Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Medicaid to Take Major Hit Under Senate Plan; Interview with Sen. Ron Johnson; Washington Post: Putin Personally Authorized Intervention in Election; White House Blocks Public from Viewing Daily Briefing; Cabinet Members Discuss North Korea with Trump. Aired 1:30- 2p ET

Aired June 23, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:32:07] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Republican leaders in the Senate expect a vote on their health care bill by this time next week, but even President Trump admits negotiations are needed to close the deal. Much of the back and forth will likely revolve around Medicaid. The program covers 70 million low-income elderly and disabled Americans, and many could be left out in the cold under the proposed Senate and House changes.

Our national politics reporter, M.J. Lee, is in New York.

M.J., you've pored over the Senate discussion draft released yesterday. What will it do to Medicaid coverage?

M.J. LEE, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: Wolf, you're right. Medicaid will be at the center of the negotiations. You saw yesterday that a number of moderate Senator Republicans expressing serious concerns, especially regarding the impact that this could have on constituents who depend on Medicaid.

Let me walk through what the bill would do to the program. Put it simply, it would make drastic changes to the program. States would get a set amount of money, either per enrollee or in the form of a block grant, and essentially this means states rather than the federal government would have bigger responsibility to administer the program.

Now, another important piece of this, Wolf, is that there would be a phaseout of the federal funding for Medicaid expansion by 2024. This would be more gradual than the House bill, but either way, the effects are huge on, you know, people who live in states that expanded Medicaid. We are talking about 11 million people who gained coverage through Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

So this gives perspective why this is such a big issue for so many Senators.

BLITZER: There's a part in here about funding correlating, M.J., to the rate of inflation. Explain that. It will mean a reduction in money available to Medicaid recipients.

LEE: Right. Pretty technical language, obviously, critically important.

One way the Senate bill would eventually shrink Medicaid more significantly is that the annual growth rate would be pegged to standard inflation rather than medical inflation, which happens to be more generous. This is problematic for a number of moderate Senate Republicans, folks like Susan Collins, Rob Portman, Dean Heller. They all put out statements yesterday saying they are very concerned about the Medicaid piece of this bill.

Now, as you know, McConnell needs 50 "yes" votes to get this bill through the Senate. And it is not just moderate Senate Republicans who have issues with the bill. As you know, four conservative Senate Republicans have already come out and said they will not support this bill.

So all goes to show, Wolf that McConnell really has his work cut out for him.

[13:34:48] BLITZER: Let's not forget Republicans have only a 52-48 majority in the Senate. They could lose two Republican Senators. No Democrats will vote for it. But if they lose three, it's all over, last to for now.

M.J. Lee, thanks very much. Good report.

And as of right now, the health care plan revealed by Senate Republicans is falling short of the votes needed to get it passed, as you just heard.

One of the four Republican Senators opposed to the bill in its current form is Wisconsin's Ron Johnson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And joining us now, Senator Ron Johnson, from Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. RON JOHNSON, (R), WISCONSIN: Wolf, how are you doing?

BLITZER: Thank you.

Talk about health care right now. What's your main concern? What do you need to see changed in this Republican health care bill in order to go from "no," your position right now, to "yes?"

JOHNSON: Well, I'm not "yes," is probably a better way of putting it. I certainly need enough time to understand the bill myself, get input from constituents. I have a hard time believing I'll have enough time by the end of next week.

But primarily remember when Bill Clinton talked about the craziest system in the world, people busting it sometimes 60 hours a week and wind up with premiums doubled, coverage halved? I'm concerned about those folks. I don't believe those individuals who are working hard, buying health care in the individual market with after-tax dollars, have seen premiums doubled and tripled. They're not being adequately addressed in the health care bill because we're not addressing the root cause of the problem. That's all these market distortions that have driving individual market up artificially double and triple.

Really, I want some freedom in choice, allowing Americans to buy health coverage that fits their needs and they can afford, and unfortunately, we've been banging that drum the entire time. Part of this discussion, prior to the drafting of the bill, it was left out, and one of the things we'd certainly want to have included in any kind of bill.

BLITZER: If no significant changes between now and the end of next week before the July 4th recess, you're still a "no?"

