Return to Transcripts main page


Search for Survivors in Indonesia; Revamped NAFTA Deal; New Dads Made to Stay Home. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired October 1, 2018 - 09:30   ET



[09:31:31] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back.

Happening today, Las Vegas marks one year since a gunman opened fire on thousands of people at a country music festival, killing 58. Soon, there will be a sunrise ceremony that will include 58 seconds of silence to remember those victims. And marquises on the Vegas Strip will go dark tonight to remember the exact moment when those shootings started.

Now, the Las Vegas shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, quite a statement in America today. Fifty-eight people killed, hundreds injured in the gunfire and the resulting panic.

One way the shooter was able to increase the bloodshed was by using what are known as bump stocks. Now, a bump stock attaches to an automatic rifle at the stock. That is a rifle which requires a trigger pull for each shot to transform the weapon into something of the equivalent of an automatic rifle. That is moving your finger to fire the shots much more quickly, almost like a machine gun.

In the aftermath of the shooting, President Trump and other Republicans called for banning them. In fact, in March this year, Mr. Trump tweeted, quote, Obama administration legalized bump stocks. Bad idea. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning bump stocks with a mandated comment period. We will ban all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.

The president then instructed the ATF to explore and propose such a rule. But that's taken so long. We're a year later. First, the ATF sought comments and received tens of thousands of them, many from gun owners who were outraged by the prospect. One of those comments, we'll just mention here, said the following, when the Second Amendment says the right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed, any limitation of the right for law-abiding citizens should be treated as unconstitutional.

Now, one year later, to the day, the administration may be nearing taking action. The Department of Justice announced just on Friday that it will propose such a rule and send it to the Office of Management Budget for review. That's the way this thing works. I should note that there are no available nationwide figures on sales

of bump stocks since the massacre, but last year's sellers at stores in several stores around the country told CNN that sales had taken off, people expecting this rule to pass and trying to buy the bump stocks up in advance.

So, it's been a year later, Poppy. That rule proposal officially went on Friday, but it still may take another 90 days for the OMB to study it. I mean this is the slow progress of these kind of things --


SCIUTTO: Even on something that had the support of the president, a Republican president, and many Republican lawmakers.

HARLOW: Right. It was bipartisan. But then, where is the progress? And so few answers still on what motivated this gunman, 58 people dead, so many wounded.

Thank you for the facts.

SCIUTTO: That's right. And on what would seem to be a pretty simple gun control measure in the wake of a shooting like this.

HARLOW: Right. Exactly.

SCIUTTO: But even something like that takes more than a year.

HARLOW: That could have made a world of difference.


HARLOW: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Also, we are watching what is happening in Indonesia, because right now rescuers on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi are digging through destroyed homes, huge piles of debris. They are looking frantically for any possible survivors after the massive earthquake and devastating tsunami on Friday. At least 844 people are dead in the city of Palu alone, with the death toll expected to rise much higher.

Many of the victims have been buried in these -- look at that! These are the mass graves that they are burying these victims in, trying to prevent the spread of disease. And also, look at this, chilling video. This is the moment -- if you missed this before, this is the moment where that tsunami wave up to 10 feet high slams into the coast of Palu.

[09:35:08] Matt Rivers is there at an outdoor clinic that is treating the wounded.

Matt, what can you tell us about, a, the wounded, and also the search still for survivors?

MATT RIVERS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim and Poppy, I can tell you that this outdoor clinic isn't usually an outdoor clinic. This is usually a parking lot, because right to my right, you can't site, that's a hospital. But the people being treated in this now outdoor clinic can't go outside because of the threat of aftershocks, that the building might collapse.

So, right behind me, you know, that's the pharmacy. That's where I saw people get shots earlier. That's where I saw someone get a dozen stitches in his head. It's all being done out here. And then those people after they're treated, they end up in a place like this. This is a temporary tent, essentially, that's been put up, rains a lot in southeast Asia, and look at the patients back there. These are people who have severe injuries. They're lying on the floor. They're lying on mattress pads this thick. The lucky ones have beds. And it's just terrible conditions. But it shows you that this place is poor. They did not have the infrastructure, not only to stand up to an earthquake, let alone a tsunami on top of that.

And as weird as it sounds, guys, these people are the lucky ones. Because 150 meters to my right, and it's gruesome, but we should point it out, there's 130 bodies in a parking lot outside of the emergency room, because the morgues here have been overwhelmed and authorities had nowhere else to put those people. So you take all of that, on top of the fact that rescue efforts are continuing. A five minutes' drive away from here, we know there's rescue efforts going on right now, trying to get people out from under their homes. Whether they're successful or not remains to be seen.

Access to these communities is very difficult. Landslides have blocked roads. So no matter which aspect of this whole situation you want to talk about, they're all bad. And, unfortunately, it's difficult to get here, so it doesn't seem like international aid is on its way anytime soon.

HARLOW: Right.

SCIUTTO: Well, the other thing we noted is that those buoys they put out at sea to give fair warning of coming tsunamis --

HARLOW: The detectors (ph), right?

