tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN May 25, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PDT
like immigration, on trade, on the climate, on things like that. so, it's going to be a hard pull. and here in britain, they are furious, furious about the intelligence. >> all right, christiane amanpour, ron brownstein, nic robertson, thank you very much for being with us. again, our special coverage of these meetings, historic nato meetings with a very stern message from the president continues with brianna keilar right now. hello, there. i'm brianna keilar in for kate bolduan, and you are watching live pictures coming to us from brussels, belgium, where president trump is having his first big meeting with nato leaders. areas of agreement? there is tension here. these leaders are looking for common ground. and we just witnessed really some extraordinary remarks from president trump there at nato headquarters at what is the unveiling of a 9/11 memorial, and he really took these leaders to task. i want to bring in a couple
folks who can help me break all of this down. we have cnn military and diplomatic analyst retired rear admiral john kirby, also with me, cnn global affairs analyst and former deputy secretary of state tony blinken. y you, john, i should mention worked at the pentagon and state department. help me talk about, really dissect these comments from president trump. he was taking these nato leaders to task, saying that -- he said 23 member nations are not paying what they should be. he was schooling them right in front of them. >> yeah. to be clear, this isn't a new message that president obama made, president bush before him, five secretaries of defense now who have made this case, but it was extraordinary to me to see him be so bellicose about this and so specific about it in what was supposed to be an opening welcoming ceremony right there at the 9/11 memorial. so, i think the setting was extraordinary and the message was perhaps i think much more stronger than the nato allies would have expected on this
particular day. >> than all of us expected. and tony, i think the setting being extraordinary, as john mentioned. it was near a twisted piece of metal from the world trade center, this 9/11 memorial. and the message there, that setting is so clear, talking about article five, this idea that an attack on one is an attack on all. the only time it's been invoked was during 9/11 -- following 9/11, i should say. and so, you have that visual of that. and yet, as many people expected that donald trump was for the first time going to really endorse article five as a concept, it didn't sound like we heard that. am i wrong? >> i didn't hear it. and in fact, i think our allies heard what they didn't want to hear and didn't hear what they wanted to hear. they wanted to hear exactly what you just said, which is the president reaffirming article five. and in fact, the only time it's been invoked, that an attack against one is an attack against all, was after 9/11, when our allies stood up for us. and they wanted to hear the
president say that the united states would always be prepared to stand up for them. they didn't hear that. and as you and john said, they heard a elelecture on defense spending. the truth is, that spending has been starting to go up since the wales summit in 2014 under president obama, and indeed, previous secretaries of defense and presidents have gone at the allies, but not in the same bellicose, in-your-face way from the president. i'm concerned it will be counterproductive. the reason allies have started to spend more on defense is not because of donald trump, it's because of vladimir putin and the threat that he represents. but the problem is, president trump is unfortunately not popular in many european countries, starting with germany, the country that really should do more on defense spending. so when he lectures on defense spending, it hits german ears in exactly the wrong way. he's the wrong person to be making that argument. it puts chancellor merkel in a difficult spot. her public when they hear president trump saying you've got to spend more, they're going to say to her, don't listen to him. that's a problem. >> let's listen to what donald
trump said to all of these member nations. >> these grave security concerns are the same reason that i have been very, very direct with secretary stoltenberg and members of the alliance in saying that nato members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. but 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. this is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the united states, and many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. over the last eight years, the united states spent more on
defense than all other nato countries combined. if all nato members had spent just 2% of their gdp on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional nato reserves. we should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2% of gdp is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing readiness and the size of forces. we have to make up for the many years lost. 2% is the bare minimum for confronting today's very real and very vicious threats.
