tv CNN Newsroom With John Berman and Poppy Harlow CNN July 5, 2017 6:00am-7:01am PDT
they came together. 27 grand. >> that's how much a wheelchair costs? >> to get the up withes that have -- expensive, no question, but this was an advanced wheelchair, obviously. but still, really expensive, they came together and made it happen for chris. >> a great story. great "good stuff." thank you very much. time for "cnn newsroom" with poppy harlow and john berman. take it away, guys. >> good morning, you guys. have a great day. we have a lot to get to. let's get started. good morning, everyone. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm john berman. president trump in the air with the fate of a nuclear showdown in the balance. the president departed minutes ago for key meetings in europe as his administration scrambles to respond to the first ever test by north korea of an ick k intercontinental ballistic missile. >> shortly before taking off, the president called out china
economic support of north korea writing in a statement, "trade between china and north korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. so much for china working with us. but we had to give it a try." meanti meantime, we are getting in new video of that missile test carried out by north korea where state media reports that kim jong-un described the event as a fourth of july gift to america. let's begin at the white house with suzanne malveaux. good morning, suzanne. >> president trump is on his way to warsaw, poland, a quick stop, about 15 hours or so before he goes to hamburg, germany, for that g-20 summit meeting with world leaders. this morning before he left the white house, reporters shouted questions about north korea and he only responded saying that we are going to do very well. all eyes of course on the trump administration's response here and just how tough they are going to be. the president tweeting this
morning really a dig, if you will, at china's leadership, china's president, because china has a relationship with north korea perhaps the greatest economic leverage instead saying, look, now china and north korea, growing trade as opposed to less trade, that the sanctions potentially are not working, that we've given it a try, suggesting that perhaps there is more that the trump administration is going to do regarding china and china sanctions as well as north korea. at the same time, secretary of state rex tillerson putting out this very strongly worded statement saying global actions required to stop a global threat. all nations should publicly demonstrate to north korea that there are consequences to their pursuit of nuclear weapons. we intend to bring north korea's provocative action before the u.n. security council and enact stronger measures to hold the dprk accountable.
what we are going to see later this afternoon is that emergency meeting with the u.n. security council to see if other allies, other countries will agree and go along with the u.s. for additional punishment. >> the u.s. has its work cut outer it at that u.n. security council meeting. suzanne malveaux, thanks so much. as for north korea, it is celebrating the missile launch this morning, that quote from kim jong-un we told you about, he calls it a, quote, basket of gifts for americans. david mckenzie live in seoul with more. >> reporter: that's right, john and poppy. you had that pretty crude language coming from state media in north korea. let's look at that video of that missile launch. they're calling it a successful launch, that it's an intercontinental ballistic missile, which they say they can put large nuclear warheads on top of and that it could reach
in their words the continental u.s. and so, again, this progression of this missile program is rapidly increasing, at least many the last few months, these multiple tests of missiles, anticipation perhaps that there is a nuclear test coming up in north korea and putting into disarray all diplomatic means it seems are trying to solve the crisis on the korean peninsula. coming into the office this evening, it was striking again to see seoul just going about its business. but really it is yet another indication that kim jong-un believes that he will stop at nothing to develop this power to strike right at the united states. john and poppy? >> david mckenzie in seoul, thank you. in the meantime, the united states and south korea overnight conducting these joint military drills. these are just hours after pentagon officials confirm the missile was in fact a long-range
intercontinental ballistic missile that could be capable in the near future of potentially striking the united states. let's go to the pentagon where barbara starr has more. what's the latest? >> reporter: well, poppy, john, what we knew is that u.s. commanders had recently updated military options for president trump for a rapid response if there was two things happening, either an intercontinental ballistic missile test as we now have seen, or an underground nuclear test that would indicate their nuclear program had taken a significant step forward. so to see this rapid response, this is what the pentagon wanted, to be able to demonstrate very quickly that it had a capability, these u.s. missiles that were fired have a range of about 200 miles, the message they send is that the u.s. can be in south korea, fire across the dmz, into the north, strike north korean targets like infantry, radars, communications node, that sort of thing. i don't think there's anyone
anticipating or looking for any kind of direct confrontation in a military sense with north korea. that's not what the aim of all of this is. it is to send that message. but let's face it, this is kim jong-un. he may have his own ideas, so when we have the pentagon show the world these demonstrations of military force, it's always a bit tricky because you never know how kim may react. >> barbara, talk to me more now about what the united states does say they believe to be an intercontinental ballistic missile. as a military advance, why is this significant for north korea? >> reporter: well, this is exactly what the u.s. for years, but especially the trump administration had said it would not allow north korea to build. no big mystery that they were moving ahead with it anyhow. an intercontinental ballistic missile means it has the range, the ability to fly a distance that could strike potentially the person united states. could that be tomorrow?