SCIUTTO: Of course after 2004 when they had the devastating one, they were not, according to government officials, they were now working.

HARLOW: More than 20, right?

SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes.


SCIUTTO: For years they weren't working.

HARLOW: Matt Rivers, thank for being there. Please keep us posted.

The president can take another campaign promise off. There is a new trade deal. It's a big deal this morning with Canada, Mexico, and the United States. What does it mean for you at home? Is it good for U.S. business? We'll explain, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:30] SCIUTTO: This morning, the president can claim victory after late-night negotiations result in a new deal to replace NAFTA. The president will speak in a little over an hour from the Rose Garden on the new trade agreement called the United States/Mexico/Canada Agreement. No longer NAFTA.

HARLOW: More than a year of negotiations between Canada and the U.S. almost fell apart last week as we were approaching this -- this sort of somewhat factious deadline, but a deadline. Sources say a call from top staff members in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office to the president's adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is what really pushed things over the edge here.

Our chief business correspondent Christine Romans joins us this morning.

Look, I was shocked seeing these headlines. They did it. It happened.


HARLOW: What does it actually mean for people at home? How different is this from NAFTA? And is it better for Americans, better for U.S. businesses?

ROMANS: Well, the line from the American and the Canadian negotiators is this is going to be good for middle classes. It's going to raise wages. This is what they say officially, it will strengthen the middle class, it will create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half a billion people who call North America home.

Clearly, you wanted Canada in a North American trade agreement. And so that is really what people are so optimistic about this morning.

Here's what's in it, Poppy and Jim. U.S. access to Canada's dairy market. The president was adamant about this.

HARLOW: Right.

ROMANS: He despises the supply chain, the supply supports that are in Canada and he wanted to help American dairy farmers in Wisconsin and New York. It preserves a way to settle disputes. That's something the Canadians wan wanted, so a win for the Canadians.

It's supposed to be for higher wages and better labor standards for autos. And here's what I mean by that. So consider this. Cars imported duty-free in these three countries need 75 percent North American content. And that's an increase. And wages, right? Two-fifths of any car that is duty free sold in these three countries must have wages of $16 an hour or higher. That is seen as a benefit for -- specifically for American factories and auto workers, in particular.

So those are sort of the nuts and bolts in there. It's called USMCA. Trump hates NAFTA. It's USMCA. And it can be -- it can die after 16 years. If they don't renegotiate this, then the whole thing just goes away.

SCIUTTO: Could I ask you this because the president promised throughout the campaign and since then a massive renegotiation --


SCIUTTO: Art of the deal comes to international trade negotiations. Big picture, is this a massive renegotiation of that?

ROMANS: I would call this a modernization of NAFTA. And I would say there are elements throughout here that look just like TPP. Some of this -- that's another -- Trans Pacific Partnership --

SCIUTTO: For Asia, yes.

ROMANS: That was an important trade deal that this president pulled out of.

HARLOW: Yes, that didn't happen.

ROMANS: That our friends are all in. So some of these look -- like the dairy, for example. You're hearing folks north of the border in Canada saying that the TPP sounds an awful lot like we'd already agreed to. But the White House and administration officials are insisting, this is a good deal for American workers and a good deal for American farmers.

Is it a control-alt-delete on NAFTA? No, it's a modernization.

HARLOW: Right.

OK, Romans, thank you.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

HARLOW: We appreciate it very much.

[09:44:22] All right, hey, new dads, listen up. What would you think, not only if you got paternity leave, but if you were forced to take it? It's a controversial, bold argument being made on the pages of "The Wall Street Journal" this morning. The author will join us next.


HARLOW: Welcome back. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

Could forcing -- forcing new dads to take paternity leave help fight bias in the workplace, close the gender salary gap and help evaluate more women to the c-suite? Maybe. The case for mandatory paternity leave is making waves thanks to a new "Wall Street Journal" editorial by Joanne Lipman. She is the former editor and chief of "USA Today," was deputy managing editor for "The Journal" a while back. She's also the author of a new book, "That's What She Said: What Men Need to Know and Women Need to Tell Them About Working Together."

Joanne Lipman joins me now. Good to have. Congrats on the book. It's the first time I've had you on since that.


HARLOW: So, forcing dads to take time off work. Why mandatory?

LIPMAN: Well, let's think about the context of where we are. We've been talking about inequality at work, how do we solve it? We've been talking about it for decades. I mean the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, more than 50 years ago.

HARLOW: And we're still not there, by the way.

LIPMAN: We're still not there. And then, you know, with Me Too -- actually with my book, "That's What She Said," I've been traveling around, I've been talking with companies who are all saying, yes, we want to get there. But there's so much talk and so little action. And so I found this one company -- and, by the way, we've gone backwards in many ways even since Me Too erupted a year ago. I mean if you look at the percentage of female CEOs, it's declined. The World Economic Forum, which tracks gender equality, has found that it's actually widened for the first time since it started tracking it. So --

[09:50:26] HARLOW: So why does making dads take time off fix that?