if nato countries made their full and complete contributions, then nato would be even stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorists. >> president trump there in belgium. but john, it certainly seems as if he's speaking to an audience as well that is not there, and that would be his base that supports him. we've heard from tony there, dues have been going up in recent years, but at the same time, donald trump has a base that is wondering, why does the u.s. have to do it all? these folks in europe are just mooching off of us, and that's certainly their opinion that the u.s. is doing it all. >> yeah, look, this will appeal to the people that voted for donald trump, there's no question about that. but what i think people are missing is that the united states has special global leadership responsibilities. yes, we're a member of nato, yes, there's 27 other countries, but not all of them can be expected to contribute in the same way we can or we should, quite frankly. the united states has convening
power and facilitation power. we have other global responsibilities outside of nalto that many of those nations don't have to worry about, so there's a lot that goes into this picture. and when he talks about underpayments, it's important for people to understand, you don't pay dues to nato. what he's talking about here are their national decisions about defense spending on their own, and they all agree -- >> their commitments to defense. >> right. and they agreed back in warsaw three years ago for 2%. they recommitted in wales, as mr. blinken mentioned. that's what we're talking about, not payments of dues. >> a really extraordinary day here as the president is in belgium. one of the areas of contention with one of these member nations is we have heard that theresa may of britain was going to be confronting the president about leaks, information that had been shared from the uk with the u.s. when it came to this bombing in manchester, and now, sara murray joining us, she's on this trip with the president, a statement coming out from the administration, from the president, about their reaction
to this information being published in the u.s., confirmed by u.s. officials before british officials ever wanted it out there. what can you tell us? >> reporter: that's right. well, we're still waiting to see when president trump and theresa may might meet privately to discuss this, but as you pointed out, there has been a lot of concern from the uk government that information surrounding this investigation into the manchester attack seems to be coming out being leaked from u.s. intelligence. so, the president put out a statement today addressing that issue. it says in part, "the alleged leaks coming out of government agencies are deeply troubling. these leaks have been going on for a long time and my administration will get to the bottom of this. the leaks of sensitive information pose a grave threat to our national security." now, he also pointed out that he was going press the justice department to look into where these leaks are coming from, and once they find who is leaking, they're going to prosecute those people to the fullest extent of the law. so, this mirrors a lot of the rhetoric we've heard from president trump back in the united states surrounding a number of different intelligence
leaks, essentially saying these compromise our national security. now, as for the prime minister, theresa may addressed reporters on her way in to the nato summit as well, and she reaffirmed this special nature of this intelligence-sharing relationship between the united states and the uk but said it really hinges on both sides being able to fully trust one another. brianna? >> sara murray, stay with us, as you're watching the scene unfold there in brussels. tony, i want to talk to you about this. how is the rhetoric that we're hearing there when it comes to leaks, and certainly there are concerns from theresa may and other countries as well -- can they trust the u.s. when they're sharing this important information -- but how is this something besides a continuation of what we saw under president obama, who had an unprecedented number of leak prosecutions that his administration pursued? >> you're right, this is an ongoing story. it didn't start with the trump administration. it's afflicted various administrations in different
ways, but this particular leak seems particularly egregious, because it was in the midst of an active investigation and possibly an active ongoing threat. and in that situation especially, loose lips sink ships. so, i can understand why the brits are very upset about this. hopefully, we can rein this back in and get this under control, because this goes to our security as well. the intelligence that we get from our partners, from our allies, is vital to our own security. if they start to move in another direction and shut that down because they can't trust us, it's going to harm us, not just them. >> and john, to this point, i mean, let's just explain to our viewers what we're talking about, what got leaked. american media getting information from u.s. sources were first to report the initial death toll after the blast, the method of the attack, and then also the identity of the bomber, all before british officials hoped that this would be out there. you can understand this when you're talking about the identity of the bomber, because that may provide connections to other people who could be around
him, who could help him. >> sure. >> they're in the process of doing raids, right, the british? >> you have to understand that the network who helped this man commit this brutal crime, they're watching news media as well. and so, they're gleaning information and intelligence off of what they're seeing from press reporting. and when you have an ongoing -- i mean, it was still an active scene, not to mention a potential, you know, manhunt for more perpetrators. when this is ongoing, it's absolutely critical that no information get leaked to the press that could harm those investigative efforts or those police and security efforts. so i mean, real lives could have been put at risk here. it's a very dangerous thing. >> fred pleitgen is following this for us, and this is pretty interesting, fred. we're seeing theresa may, i believe, sitting next to president trump following this class photo there of these nato member leaders. you know, what can you tell us about this investigation? >> reporter: well, the investigation is apparently moving forward at a very fast
pace. we've seen a lot of arrests take place over the past couple days. in fact there were two that happened earlier today. so it appears as though the police believe that they might be closing in on this network that they believe must have been behind all of this. and one of the reasons why they say that is that apparently, the device that was used, according to some of the pictures that we're seeing, appears to be quite sophisticated. and there's many here who believe that the man who is apparently behind all this, salman abedi, did not have the knoblg to make this sophisticated device, so they think there's more there. they're continuing to conduct raids in the manchester area and continuing to take people into custody for questioning, but it is very much an ongoing investigation. that's one of the reasons why the authorities here are so furious that these leaks that have been coming out, and certainly you're hearing that from on the ground in manchester, where they took that very extraordinary step of saying, look, we're just not going to share any more intelligence on this matter with our american counterparts because they believe they simply