probably not. they still have work to do for reliability and guidance on their missile program. but, look, for the last many, many months, they have continued to test, they have continued to make advance after advance. the u.s. intelligence community watching all of this very closely. they have been warning for months that this is the direction north korea's headed. and one of the most interesting things perhaps besides the threat it poses, north korea making advances in being able to hide its program, hide its launches until the very last minute. they moved to mobile launchers, which are hard for u.s. satellites to track, and they've moved to solid fuel missiles. that means when the missile comes out on the launcher it's already to go. you don't have a satellite flying overhead that can watch for days as liquid fuel is pumped into it. so it cuts down on the warning time that the u.s. would have if north korea is planning a
launch, all very worrying to u.s. commanders. >> changes the military equation and the diplomatic equation as well. barbara starr at the pentagon, thank you. all of this makes for a full menu for the president when he arrives at the summit. but there's more. the president also preparing for his first ever meeting with vladimir putin. we should note in the past mr. trump claimed the two had met before. that aside, this morning the kremlin said the russian goal was to establish a working dialogue with the united states. what does that mean? michelle kosinski live at the state department for the expectations of this big meeting friday. >> remember a working dialogue is what was supposed to have been established when secretary of state rex tillerson went to moscow, met with the foreign minister, and met with vladimir putin. that was just a few months ago. but as we all know, that meeting did not go well at all. remember, the press conference afterwards was this testy exchange with the u.s. and
russia disagreeing sharply on syria, on hacking of the u.s. election, on just about everything. so now they're going out to sit down again and this is with president trump so there are lots of variables there, how the personalities match or don't is going to be a big part of it. how they lay the foundation is what the world will be watching for as well as that question, does trump even broach the subject of russian meddling in the election. the white house is not expecting him to bring it up, but they said because it's still an open-ended meeting, there's no specific agenda yet set for those discussions. it could come up during this meeting. it's a formal sitdown bilateral meeting now instead of just a brief pull-aside while they're in germany at the g-20. there will be ample time not only for preparation on each side but to have this
wide-ranging discussion. sol the question mark of course is what comes out of this and if there is some agreement reached, what is each side willing to give up? is the u.s. going to offer russia say giving back those diplomatic compounds that were seized at the end of the obama administration and what will change in russia's behavior if the u.s. does offer up something like that? >> michelle kosinski at the state department, we'll be watching, that meeting coming in just a few days. thank you very much. the range of north korea's test missile could be, will be, a game changer. what options does the united states realistically have on the table right now to deal with north korea? also voters' personal information, the new voter fraud commission from the trump administration facing a lot of pushback, pushback from 44 states to be exact. so now what? >> new york city police officer killed in an ambush. we have new details about this attack and the investigation.
intercontinental ballistic missile, but what exactly are the options available to the trump administration and u.s. allies? >> joining us to discuss retired rear admiral john kirby, former pentagon spokesman, sumi terry, former cia north korea analyst and former white house official, and josh rogan, cnn political analyst and "washington post" columnist. very nice to have you all here. sue, let me begin with you. you met with those from the north korean government and the regime in sweden. the message you say from them was look at libya. look at what happened to gadhafi when he let go of his nuclear arsenal and that is what they are looking at as a reason to hang on so tightly right now. >> that's absolutely right. they said over and over look what happened to gadhafi and iraq. this is the only way for us to survive, it's our final final card.