LIPMAN: Right. So I found one company, and apparently there are some others that are thinking about this, that said, you know what, one of the problems we have is that women take maternity leave and they are penalized for it. Men increasingly are being offered paternity leave, but they're not taking it because they're afraid that it's going to hurt their careers. And, in fact, some men who want to take paternity leave and whose companies offer it report that they get that kind of wink from their supervisors and say, yes, you don't really want to do that.

HARLOW: So this -- this happened to my friend who works at one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, who took only -- he could -- only took a week off to be with their new baby even though the bank gives four months.

LIPMAN: Right.

HARLOW: The top bosses wanted him and want the dads to take it. It's the direct manager that looked at him and said -- shook his head and said, sure, you can take it. No, you can't.

LIPMAN: That's exactly what is happening. And, in fact, that the -- Pew did a survey of men and found that the average paternity leave is one week. Even for companies where they offer months.

HARLOW: The feedback that you've gotten. I mean, obviously, it's bold. It's controversial. I don't know, frankly, Joanne, you know I struggled with my maternity leave a bit and how much I should take and, you know, it was -- it was difficult for me. I was encouraged here to take it, right. I didn't feel it affected my career negatively at all. But I struggled with it. I don't know if I'd want someone telling me I have to take it.

LIPMAN: Well, the mandatory piece is obviously controversial. And the idea about it being mandatory -- I mean, frankly, it should be voluntary. And we -- we need to get to a spot where it is voluntary, where men and women equally take time off without a stigma. The mandatory piece, which a company called Human Eyes (ph) has established --

HARLOW: Right.

LIPMAN: It's, yes, it's bold. It's controversial. But at the same time, as the CEO there said, you know, we're trying to get to where it's voluntary, but we just haven't gotten there yet. And, yes, the response has been on both sides, shall we say --

HARLOW: Well, what are people -- you said "Wall Street Journal" readers hated it.

LIPMAN: Well, there's -- there's a lot of comments on the site there. And I love "Wall Street Journal" readers. I worked at "The Wall Street Journal" for two decades. And, yes, it's interesting to see some of the comments there and --

HARLOW: What are your -- what are your friends -- more conservative friends telling you?

LIPMAN: Well, you know, and so, on the other side, there are people who are, yes, all in, we must, must have this. A lot of support for that. I did get a note from a conservative commentator who's a very good friend who said, Joanne, I love you, but you're totalitarian.

HARLOW: I can tell you, and you know -- you know this from my experience, my husband took three months off when we just had our son, who's eight months old now. I could not be where I am today professionally or as happy as I am or have as full a life if he did not take that time and bear half the work at home --

LIPMAN: That's right.

HARLOW: Because it translates to the rest of your life and raising your children.

LIPMAN: That's exactly right. And, in fact, I heard from many women and men who said exactly that. Exactly that.


LIPMAN: And it's true that, you know, even today, I mean, there is a documented -- it's called the motherhood penalty, that when women have a child, their earnings decline for each child by 4 percent.


LIPMAN: Whereas men, there's a fatherhood bonus and they actually earn more when they have children.

HARLOW: Interesting.

LIPMAN: And so we really just need -- we need to get to a point where we really can have true equality.

HARLOW: I would encourage everyone to read it, debate it.

Joanne, thank you very much.

LIPMAN: Thanks for having me.

HARLOW: Appreciate it.

All right, we do have a lot ahead.

SCIUTTO: No question.

As the FBI investigated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, former classmates of the Supreme Court pick are speaking out, but we are hearing some very different stories.


[09:58:34] HARLOW: All right, as the consequential midterm election approaches, we want to hear from you. Enough of us for a moment, we want to hear from you about why you're going to the polls and why you're going to vote and what you hope will happen.

SCIUTTO: Yes, we're excited about this segment. We've been working on it for a while. We want to hear from a variety of voices from all over the country, all ends of the political spectrum.


SCIUTTO: And we're going to air those answers every day from now in a new segment that we called "Why I Vote," of course, as we come up to this crucial midterm election. And here's what voters are telling us today.


RYAN GONZALEZ, VOTER: I'm going to vote because that's the only way that my vote -- my voice gets heard and the things that I think are important. Without that, even if what I vote for doesn't pass, at least I got my word out.

LORENA GONZALEZ, VOTER: What I want is to see the kids are with families, with their parents and not separated and, you know, left at detention centers, not knowing what -- where they're going to go and how -- when they're going to go back home.

NATALIE OLSON, VOTER: Definitely women's rights. Definitely Planned Parenthood kind of issues. I'm really kind of trying to get on the backs of that kind of stuff. I think it's been unheard for a lot of years here. So I'm just going to try to support that more.

KATRINA DORSEY, VOTER: To change some of these policies, to move and shake things up and make sure that we, as a people, have a voice for change.


[10:00:00] SCIUTTO: Will you be voting in November, particularly if it's the first time that you're voting? Please post a video to Instagram telling us what is motivating you this year. Use this hash tag, #whyivotecnn for a chance to be featured on our show and on CNN's Instagram feed.