can't take that risk, brianna. >> so, what do you make of this, because donald trump comes out with a statement saying, essentially we are cracking down on this. we take this seriously. we had heard that theresa may was going to be confronting him on this issue of intel leaks. also, donald trump doesn't like leaks. he's made that very clear about leaks that pertain to his administration. >> reporter: yeah. >> was this him sort of beating her to the punch, showing a seriousness, or was this something that was induced by something theresa may may have already said to him? do we know? >> reporter: well, we know that they've already spoken. we know that theresa may said she was already on the phone with president trump and told him that she believes something like this can't happen and that the mutual trust between these two countries certainly needs to continue to be in place and needs to be restored to a certain point as well. so, certainly, it might have been him trying to conduct some damage control and saying, look, we're trying to do something about this, we're trying to stop this. it's unclear how ms. may is going to react to all of this. but in the end, it seems as
though, at least the authorities there in manchester for the time sbreeg made their decision and said, look, we're just not going to share any more intel with our colleagues in the united states on this simply because of what's happened so far already. and it's something that they take very seriously because this is a very, very important investigation that's going on. it could be a life-or-death matter in certain instances if, in fact, there still is an active cell here in this country that has the knowledge and has in the past already been able to manufacture bombs that kill a lot of people. so, right now they are investigating at a very high pace, and the last thing that they need is for their investigation to be hampered by leaks that are coming out, and it's something that they've made very clear and something where they say that in order to conduct this investigation without any more pitfalls, they need to just stop this information from flowing. so, it is a very, very big step, and it's going to be very, very interesting to see how these meetings between theresa may and president trump are going to turn out and what exactly the wording there is going to be
afterwards. >> tony, i wonder, do you think that this is smart diplomacy and also that this may actually have the effect of chilling some of the leaks? is this a smart move on the part of the trump administration as they say they're going to really address this? >> yeah, no, the president did the right thing in putting out that statement, in putting out a strong statement, making it clear that he was going to try to do something about this, sending a very strong message to our own bureaucracy, his own bureaucracy, that this needs to stop. so, this is the right thing to do. and whether it was getting out ahead of prime minister may or not, i'm not sure, but it was the right message at the right time. but we have a lot of trust to build back, and that's not going to happen in the matter of a day or with one statement. >> i saw you nodding your head as you listened to fred's report there about the leaks. >> yeah. just, i think it's important to realize how extraordinary this is. it's the uk. it's our closest ally. a nation that has been at our side repeatedly over so many
decades on so many issues. >> this is like a constant cousin, right? putting it in those terms. somebody that has your back. >> yeah, and for the uk to say, on this particular issue, we're not sharing with you anymore, that is significant. i agree with tony, too, the president had no choice. he had to react this strongly. and it was good that he did that, and it should be investigated and prosecuted. but let's not forget how significant this is coming from the uk. >> if they're not sharing information, john, let's talk not necessarily just about this terror attack, but other ones as well. and obviously, the not sharing is happening just with this investigation, but when you're looking at other things, there are tentacles that stretch from britain to the u.s. this is a very important avenue of information and communication, right? >> absolutely. i mean, the uk, again, not just one of our closest allies but one of our best intelligence relationships in the world. and so, hopefully, this won't bleed over into any other thing. and i can't imagine that the uk,
having knowledge of anything that might affect our security, would withhold it from us, but this is an extraordinary step from them that i think we need to take seriously. i talked to a friend in the intelligence community yesterday and he said he hasn't seen any chilling effect yet in other nations about intelligence-sharing, particularly in the wake of the oval office meeting with kislyak and lavrov, but he said intelligence agencies around the world are very interested in the relationship between our white house and our intelligence community. that's where -- that's the barometer they're really looking at. >> that's very interesting. john, tony, sara, fred, stand by for me for just a moment here. in a little while here, the most powerful republican in the house is set to address the charges against the republican who is looking to join his ranks, the candidate in montana accused of assaulting a reporter, charged, i should say, with assaulting a reporter, body slamming him to the ground, punching him as well, this as voters are making their choices at the polls right now. stand by for that. mple salad the best simple salad ever? heart healthy california walnuts.
then moisturize with isaveeno® skin relief. with oat oil and natural shea butter, it softens and smooths extra dry skin and lasts for 24 hours. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results® a lower a1c is a lot witabout choices.tes but it can be hard sometimes, 'cause different sides of you struggle with which ones to make. well, what if you kept making good ones? then? you could love your numbers. discover once-daily invokana®,
a pill used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. it's proven to lower a1c better than januvia®. invokana® works around the clock by sending some sugar out of your body through the process of urination. it's not for lowering systolic blood pressure or weight loss, but it may help with both. invokana® may cause dehydration, which could make you feel dizzy or weak when you stand up, so be sure to drink enough water. important side effects to know may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, changes in urination, or potentially serious urinary tract infections. as is risk of fracture, or increases in cholesterol or potassium. ketoacidosis is a serious condition, which can be life threatening. stop taking invokana® and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms. or if you have an allergic reaction, with signs like rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing.