the only way to have a deterrent. they said they would never give up their nuclear weapons program, never give up their missile program and that discussion is off the table. no more negotiation when it comes to nukes is what they told me. >> admiral, people look at kim jong-un and north korea and say this guy's a mad man, but that's rational position, albeit one extremely controversial and one that causes huge problems for the united states here. and now that they have successfully tested an icbm, what does that change from the diplomatic standpoint now? >> well, look. i mean, the options were never good before this launch. they're certainly no better now. from a diplomatic perspective, i don't know that it changes all that much. it certainly ratchets up the sense of urgency they now have extended reach or potential extended reach. but i think the options continue to be very limited. and really you're going to take military options kind of off the table, a strike is not going to happen, all that will do is cause a war and ratchet tensions
up dramatically. sol what they're going to try to do i think is a continuation of the past, which is to try to exert more international pressure, to try to change the calculus in pyongyang. i do think we need to be prepared for the fact that's going to have a limited effect as well. >> clearly they're trying to do that namely on china. you have the president this morning just a lilt bit ago in a statement saying look, china is not doing enough to help. we tried that, didn't work. and secretary of state tillerson coming out and using very strong language treasury secreta language directed at china, saying it is, quote, aiding and abetting a dangerous regime. the question is does it work? if it hasn't worked up until this point with china, will this extra language do anything or will they be symbolic moves if anything by china? >> what they have now won't push the chinese for more action. when you talk to trump administration officials, they're very clear, they said we want to give china time to do
the right thing with limited pressure and now that time seems to be up. what they're moving now towards is maximum pressure and that means secondary sanctions, diplomatic pressure on china, means risking escalation and risking tension in the broader u.s./china relationship. that's what it's going to take to really test to see if china will do anything. we seem to be moving to that now. that has risks. it's a dangerous road to go down. if you're not willing to do that, they only have one other option, to sit down and negotiate with the north koreans. that's also very like unpalatable option. but you've got to either go big or go home. what's clear is what we're doing now is not working and north koreans continue to advance. >> again, make no mistake, the president has invested personal capital in this. >> a lot. >> xi gyp pipg, talked about north korea, didn't work. josh, you know the u.n. security council meeting today, the emergency meeting that's been called, very important to this administration but also perhaps low expectations, josh.
>> yeah. that's right. this is their last chance to really name and shame china and russia. after an icbm test, if china and russia aren't willing to commit to real sanctions now, they never will be. this is it. so they might as well try as hard as they can to get toughest measures that they can. if it works, great. if it doesn't work, at least the united states will be able to then say, look, we tried, we did everything we could, it's clear now that china and russia won't help us with this problem, we'll have to go with our ally, hopefully japan and south korea on board, and do something different. so this is it. this is the showtown. they're putting a lot of chips on this meeting. what's probably going to happen is exactly qua you said, john, the chinese and the russians will agree to something symbolic but not something really strong, then the u.s. will be in the position to at least say, okay, we exhausted that multilateral diplomatic option, now we have to move to more pressure if that's what they intend to do. >> admiral, to you, how strong is china's counterargument, pointing to the u.s. and say,
look, we told you for a very long time that you should slow down and hold back on though military drills with south korea in exchange for at least a freeze on the north korean nuclear program. you didn't and that is part of what has landed us here. how strong is that argument from china? does it matter? >> it's an incredibly weak argument. china doesn't have unique influence in pyongyang. they've been unwilling to exercise that. they hadn't fully implemented the sanctions that had been put into place. for them to argue a freeze in exercises is what's sort of preconditioned to getting talks going is ludicrous. the whole reason there is exercises, the whole reason we have deterrent capabilities on the peninsula is because the north continues to advance their ballistic missile and nuclear programs. an to draw those back or even take the fat out of the deployment, to pull back on that is simply to encourage the north to continue to advance, not that they need any more encouragement. they obviously haven't slowed down. we certainly wouldn't want to
reward that by limiting our own ability to defend ourselves and our allies. and don't forget, this is a treaty alions we have with the republic of korea. this isn't a casual gentleman's agreement. there's still technically a war on the peninsula that hasn't been fully resolved and we have bona fide commitments with the south koreans that we have to meet. >> six months in, sue mi, what should the trump administration learn from the veiled attempts at the past? the obama administration probably dealing with this, the bush administration tried to deal wit, the clinton administration tried to deal with it and it didn't work. what are the lessons of the past for the trump administration to take going forward? >> i think mr. trump's already learned that even though he set many options on the table, i think he knows by now there are very few good options left or no good option actually when the foal is denuclearizing north korea. josh mentioned about potentially turning to talks. the problem is north koreans are not willing to talk to us, not about the nukes.