JOHNSON: Wolf, what I'll be doing -- I come from a manufacturing background. Root-cause analysis and continuous improvement. If I have enough time to evaluate the bill, get input from Wisconsin, see how does this affect them in their lives. In the end, I'll look at any bill to determine if this is enough improvement over the current system to garner a "yes" vote. But I'll be pressing hard. Leadership said it was a draft, open for discussion, improvement. I hope they're being genuine about that.

BLITZER: Right now, as you know, about 70 million Americans, mostly low-income families, the elderly, disabled, are covered under Medicaid. How do you defend cutting Medicaid? The House version cuts Medicaid, according to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, by about $8 billion over 10 years. We are waiting for the CBO to come up with a score on the Senate version, but it will cut Medicaid as well. How do you defend that?

JOHNSON: First, Wolf, you're using the inside-the-Beltway terminology for cut, which is reduce the rate of growth and spending. I've been on the inside. I've been listening to the discussions on what we'll do with Medicaid to make it more sustainable. Turn it back over to the states where it can be managed more efficiently and effectively. I don't -- I haven't seen the final numbers, but as we're trying to do the projections, I don't see year-on-year reduction in spending, which is what I'd call a cut.

BLITZER: But, Senator, if there's less money available under what you want, than is available right now, if the rate of growth is going to be reduced, the spending for Medicaid, a lot of people will be affected, including a lot of people in Wisconsin, a lot of young kids especially --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- over the next 10 years.

JOHNSON: First of all, Wisconsin's getting no funding from Medicaid expansion. So I wouldn't see anybody in Wisconsin actually affected by what we're trying to do to rein in the out-of-control costs of Medicaid expansion. But, Wolf, I have yet to be in a hearing where we're describing a

problem often exacerbated by government, where the solution wasn't more spending, and we're not solving the problems. We need to address the root cause of the problem in health care, which is out-of-control spending.

BLITZER: It OK with you there will be zero hearings in the Senate on this important legislation, which affects, what, one-sixth of the U.S. economy between now and the end of next week, when your Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants a vote?

JOHNSON: It's not OK with me. We don't have any of time, both members and the public, to completely evaluate this bill, see the scoring, see all the debate within the public realm. Whether there's a hearing or not, this thing needs to be fully vetted. I need to have enough time to evaluate it myself and get input from Wisconsinites. I've been very clear with leadership about that and clear publicly about that. I want enough time. I have a hard time believing if we take a vote at the end of next week that will afford me or my constituents enough time. So I'm really urging leadership to take the time, get it right, get us the information so the American public can really evaluate this. And quite honestly, let's prove some of the rhetoric false.

[13:40:02]BLITZER: One final question on a different subject. You're the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, on the Foreign Relations Committee. A major article in "The Washington Post" today saying that Russian President Putin personally authorized the intervention in the U.S. presidential election. What do you think needs to be done to make sure that never happens again?

JOHNSON: Well, I'm highly concerned about it, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You're going to see evidence presented in Montenegro in terms of what Russia did to interfere with their election. They've been doing this for decades, quite honestly. And we're just -- our election was a latest example. The American public understood this. The administration understood this as well. We need to beef up cyber security, and quite honestly, unify and harmonize regulations from the federal government. We held a hearing last week about cyber security and the harmful effect of overregulation on the ability of different companies to protect the cyber assets. This is something we need to take seriously. We'll hold a hearing in my committee on this subject in the near future.

BLITZER: Do you think President Trump takes this Russian threat seriously? Because he doesn't talk about it, rarely, if ever.

JOHNSON: We certainly all need to take this threat from Russia's interference, in not only our election, but elections around the world. The disinformation, propaganda campaign to destabilize regimes and nations around the world, we have to take that seriously and --

BLITZER: Why is he so silent?

JOHNSON: You'll have to ask the president on that, but I'm not silent about it. I'm taking it seriously. BLITZER: I know you are.

Senator Ron Johnson, thanks for joining us.

JOHNSON: Have great day.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And up next, the White House briefing without you, the American people. We're going to examine how the administration is forcing the cameras to be turned off. What it means for the White House message and more. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:17] BLITZER: Take a look at this. Live picture, we have from the White House briefing room. None of the cable or broadcast networks have access to live pictures of the actual briefing once it begins. Supposed to begin at any moment with Press Secretary Sean Spicer. And once again, so far, unless the White House reverses itself, the White House is not allowing live cameras. The American public won't be able to see it or hear it live, only after the briefing is concluded, according to White House rules. Will the networks, cable and broadcasts be able to air the audio-only of the briefing? No video. Won't be able to see the questions and answers. We'll hear them, but only after the briefing is concluded.