do not take if you have severe liver or kidney problems or are on dialysis. taking with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the choice is yours. ♪ lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name. it's an election day, actually, today. right now polls are open for a special election in montana, which has made its way into the national spotlight this morning after the republican candidate running for a seat in congress was charged with assault for
allegedly body slamming a reporter. republican candidate greg gianforte held off taking a stance on the gop health care bill, waiting for the congressional budget office score, that price tag, to come out, and then it did. and a reporter from "the guardian," ben jacobs, tried to press gianforte -- not even press so much as to just simply ask a question for his stance on this now that the cbo has released that price tag, and the audio released speaks for itself. here's what happened. >> -- the cbo score, because you know you've been waiting to make your decision about health care until you saw the bill, and it just came out. and -- >> we'll talk to you about that later. >> but there's not going to be time. i'm curious -- >> speak with shane, please. >> just -- >> sick and tired of you guys! the last guy that came in here, he did the same thing! get the hell out of here! >> jesus! >> get the hell out of here! the last guy did the same thing. are you with "the guardian"? >> yes, and you just broke my glasses. >> the last guy did the same
damn thing! >> you just body slammed me and broke my glasses. >> get the hell out of here. >> you'd like me to get the hell out of here. i'd also like to call the police. can i get your guys' names? >> hey, you've got to leave. >> he just body slammed me. >> you've got to leave. >> well, greg gianforte was charged overnight with misdemeanor assault. i want to go now to cnn's senior media and politics reporter dylan byers. dylan, you read what happens here, but when you hear that audio, that's when you can see just how quickly this escalated and the appearance that this candidate just really snapped. >> yeah, absolutely right. and you know, it speaks to the importance of actually having some documentation about these things before you even get to the aggressive and somewhat troubling nature of the violence. let's just talk here for a second about the ineptitude of gianforte's campaign. you're in the room, there are other witnesses in the room, there's a reporter in the room who is holding a recorder to your face.
you then -- the candidate then allegedly body slams him. and what do you do? the campaign comes out with a statement basically describing an alternate reality, an alternate version of events that has no relationship whatsoever to what was on the audio recording or to what other people witnessed. what they said -- and i'll just read you part of it here -- is that the reporter was aggressive, he was badgering them with questions, and that the candidate asked the reporter to lower his recorder and he declined, asked him to leave the room. none of that happened. none of that was in the audio. they put out this statement anyway. hours later, a team from fox news that was in the room, that had been interviewing the candidate, comes out and says, look, we saw the same thing. gianforte grabbed the reporter by the neck with both hands, slammed him to the ground. at no point did the reporter, ben jacobs, do anything at all that was aggressive or badgering towards the candidate.
so, look, the violence alone, you can argue, would make gianforte disqualified from this race, but certainly, theeptitud they could skate by on this believing they were less than 24 hours away from the vote seems to me baffling. >> he does this, as you say, with witnesses there. a fox news reporter has written about this and exactly what she said. multiple people saw this. i want to listen to what ben jacobs himself said on cnn's "new day" today about what happened. >> it was an open room in the campaign headquarters, but it was not marked off in any way. i went over to ask the congressman a question. he was chatting, making small talk with other reporters in a way that, you know, waiting to join in the conversation in a way that characterizes most normal human interaction.
it was a very strange moment that he suddenly, you know, grabs my recorder, and then things go haywire from there. i've spent a lot of time recording on capitol hill, a lot of time asking politicians questions about health care, and it's never, never ended in any sort of altercation. >> now the question, it seems, dylan, is how bad is this going to be for this candidate? we've heard at least anecdotal reports that people who are among a third of montanaans who have actually cast their ballots, or among the third of folks in this particular election that have cast their ballots are wanting to change their vote, but maybe some -- and i've heard this certainly on twitter -- are going to back up this candidate and be glad he did this. >> that's true. you know, it'd be foolish to sort of try and make assumptions here about what exactly's going to happen. our colleague, kyung lah, has
reported that there are some requests to see if people can change their early ballots. unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's something that they're allowed to do under montana state law. but again, the fact that this happened does not necessarily mean that all of a sudden montana is going to swing in favor of gianforte's opponent, the democrat. there are, you can imagine, some cases in which people would sort of back this up in part because there is so much antipathy and so much distrust of the media. you know, we saw throughout the 2016 campaign, you and i were at many of these rallies, the sort of antimedia rhetoric coming from the now president of the united states. there are indeed, there could indeed be some montanans who celebrate this sort of approach to the media and that in and of itself is troubling. but as for how this actually shakes out, we'll have to wait and see what happens tonight. >> dylan byers, thank you so much for that report. let's talk next about what the most powerful republican in the house is going to say about
will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.
