRUMP: He was told it was Russia by the CIA, as I understand it, it was well reported. And he did nothing about it. They say he choked.

That's the real question is why did he do nothing from August all the way until November eight?


BASH: You were his defense secretary. You were in the situation room when this was discussed. Why didn't he act?

CARTER: Well, I think he did take some actions. And as I've said, in defense we took a wide range of actions. To me, this was part of a pattern. To me, personally, this was part of a pattern with Vladimir Putin.

But I -- I don't think -- I think it's quite clear that that was not sufficient. That's why it's so important to press the Russians now. If it were sufficient, Vladimir Putin's answer to our president wouldn't have been to say -- cast doubt upon it or ask for further intelligence from the United States.

And that's why, again, this is not just a matter of looking backward. It's an important question for our future because it's important that Americans, when they go to the ballot box and those in other countries as well, will understand and be assured that the Russians haven't been there first.

BASH: No question there's a lot to deal with in the future. But because you were there, I just have to ask. You said that more could have been done. Did President Obama make a mistake in not doing more?

CARTER: Well, he did -- took some steps, no question about it. But I think you see from Vladimir Putin's answer right now that more needs to be done. Putin is not convinced that there are going to be consequences of a magnitude for Russia, as a consequence of interfering with the U.S. election that make it unwise for him to do it in the future.

That hasn't been accomplished yet. And that's why it is important to stick with this issue and not be reassured by the Russian readout, another old trick of theirs is to give a readout of a meeting, which favors them. And so I think going forward, we need to stand strong with Russia and not be reassured and not be diverted by them asking for intelligence, trying to muddy the waters.

BASH: You're understandably loyal to your -- to your former boss but it sounds like you are not all that comfortable with the reaction.

CARTER: Well, most of all, I'm loyal to the United States.

BASH: Absolutely.

CARTER: Both the president -- the current president and the president I served. They both deserve to get from Russia on behalf of the American people something better than what Vladimir Putin offered the other day. And we deserve that, too.

President Trump deserves that. And I think that he and his administration need to keep pressing for that because the business is not done yet. And it's an issue for the future. Not just a matter of looking back but looking forward.

BASH: Thank you for your time this morning.

CARTER: Thank you. Good to be with you, Dana.

BASH: Thank you so much.

And coming up, is health care on life support?


What senators are saying back in their home states this weekend, that's next.



SEN. BEN SASSE (R), NEBRASKA: If we can't replace and repeal at the same time, then repeal the law and stay and work on replace full time. Instead, what does the Republican Party deciding to send national signals about over the course of the last 48 or 72 hours? Well, if we can't repeal and replace at once, then maybe we should just start working with Democrats to fix Obamacare.

Though that is the exact opposite of what (INAUDIBLE). It's bad policy.


It's bad politics.


BASH: Republican Senator Ben Sasse telling Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not to work with Democrats on health care.

When Congress returns this week we'll find out if the GOP can muster the votes to repeal and replace Obamacare. And as of this morning the Senate's bill's chances are looking, well, less than healthy.

With me now, former Republican presidential candidate and senator, Rick Santorum; Nina Turner, president of Bernie Sander's political organization "Our Revolution;" Republican Congressman Scott Taylor of Virginia; and Jen Psaki, former White House communications director.

And, Senator, I will start with you. What do you think that the chances are that this is going to actually happen?

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first off, I like Ben Sasse a lot. Bad idea. The idea of trying to repeal this thing and not replacing it.

We didn't run on repeal. We ran on repeal and replace. And we need to repeal and replace.

And what Mitch McConnell laid out was absolutely proper. We don't get this thing done we're going to have no choice but to save the system because if we don't save it, then millions of people are going to go uninsured and we're going to get egg over our face. And that means we're going to have to work with Democrats.

So, what Mitch did was give a dose of reality which is we either work this out and find something we can pass or lots of bad things are going to happen. And so it's not a free ride for you guys on the right or the left who say, oh, we can't -- you know, we're going to draw our -- put our stake here. And if we don't get this, then Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have no choice but to save a bad system.

And that is a disaster in 2018. That's why they have to get something done.

BASH: You're a sitting member of the House of Representatives, a Republican. When you hear work with Democrats on health care, do you think to yourself, yes, right. That's not going to pass any kind of political test in the House. Or do you think, you know what? This is what we should be doing.

Well, ideally, I think that -- you know, it would be nice to have bipartisanship, it would be nice to have Democrats work with us. But I think that they have made a political calculus not to do so, no matter what policy we bring forth.

REP. SCOTT TAYLOR (R), VIRGINIA: But I think it's -- I think it would be important to do that and it is important just because it's difficult right now and because we're looking at this very myopically and -- oh, what is the (INAUDIBLE) feel like? What does Ben Sasse say? Where they say (INAUDIBLE) slow. But that's the legislative process.

And so, you know, we have to respect the Senate's process. I think ultimately. And I'm optimistic that they'll get something passed, that we'll get something through.