so we don't really have a lot of option except to pursue what we've been pursuing and i think that's what he's doing is going after sanctions and now what he probably has learned, more pressure has to be applied so that means secondary sanctions against chinese banks and entities doing business with north korea. the obama administration was a little bit shy about doing that, obviously, because he didn't want to strain further relationships with beijing, but i think it's now time to go full force with secondary sanctions. >> we're seeing signs perhaps on twitter from the president that he's doing that. move beyond 140 characters in the next two days. thanks so much for being with us. some are calling it an invasion of privacy, others a witch-hunt. why the trump white house request for voter information may be getting harder. ♪ you might not ever just stand there,
that's why at comcast we're continuing to make4/7. our services more reliable than ever. like technology that can update itself. an advanced fiber-network infrustructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most.
new this morning, the trump administration facing growing resistance over a request for voter information. 44 states are now pushing back on these requests for information like partial social security number, voting history, birth dates. >> a lot of pushback. this request stems from the trump team's election integrity commission. let's bring in our white house reporter jeremy diamond for more. look, the white house is having to go on the defense on this one and go against a number of republicans secretaries of state. >> that's right. and for this administration and for this commission, some of the criticism has been frankly baffling for them. what they've made clear is that all the information that they've requested even when they've said wealth like to get, you know, last four digits of social security numbers and other information that is often flooift many states they've said only if it's available publicly in your state. so they want states to remain in accordance with their laws and release only information that's public. and yet still we've seen really
a slew of criticism from dozens of states. here's a small sampling. >> i think the purpose of this besides indulging the president's fantasy, is to stop people from voting. >> there's not enough bourbon in kentucky nor enough wine in california to make this request sensible. >> seems to maybe be a fishing expedition or a witch-hunt of some kind. >> but that criticism is not only limited to democrats. we've also seen a number of republicans come out and criticize the commission or push back against some of these data requests. here's the response from the louisiana secretary of state who says, "my response to the commission is you're not going to play politics with louisiana's voter data and if you are then you can purchase the limited public information available by law to any candidate running for office. that's it." so really a lot of this criticism has to do in effect with this commission itself and why it was founded, some of the motivations behind this commission's founding. as you'll recall, of course, it
came about after the president claimed that millions of voters voted illegally in the 2016 election, a claim for which he has provided no evidence and if which there appears to be no evidence to back that claim up. so of course that is in part with what the commission is digging into, but a lot of states expressing concerns not only about the privacy of some of this information but really about the motives that are driving this commission's efforts. >> jeremy diamond at the white house. mississippi, red state, an official said the white house could essentially jump in the gulf of mexico. >> colorful. >> added geographically true information, mississippi is a good place from which to jump into the gulf of mexico. ron brownstein, cnn political analyst, author of a brand-new out just this morning weekly column on cnn.com called "fault lines." shelby holiday, politics and business report for the journal. ron, you say this is built on a
foundation of sand to begin with. what do you mean? >> it's built on this allegation with utterly no proof, in fact, proof in the opposite direction that millions of votes were cast illegally to, you know, swing the popular vote in the 2016 election. there simply is no evidence of large-scale in-person voter fraud of anything like that magnitude. in fact, i remember a couple years ago when pennsylvania passed one of the restricted voting laws, when they went into court, they stipulated they could not identify a single case of in-person voter fraud, you know, as part of their justification. look, access to the ballot box is becoming one of the many issues dividing red and blue states. while we see these tougher voter i.d. laws in a number of the red states, you see blue states like oregon go in the other direction with automatic voter registration or vote by mail in colorado and washington. so this is just another one of the fault lines that are separating the blue and red states and this commission seems like many things in the trump
administration to jump precisely up and down on that fault line. >> the missouri secretary of state was just on "new day" speaking with chris cuomo, defending it saying, look, if there's no problem, we'll find out. if there is a problem, we'll get to the bottom of it. the issue that doesn't address is the amount of resources and taxpayer money it takes to do this and just the investment of time. i find it, shelby, fascinating and i would think many americans would find it confounding that there's a commission set up on this but not a commission set up by the president on the russia hacking of the u.s. election, which all 17 intelligence agencies say happened and is incredibly problematic and will happen again. >> yeah. huge concern here. and we also see that this letter that went out to states asking for information does not really include any mention of russia or the fact that russia tried to hack roughly two dozen voting systems -- two dozen states' voting systems, which is extremely troubling to americans. it does not explain the motives, what it wants to do with this