-- bipartisan action to combat child abuse and exploitation. a report of child abuse is made every ten seconds in this country, and human trafficking, human trafficking is one of the world's fastest growing crimes. while worrying comes naturally for parents, it is staggering to consider the different forms that child exploitation can take. it could be a coach or someone close to you, or it could be a total stranger on social media acting alone as part of a global operation. together, republicans and democrats are taking action to protect the most vulnerable and punish those who abuse them.
with these initiatives, we will go after child sex offenders, and we will make sure that survivors have the highest protection under the law. second, ahead of memorial day, we are tackling bipartisan challenges, and we're taking bipartisan action to help our veterans and their families. it is especially good news that we are making progress on fixing the longstanding problems with the va claims backlog. so many of us in congress have been working on this for so many years, dealing with our own constituents and their problems. veterans have got bills to pay. they have families to support. the last thing they should have to deal with is endless bureaucracy. unfortunately, that's what's gone on with the va with this claims backlog. so, if you've been involved in congress working on these case workers, it is just heart-wrenching to see a veteran who needs health care get stuck in this claims backlog. the initiative that the house passed this week with bipartisan, unanimous support, will expedite the process so that veterans can get timely
decisions and have real peace of mind and we can get rid of this claims backlog. lastly, i want to talk about a very important health care report. it's a report from the department of health and human services. it's the aspi data point report. the department of health and human services has released an analysis that says that since obamacare went into effect, average premiums have more than doubled nationwide. since obamacare went into effect, average health care premiums have doubled nationwide. remember, remember when president obama promised that his health care plan would lower the typical family's premiums by up to $2,500? under obamacare, average premiums have gone up by nearly $3,000. this law did not drop premiums by $2,500, as promised. average premiums have gone up by over $3,000, by nearly $3,000. just yesterday, a new shoe drops
every week on obamacare, it seems. just yesterday, blue cross and blue shield announced that it will pull out of 32 counties in kansas and in missouri. this will affect 67,000 people. citing all of the losses it had taken over 2016, the company said, and i quote, "this is unsustainable." this is exactly why we are on a rescue mission. between premiums surging up and choices going away, obamacare is on an unsustainable path. look, the blue cross blue shield plans, they're the non-profits. they're typically the last plan standing in a market, and when they're pulling out of states like kansas and missouri, we have a serious problem on our hands. this law is in the middle of a collapse. we need to bring down the cost of coverage, and we need to revitalize the market so that people have real choices and real access to affordable health care. that's what our plan will do. so, we're happy to get you a copy of this report if you need it, or if you want, you can just go to hhs.gov and see for
yourself. questions? >> given what happened last night, should greg gianforte withdraw from the montana house race? >> well, first, let me just say, physical altercations are -- there's never a call for physical altercations. there is no time where a physical altercation should occur with the press or just between human beings. so, that is wrong and it should not have happened. should the gentleman apologize? yeah, i think he should apologize. i know he has his own version, and i'm sure he's going to have more to say, but there's no call for this, no matter what, under any circumstance. the people of the state of montana are going to decide today who they will send to congress. >> if he wins, will you -- >> if he wins, he has been chosen by the people of montana who their congressman is going to be. i'm going to let the people of montana decide who they want as their representative. that's not our choice. that's the people of montana who
choose that. fred. or jake. jake, sorry. jake, then chad. >> -- a choice whether -- [ inaudible ] whether you accept him or not. is this the kind of behavior -- >> the choice will be made by the people of montana. i do not think this is acceptable behavior, but the choice will be made by the people of montana. chad. >> so, you have senate the health care report to the senate, waiting for the cbo report. you got it. why do we hear so many rank and file republicans basically beating the tar out of the kprnk bo? you were the budget committee's chair. and i understand the issues -- >> by the way, i've seen both parties beat the living tar out of cbo for years. i've been doing budgeting around here for a long time. i think what it is is the $23 million claim is -- there's a lot more to it than what that sounds like. what i'm encouraged by is the fact that cbo said, yes, we hit our budget target and then is
some, so the bill is clearly in compliance with reconciliation instructions, number one. number two, what i'm encouraged is, what the cbo says is we're going to be able to drop premiums. we're going to give states like wisconsin flexibility to get premiums down. look at what just happened in missouri and look at what just happened in kansas. we see a law that's collapsing. we see a new study that just came out yesterday from hhs saying premiums have doubled in america because of obamacare. people can't afford this. and so, what cbo just told us is the reforms that we put in this bill will help lower premiums. and so, i'm very encouraged by that. but i think what members are frustrated with is what's behind the cbo analysis about who gets insured and who doesn't get insured -- if you leave it up to a person's choice, then they'll make a choice. if the government's going to stop forcing people to buy something that they don't want to buy, then they won't buy it, and that's basically what cbo is