I think that the fact that it's tough doesn't alleviate the responsibility. Because there are a lot of American families who are really hurting right now.

BASH: So, if this bill ends up just not getting the votes in the Senate, the Republican bill, you're OK with sitting down and doing this in a bipartisan way? TAYLOR: I think it should be bipartisan way anyway.

And I think Democrats have been screaming for several years now. I mean, Senator Mark Warner when he was up for re-election he was talking about, it's the ACA's problem. We've got to fix it.

But I haven't seen any plans from that side. So I think it's important they know it's messed up. They know it predates the November election, that there are big problems -- fundamental problems with the ACA.

So come to the table. I think it's important that they do.


Jen Psaki, do you think it is realistic? I mean, even you and you've admitted that Obamacare does need help. But do you think that the Democratic base, which is so riled up right now, and is not really thrilled with the notion of Democrats talking to Republicans, do you think that the base is going to let Democrats work with Republicans in a bipartisan way?

JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think the base would let Democratic leadership work with Republicans on this bill that is moving through the Senate.

If this bill does not get through, there needs to be a fix to the lack of competition in the marketplaces. The base may have problems with Democrats working with Republicans on that but ultimately, they will lose their health care and they will not have access to the same options that they have had if they don't.

So, I think Democrats need to get to the table with Republicans. They've been willing to from the beginning.

Senator Schumer said he would be willing to have discussions with Republicans. But they have not invited them to meetings. They haven't been a part of the negotiations or discussions.

So hopefully, this bill fails or doesn't get to the floor and then Democrats and Republicans can work to address the actual problems.

SANTORUM: There's another alternative.

NINA TURNER, PRESIDENT, OUR REVOLUTION: There is a problem though. I mean, there is promise in this problem. And this is the time for the big girls and big boys to put their clothing on and come to the table together and do what is in the best interest of the American people. This is the moment to do that.

I mean, we have almost 30 million people right now who are underinsured or uninsured under the Affordable Care Act. And 22 million more people would lose health care coverage as that bill is presented by the Senate.

So this is an opportunity to put the people over the politics in the Senate and hopefully the entire Congress by extension. This is the moment. There's promise in this problem.

TAYLOR: What's missing in that, though, is the fact that that we look at this -- the Republicans are having problems trying to come together as well too.

Let's talk about the Democrats for a second. You have a huge divide in the Democratic Party right now. They are not aligned in terms of what -- what should -- if they had a choice to replace something like that you have a huge percentage of Democrats who are looking for single payer option for universal health care, which is sustainable. And you have all the ones that don't want that.

They actually have more of a divide, I would say, than the Republicans do.


TURNER: But it hasn't taken them seven years. I mean, for seven years, Republicans have been talking about repealing and replacing Obamacare --


TURNER: -- and still have not done it to this point. So --

SANTORUM: There's another alternative. And the other alternative is for the president to actually step forward and provide some leadership here. And the best way to do that, in my opinion, is to do what we did when we had a similar problem back in 1996, in trying to reform welfare.

And that is we went to the Republican governors and Republican governors came together and said, this is a plan that we're willing to put together and that gives us more responsibility to deal with this. And Washington you work with us.

I have no doubt that if Republican governors get together, every Republican senator from one of those states is going to vote for what their governor wants. That's exactly what happened in 1996.

So if Donald Trump wants to change the game here in Washington, I would say go out of Washington. Go into the state capitals. Meet with Scott Walker, who's the head of the RGA, and meet with a whole bunch of other Republican governors who are -- who want to fix this problem but want the flexibility and the money to do it.

And if I think -- if he does that, I think he will show real leadership here in Washington.

BASH: Well, Senator Santorum makes a really good point because -- I mean, let's face it a lot of the reason why this Republican bill is stuck in the United State Senate is because Republican senators are facing pressure from the Republican governors who actually like the way Obamacare is working in our states.

TAYLOR: No. That's not necessarily true. BASH: Well, they like the money that they're getting. Maybe they want it to be reformed but like the money they're getting.

TAYLOR: (INAUDIBLE) there's a philosophical difference here of course. And I will say something to what he said that I think is good, the senator brought up. You know, we believe and actually we know that health care is assumed at the local level.

And indeed no one cares more about your health care than you do. So we believe that it should be more pushed down to the states and local level, for them to be able to address their populations correctly. So, yes, there are governors who have a legitimate concern about having flexibility to deal with their own populations and not have a one-size-fit-all solution.


BASH: You're from Ohio -- yes.

TURNER: My governor -- well, my governor, Governor John Kasich, who supported the Medicaid expansion that allowed 700,000 additional Ohioans to have the health care even just this past week had to wrestle with his own legislature that was going -- that really overturned that expansion and he line item vetoed that. And the governor has been all over --


TAYLOR: But why is that?


TURNER: Talking about how important it is not to leave anybody behind. The poor and the disabled and our elderly folks, not to leave them behind. That's important.