I want to bring in our senior media and politics reporter, Dylan Byers.

Dylan, the past two weeks, we've seen, what, two live news briefings at the White House with the press secretaries. What's the new strategy for the White House all about?

DYLAN BYERS, CNN SENIOR MEDIA & POLITICS REPORTER: The strategy, Wolf, is to avoid being seen on camera taking questions they don't want to answer, in fact, can't answer, oftentimes, because they don't have the go-ahead from the president of the United States himself. It's a lot easier to do that off camera, and not be under the scrutiny of the American people watching at home.

But it's twofold as well. A second part to this strategy, antagonize us, the media. For all the criticism reporters have of this administration about the lack of transparency and accessibility, there's a similar critique coming from this White House towards the media. They feel reporters get up in the briefing room and grandstand, and want to be seen on camera looking tough against the administration. There's such little respect between these two groups now. The White House sees that it has leverage here with the briefing and has decided simply by not holding briefings or holding these briefings off camera they can mess around, screw around - obviously, the word they use inside the White House is stronger than that -- antagonize the media and get under our skin. Indeed, if that's the intended effect, it seems to be working.

BLITZER: But it denies the American public, clearly, very interested in this, an opportunity to see what the media, the reporters, are actually doing, what the briefing is all about.

Here's what else I don't understand. They say, as they did yesterday, that the audio can't be heard live. It can only be heard live -- can only be heard, not live, but after the briefing is concluded. No video, audio only. What's the difference if we hear the audio 20 minutes later or during the course of the actual briefing?

BYERS: Wolf, the reason you have that question is because it's totally convoluted. There really is no difference. The only difference here is, again, how much it sort of antagonizes the media. And here we are, on cable news, and I'm sure on other cable news channels, are talking about it as well. They think by screwing around with the media, they can deflect attention from many questions asked in the briefing room that they can't answer.

[13:49:26] BLITZER: Dylan has an excellent article on cnnpolitics.com.

Good work, Dylan. Thanks very much.

We'll see if the White House decides to reverse itself and at least let us have the audio part of the briefing. We can hear Sean Spicer live instead of having to wait until it's all over, and we hear him on tape.

Thanks so much, Dylan, for that report.

BYERS: Thanks.

BLITZER: Just ahead, North Korea releasing a statement describing U.S. relations s "hostile and belligerent," as the president meets with top security advisors to discuss the concerning issue. We'll discuss this and more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Russia certainly isn't the only country causing major foreign policy concerns for the U.S. North Korea poses a big, big security threat. Earlier today, President Trump had a closed-door meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Defense Secretary James Mattis. Top of the agenda, the threat posed by North Korea.

Our senior diplomatic correspondent, Michelle Kosinski, is with us right now.

Michelle, what do we know came out of this meeting because this North Korea relationship is getting very, very tense.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN SENIOR DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: We know that they're looking at options. We know that they want to pressure China as much as possible. And they're looking at possibilities, what would actually have an impact, when generally the U.S. doesn't have a lot of range of option. You know, we look at North Korea's behavior, that's the ultimate goal here, changing the behavior, and so far, for years, really nothing has worked. They've just been progressing and progressing. And now we have this tragedy that really hits to the heart of America with the death of Otto Warmbier.

BLITZER: The American college student who came home in a coma.

Are they encouraged that maybe China will do more?

[13:55:06] KOSINSKI: I mean, that's a great question. That's what we hear. After we saw the meetings with China this week, talking about China coming to an agreement, that this is important, that they want to hit North Korea economically, that they've identified hundreds of companies that continue to do business with North Korea. But what we're not hearing is, here's a big list of what we're going to do and when. Even though the urgency is really high, we're hearing things like, China saying, well, China's not the source of the problem, and China's not going to be the solution to the problem. We're hearing the U.S. side saying, we hope that China will do more.

So, it's not hugely encouraging, but they want to at least get a message out there that China is on board.

BLITZER: Let's see. Let's hope. That would be very, very important. Relationship right now, awful.

Thanks very much. Michelle Kosinski reporting for us.

That's it for me. I'll be back 5:00 p.m. eastern in "The Situation Room."

The news continues right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)