saying, and i think the lack of clarity on that point is what has members frustrated. >> -- why people embrace, though, the budget that -- >> i think i just answered your question. >> it's important your side really embrace that, but then when it came to 23 million, it's no, no, those yahoos down -- >> i just explained it. yeah. >> -- the cbo report, it did find that premiums on average would come down, but it also found that in the markets including the waivers, they believe that there might not be any premium access, any access for the -- >> so, obviously, i disagree with that. let me explain what this means just so people -- so -- [ inaudible question ] >> if a state takes a waiver, then a state, in order to get that waiver, has to have a risk system in place. we have experience with this where i come from. we had a risk pool. maine had great experiences. they had risk-sharing. so, a state has to have a risk system in place, and that risk system is specifically designed to make sure that people with a
catastrophic illness, somebody who has a pre-existing condition, also gets access to affordable health care. and what we have learned through experience is if we target resources at the state level and at the federal level to help make sure that we subsidize catastrophic illnesses, what you end up doing is you lower the premiums for everybody else. we think that's so much smarter. what obamacare tried to do is force younger, healthier people to pay way more for their health insurance than they otherwise would have paid, and that would cross-subsidize everybody else. guess what, it didn't happen. it didn't work. they're not buying the health insurance. and as a result, the health insurers are collapsing. blue cross blue shield's pulling out of missouri and kansas, aetna's pulling out nationwide. iowa has no plans left. there's nothing left in iowa because obamacare collapsed, and it is collapsing. and so, what we're saying is, let's just be smart about this.
what do we want? what do we all want? we want everybody who doesn't get health care from either medicare or medicaid or from their job -- that's about 11% of americans -- we want them, too, to get access to affordable health care, and we think the smart way to do this is don't force young families to overpay for their health insurance, because we're finding out they're not. they won't just buy it. let's let people buy insurance that's priced competitively, give people more choice, have more competition. let states be innovative, like my own state was before obamacare, and then let's direct support directly to the people with catastrophic illnesses. let's subsidize those who have severe illnesses othey get affordable, comprehensive coverage. they don't go bankrupt if they get sick. and by doing that, we free up the marketplace for everybody else so that they can get even lower premiums. that's what the waiver's all about, giving states the flexibility to do this. and that's why i'm comforted by the cbo report, which shows,
yeah, we'll lower premiums. we've got two problems to solve here. we've got to get premiums down and we have to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage. . yeah. >> mr. speaker -- [ inaudible question ] >> i just explained. i just answered the question. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday the treasury secretary called for a clean debt ceiling increase by august. the house freedom caucus rejected the idea of a clean debt ceiling increase but also wants something done by august, paired with policy shifts, to address the deficit. where do you stand on this issue? >> we were talking with our members on this. every treasury secretary says this and every treasury secretary needs to say this. so, i expect nothing less from a treasury secretary. they all should say that. they all do say that. and we're going to be talking with our members and with the administration on how we resolve the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling issue will get resolved. the timing is what i think is the newsworthy thing here. receipts aren't quite what people thought they were, and that's why secretary mnuchin is moving the timetable up, so
we're looking at that new timetable. >> last question. >> mr. speaker, just to follow up quickly, nice to see you. >> hi, nice to see you. >> i don't hang out in here very often. on the cbo specifically, the language they use with premiums, it says "despite the additional funding", those sicker americans would face extremely high premiums. how do you assure them they won't be priced out and it won't become unaffordable? >> here's what the cbo report i don't think fully gets or states, is that states put their own part of this as well. this is what this analysis i think forgets, which is, we are for the first time ever proposing to put billions of dollars from the federal government for risk systems in states, whether it's a risk pool, a reinsurance mechanism or risk-sharing. now, what's important to note is states do their own part of this as well. so, in wisconsin, for instance, we had an assessment on all the health insurance plans. we had an agreement among providers that we would -- they would have a certain fee
schedule that they agreed to. i think maine had an assessment on all their health insurance plans. the point i'm trying to make is you don't look at the risk share or risk pool idea federal alone. remember, the states will also do some of the lifting. the states, like in my state, we'll have an assessment on plans, if they choose to do that. they'll have an agreement with providers. and so, we will have federal resources and state resources, which taken together will improve the situation. we had a very successful risk pool in wisconsin. our insurance commissioner, deputy insurance commissioner, came up and testified as much. it was very successful, and it didn't have a dime of federal spending. it had no federal money whatsoever. so, what we're saying is let's do even more of that. let's have these states put together their own risk systems like they had successfully in the past and let's on top of that add federal financing so that it's even better. that's the point we're trying to make. >> to be very clear about this, you're saying the states will be able to afford to do enough so that the cbo's projection of extremely high premiums --