TAYLOR (ph): That's a great point --

PSAKI: On the politics of this which is very tied to the policy the problem you have with what you just said is that there are 20 Republican senators from states that have expanded Medicaid.

TURNER: That's right.

PSAKI: And to your point, they do not feel that they want it to be left to the states to figure out how to spend money. They want the money from the federal government. They want to be able to cover -- excuse me. They want to be able to cover poor people.

TAYLOR: That's not true.

PSAKI: People who are just over the poverty level.

If you're looking at what has happened recently it's not just concerns about Medicaid. Over the recess now it's senators from rural states --

TURNER: That's right.

PSAKI: -- where they're worried about access for people. They're worried about places where health clinics are going to shut down. They're worried about people not having doctors.

So, really, the governor's concerns are much different from what you're talking about and I think a bill would be entirely different than what you just said.

TAYLOR: There's no question. There's no question. I disagree with you very fundamentally.

I think, you know, there's no question that the Medicaid expansion states, who Republican governors like your governor. And the reason -- one of the reasons why the legislature opposed him is because there's this weird distortion that incentivizes states so the Medicaid expansion doesn't necessarily cover pregnant women, disabled folks. It covers childless able body adults.

In Virginia, we knew that Medicaid was five percent of our budget. It's now going past 22 percent at an unsustainable rate. So -- and if you just expand it -- hold on a second.

So you -- you expand it, the reimbursement rate for those able bodied childless adults is much higher than the disabled and the poor. So there's a - there's a -- there's a pretty bad distortion there.

And that's why the Republican legislature said, look, we have to freeze this because we can't afford it because it's crowding out police and fire and teaching and all the other fundamental things that the states had to pay for. So the answer is not simply just expanding unsustainable --


BASH: Nina, you get the final word.

TURNER: I mean, that's -- that's not what -- the bottom line is this.


TURNER: Is that the people who were -- well first of all, they didn't override the governor's veto because they knew better than that. The grass roots rose up and they got a clue.

But the bottom line is that people have to come together. Forget the political division here and come together on behalf of the American people.

BASH: This is a discussion that lawmakers and governors should be having as they come together, right?


BASH: To actually fix health care.

Such a great discussion. Thank you all for coming in this morning.

TAYLOR: Thanks for having us.

BASH: And coming up, want to live in your own Trump hotel? Getting that gilded look might be cheaper than you think. Where to pick up a touch of Trump, next.



BASH: Before the White House, Donald Trump decorated his hotels to match his lavish lifestyle and though he may have paid full price for some of his furnishings, it doesn't mean that you have to.


BASH (voice-over): In 1990, Donald Trump opened the Taj Mahal casino, with the rub of a golden lamp, a real estate wish come true.

TRUMP: Nobody's seen anything like this it, the reviews have been unanimous raves.

BASH: Trump sold his stake in the casino in 2009, but he paid to keep his name attached to it.

In 2014, he sued to have the logo removed saying that business had fallen into -- quote -- "An utter state of disrepair" which tainted his brand.

But Trump's trash is another man's treasure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're looking for Trump's thrown. We didn't find it yet.

BASH: A liquidation sale is under way and everything must go, bargain hunters won't find anything with the Trump logo, but there was plenty of his signature razzle dazzle.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're on our way to the sale.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This on the 43rd floor.

BASH: Want a hot pink Jacuzzi tub? You got it. Chandeliers, televisions or baby grand piano, name your price.

How about a luxury marble shower? A New Jersey T.V. crew found this shopper testing the merchandise. An entire bedroom package can be yours for just $300.

CLIFF MCCORD, SHOPPER: I can't see anybody buying the beds or mattresses but (INAUDIBLE).

BASH: Thinking of buying a piece of the Trump's treasure? Get to Atlantic City and get in line. The sale ends when the goods are gone.


BASH: Thanks so much for watching.

Before we go CNN's original series "THE NINETIES" premieres tonight with the look back at the life, turmoil and of course politics that defined the decade.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 90's is a (INAUDIBLE). Some of my favorite shows of all time aired in that decade.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't talk about the 90's without (ph) so many monumental bands. Nirvana gave the record industry a wake-up call.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pressure was building up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gangster rap really starts to take hold.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a hip hop tsunami.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: While the 90's represented so much growth, so much progress, we still had so much further to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rodney King in 1992, exposed some of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: O.J. was a guy who felt like he was above race.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, find the defendant --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Columbine. The bombing in Oklahoma City, the Davidian compound in Waco, something dark was moving in the society.

BERNARD SHAW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Something is happening outside. The skies over Baghdad have been illuminated.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The promise of a new world order --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: George Bush took the loss to Bill Clinton very hard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bill Clinton was a President who was turning the corner to a different time. There was scandal, scandal, scandal, scandal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Clinton is christened the comeback kid because he was resilient.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Gates' game plan was world domination.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You could see the start of this new online culture. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got mail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is the equivalent of the industrial revolution. It's the equivalent of electricity. The changes are just so profound.