>> yeah, that's the whole purpose of a risk pool. take a look at the maine model. take a look at the wisconsin model. look at what utah did. look at what all these other states did. you have to give the states the ability to customize solutions in their areas. the health insurance system provider network insurance system in wisconsin's a whole lot different than it is in new york, let alone new mexico, texas, and california, or maine. give these states the ability to customize, support, and now for the first time ever we're going it add federal dollars to this, because we just think it's a lot smarter to directly subsidize the care for people with catastrophic illnesses. 1% of the people in the individual market drive 23% of the cost. that's just 1%. so, let's just as a society agree, at the state level and at the federal level, we're going to cover those costs, those extra costs. we're going to put resources in there. because if we do that, we do two things -- peace of mind for people with pre-existing conditions and catastrophic illnesses, innovation at the state level so that it can be done the right way so it works
in that state, and you lower premiums for everybody else because the insurance does not have to cover that catastrophic illness. it can cover the basic health insurance needs, and you stabilize those insurance markets, which by the way, look at what we're looking at right now. not only is this an unstable individual insurance market, we have a collapsing individual insurance market, and that is why this is a rescue mission. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. >> all right, speaker ryan there wrapping up his weekly press conference covering many things -- health care, a new price tag out on the house republican bill that was passed a couple of weeks ago, and also this was a press conference dominated by something that we saw happen yesterday ahead of today's special election in montana, the alleged body slamming of a reporter by the republican candidate there in montana, greg gianforte. i want to talk about this now with jason miller, cnn political commentator and former senior communications director for president trump's transition team. also with us, brian fallon, cnn
political commentator and former press secretary for hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and jackie kucinich, cnn political analyst and washington bureau chief for "the daily beast." next time i'm just saying your names, assume people know who you are, on the right, on the left, okay. so, paul ryan gets a question right out of the gate. he says there's never a time for a physical altercation with the press or really with anyone, he says. and he also said that greg gianforte should apologize, but he said, jackie, let the people of montana decide. >> you know, i -- >> if he's elected. >> well, if he's elected. then he'll be paul ryan's problem. but at its core, that's actually more forceful than you've seen some other republicans come out. i mean, the senator, steve daines, from montana, basically said, wow, that sounds bad. look over there. and then you had steve signers, who is the chair of the nrcc, just come out and say, wow, that seems out of character, everybody makes mistakes.
so, the fact that paul ryan called for an apology is a step further than a lot of other politicians, but at the end of the day, this isn't okay. this isn't something that is acceptable. and more republican leaders should come out and say such. >> it is bizarre and extreme, to say the least. you've heard the audio, brian, i'm assuming, where you just see this accelerates so quickly from what seems to be a normal question that a candidate would get, and then there's just this huge physical altercation. >> and the reality, brianna, is it's happening too late in the election cycle for us to know the true impact even after we know the outcome of this at-large race out in montana. so, if quist wins, it's impossible to say it's only because of this. >> the democrat. >> yes, and if gianforte pulls it off, we'll new know if the public had a chance to fully absorb it because it happened so late. so you have to put politics aside and say certain things are unacceptable and go above politics. jackie is right, the speaker went farther than any other
republican last night or this morning, but that doesn't make it laudible. he failed short with failing to withdraw support. you haven't seen any of the republican committees withdrawing their advertising. basically in condemning the behavior, he did the bare minimum, but the subtext was he's still our guy and if he can pull this off, we're happy to welcome him to our caucus, which is a bad message to send. >> democrats see opportunity in this. let's listen to what nancy pelosi, democratic leader in the house, said about this. >> and to see this person who wants to be the one representative into the house of representatives from montana be sort of a wanna be trump. you know, use language like that, treat people harshly like that. that's his model. donald trump's his model. and we've really got to say, come on, behave. behave. that was outrageous. >> so, she is tying this guy to trump and to republicans. is that going to be a problem when you're looking at a race that really should have gone for
the republicans? the democrat actually has a shot, and it's because of the anti-trump fervor that some people in montana are seeing, or feeling, jason miller. >> well, you're right in saying this is completely inexcusable. and to be clear, this candidate never should have body slammed a reporter. i mean, anyone who knows ben jacobs knows that he's, what, probably 150 pounds and he's not an aggressive reporter that would get up in your face. but even if he had gotten in his face and shoved the recorder, you have to be ready for prime time, and i think that's what this candidate shows us, is that he's not ready for the bright lights of the big stage. now, going to what former speaker pelosi had to say, as we talk about her lack of political instincts, for her to jump into this and inject herself and try to pull in the president -- i mean, if i'm that candidate in montana, i'm sending out the fund-raising appeal already saying here comes san francisco's nancy pelosi attacking me with her democratic values. why she would stick her nose in this and have outrageous
comments, it shows her complete misunderstanding of how voters in montana think about things. >> i want to ask you about a "washington post" report. i know you'll, brian, have an opinion about this. basically what it says is in the middle of the 2016 presidential election, the fbi got what they taught was a russian intelligence document, but then . now it's really questionable because the people who appeared to have been communicating in it don't really know each other, haven't contacted each other before, but in short the document said that loretta lynch, then the a.g. was giving assurances to the clinton campaign, don't worry -- we're told by this report that jim comey, the fbi director, was spurred by this very document when he came out in july and had that unprecedented press conference even though he said hillary clinton wasn't going to be charged, he said he was reckless. what's your reaction to this as a formary clinton campaign staff
sn er? >> i'd like to not react to it. this should not be cause to revisit the election. as a matter of going forward, in terms of how seriously we take the issue of russia's attempts to meddle in democratic election, this should be troubling to everybody. so we knew previously that the russians were putting out propaganda and misinformation on facebook and it was very arguable about whether it actually had an impact on voter behavior, whether anybody made the decision based on a bog us story they saw on facebook. this is now a motor vehicle and gun piece of evidence that the fbi's actual prop actions were guided by misinformation that was put out there by the russians. that should be troubling to everybody. it's reason to take this seriously going forward. >> it seems just nuts, jason, because in this article they say that the chair of the dnc, according to this potentially fake document, it seems
increasingly likely it is fake, sent an e-mail to an official with the open society foundations and there was reference to a campaign staffer that she had gotten some private communication from the a.g. all of these people say what? i don't even know that person. i didn't talk to that person. what are you talking about? and it's very convincing in the way that has been reported out very well. what do you say to that? >> well, i think -- >> should we be upset by this? >> there are a number of things going on. first this reminds me of much of the democratic criticism of the previous fbi director this past year when they wanted to see a change. which again we've been really surprised that so many people now have flipped and gone the opposite direction. there's an interesting point that former director brennan made in his testimony on the hill where he said that the russians had been trying to get involved with american elections and elections around the globe for decades. and i think that's very
problematic. i think as this continues to go forward, i think one of the things we have to do is really pay attention to what's real and what's not real. we have to be cautious of stories that are coming up that are alleging things. >> you be cautious of this story? >> i would say just -- >> reporter: you doubtful of this story? >> i would say i haven't seen the details, but i would say the broot broader issue as we talk about the leaks, that was left year when we talked about some e-mail or what's going on now. we need to get the facts before we rush out and report them. >> this is something that was asked about in an open hearing with director comey. so this is information that's good to have out there. but i don't think we should retreat to our corners and act like every revelation like this is a reason to relitigate the election. like i said, i think this should be troubling to all of us. not because it calls into question the outcome of the election. donald trump won. just because the idea that the
russians were able to successfully fen tra successfully penetrate the thinking of fbi director. >> jackie, go back to july and not relitigating the election, just the idea of this being duped, right? go back to july. listening to this press conference, everyone thought this is really extraordinary that director comey is saying this considering there aren't any charges, that he's getting out there, he's getting public saying hillary clinton was reckless with her e-mails. he appeared to be according to many, many sources motivated by this document. if you look back into july with that lens, knowing that was going on, we didn't know it at the time, what do you think? >> it just -- it -- as brian said t just shows how important these investigations are and how seriously this should be taken which is why the white house should -- i mean, the fact that there is still some hemming and hawing about how much russia was involved when it comes to the president, this should be taken
seriously. everyone should take it seriously. because this is about meddling in the united states election. it's not about donald trump. >> jason, your point is that we should be cautious about believing this report, not that we should be concerned about a russian document that may have fooled the fbi director of the united states of america? >> i think we should be cautious about all information that's coming forward. again, i was with director comey. none of us were when this information was presented to him. but this really goes to the point that you have to investigate and find out and make sure the information is being put in front of you is accurate. whether it's that type of situation or whether if you're reporting one of the major dailies here in town and the information supposedly is getting leaked to you, you need to find out and make sure it's accurate before you rush to make important decisions based on it. >> jason, brian, jackie, thank you to all of you. stick around, because we have a lot more to talk about including sources saying that president trump's press secretary is fuming. you can kind of understand this one after being left out of the
and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. tand, our adulte children are here. so, we save by using tide. which means we use less. three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. those are moms. anybody seen my pants? nothing cleans better. put those on dad! it's got to be tide. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®