voter information. one other thing causing alarm is the vice chair for the commission is asking for the information to be sent through an e-mail address creating what is essentially a digital hub for all of this information from all 50 states. that is a clear target for hacking. there are also the privacy concerns. but that's raised a lot of concerns and that's why you hear some secretaries of state say, hey, if you want the publicly available data, you come to us and do it through our channels. we're not going through the federal government. and that -- hacking against the backdrop of russian hacking, that is probably the most troubling thing far lot of people. >> some people might find it ironic the president in two days will meet with russian president vladimir putin and a of now the russian hacking not only the agenda. you know, when you're meeting with the leader of russia, why bring up russian hacking? that aside, what do you think the white house wants to get out of this meeting? we've heard what the russians want out of it. >> this will be one of if not
the most significant and important meetings for president trump of his presidency so far on syria, on north korea, and what efforts russia could do to help pressure north korea potentially on this election interference if they do decide to bring that up. and also on russia's expansionary tendencies that we saw in crimea, which continue to be a threat. there is an enormous amount at stake here for the u.s. putin is trained in manipulation. he has years of diplomatic experience. he's been through a number of u.s. presidents now. president trump is new to the international stage. this will be unlike a foe he has seen before. and, you know, diplomatic community says if he doesn't come out strong it will be a sign of weakness and it will open the door for russia to feel they can continue to meddle not just in the u.s. elections but in creating disruption in other areas of the u.s.
the electric grid, the financial markets. there is a big threat from russia to the u.s. that, you know, sl the opportunity to sort of nip it in the bud right off the start of this administration. >> ron brownstein, help us understand why it is beneficial to the trump administration not to press on russia hacking. of course he has to focus on ukraine and syria, but this is not just a pull-aside. they can talk about more than just those two key issues. namely, won't it hurt him here at home, won't he be lambasted if he doesn't focus on russia's hacking of the u.s. election? and putin from all we know respects strength. >> from the beginning, you know, candidate and then president trump has conflated the question of whether his victory is tainted with the underlying issue of russian meddling and threat not only to our democracy
but to our other systems as we've been talking about. and the administration has seemingly felt from the beginning that any action designed to deal with the underlying national security threat in some way validates the criticism that russia tilted the needle in hi direction. you know, we saw the incredible testimony from the attorney general that he has never had a briefing on the russian hacking. and so they i think have kind of to downplayed this clear and present danger that russia felt that coming out of this election there's no reason for russia not to have felt that what they did was successful in at least inducing chaos in the american political system. as chris cuoomb james comey sai testimony, we know they will be back. there's no justification for failing to raise the issue except for they seem to feel validating it in any way also validates the criticism of russia's role in their victory. >> shelby, did the white house
raise the mistakes by agreeing to make this a full bilateral meeting instead of a pull-aside? seems like the expectations just got a whole lot higher. >> the message is what does president trump have to gain and what does vladimir putin have to gain. putin has more to gain. the economy is not in great shape, the russian ruble has struggled with low oil prices, he wants sanctions lifted, wants his wealthy russian buddies to be able to move money around the world again. and putin is a political showman. he has a lot to gain just from showing up and exercising his strength as he did with the megyn kelly interview. what does trump have to gain? diplomatically we have a lot to work on with russia but we need to get to the bottom of the election hacking and if that is ignored trump will look weak. >> shannon, when you look sort of big picture at all of this, it is also about how the white house is going to spin this meeting and how much we are actually going to learn. we learned more now because it's
not just a pull-aside, but how straight of a story do you think voters will actually get? >> i think that's -- i'm very fascinated to see what they say comes out of this meeting and what the russians say. it's not unusual for the foreign country to come out with their read-out and rundown of a meeting before the u.s. sort of giving other countries an upper hand saying this is what happened, this is what we discussed about before the white house as they were able to get their side of the story out. i know the white house is going to want to portray image of strength, to portray an image of a president going in as a deal maker, building relationships, doing negotiations, you know, putting america first, but the russians are going to have an opportunity to get their side of the story out too and they will probably have a very different version of events than the one the white house is going to want to portray. >> check out the handshake, check out the body language. remember president obama's bo di language with vladimir putin like the two kids sitting at the
back of the class, ignoring the teacher, petulant? see if that happens this time. ? and check out ron proun steen's new column "fault lines," fantastic. thank you all very much. ahead for us, very sad story. an nypd police officer just died this morning. she was ambushed in her patrol car. the frantic distress call, the latest on the investigation is next. here you go little guy.
pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. . a new york city police officer is dead this morning. she was shot and killed inside of her patrol car. >> the police commissioner calls this an assassination. :k cnn's brinn gingras joins us. awful story. >> exactly. assassination because they don't know what provoked this. that officer's name is miosotis familia. she was a 12-year veteran of the nypd, a mother of three, and just 48 years old. that officer was sitting in a mobile command unit, one of the
nypd's large vehicles, in an area of the bronx which has seen a number of gang-related incidents. according to police, this again was an unprovoked attack. the 34-year-old suspect, alexander bans, walked up to the truck and fired a shot through the window, striking the officer in the head. you can just hear the panic as famil familia's partner called for help. >> just absolutely horrifying. now, we're told by police a separate nypd unit found that suspect about a block away and killed him after he pulled out a gun. police have a picture of the silver revolve that was found at the scene. what we know about bonds is he has a criminal history. we're still looking into it, but we know he was on parole for a
robbery in syracuse, new york. officer miosotis familia died from her injuries this morning in the bronx hospital that she was brought to was filled with other members of the nypd, fdny as well, and they're all in mourning this morning again, for what the police commissioner called on twitter an assassination. >> based on what we know right now, it is clear this was an unprovoked attack on plifs who were assigned to keep p people in this great city safe. >> this all happening on july 4th. another nypd officer. >> mother of three. >> our heart breaks for her family and we're thinking about the officers. republican senator susan collins saying the gop health care bill must change dramatically if she is going to get on board. a central sticking point to this all along has been more funding for the opioid epidemic. next, a former surgeon general of the united states who's
talked a lot about this will join us to weigh in. ♪ ♪oh, my love ♪my darlin' ♪i've hungered for your touch papa, hola! ♪i've hungered for your touch no, no no, no no no! ♪i'll be coming home, wait for me♪ anyone can get you ready, holiday inn express gets you the readiest. because ready gives a pep talk. showtime! but the readiest gives a pep rally. i cleared my inbox! holiday inn express, be the readiest.
all right. this week republican lawmakers getting an earful on their efforts to repeal and replace obamacare. this was the current bill skeptic susan collins when she went home to maine. >> what i've been hearing the entire recess is people telling me to be strong, that they have a lot of concerns about the health care bill in the senate. they want me to keep working on it. but they don't want me to support it in its current form.
i still an a no unless the bill is dramatically changed. >> senators pushing for major increase in funding, for drug treatment and recovery, specifically for the opioid epidemic. senators in states hard hit asking for money to treat the epidemic. joining me now the former attorney general. he worked as nation's first surgeon gentry -- worked on the first gen real report on drugs and treatment. thank you for being here. you write america's addiction crisis is the defining challenge of our time. you go on to talk about some of the costs. you talk about $4.5 billion a year. you are highly critical of both republican plans, the house and the senate plan. but is it just about money? if rob portman and these other senators get more funding, is it
going to fix the problem? because frankly the opioid epidemic has gotten worse under obamacare. >> a couple of things we have to keep in mind. number one, we are a country dealing with addiction crisis. this is something as attorney general i worked on. i worked with families, moms and dads of children and moms with a drug addiction with babies. is it going to help or hurt familying struggling with addiction. my concern is that they will hurt families ultimately that are struggling with addiction. the primary reason is they dramatically reduce coverage in the united states. now, there are efforts afoot to try to put money into a specifu that would support opioid
treatment. one thing is clear. people who struggle with opioid addiction need comprehensive treatment. they often have challenges of anxiety, with depression, with chronic pain, and with other chronic diseases. if they can't get care for those illnesses, we ultimately can't treat their addiction as well. >> there are people who will say this epidemic exploded during the era of obamacare. you know, obama didn't fix it. i know it's a simplistic analysis right there. you say repeal and replace won't fix it. but if obamacare didn't fix it, what will? >> i think we have to look at the premise. number one, obamacare helped in a lot of ways but it didn't solve the problem. what it did do is get many more people access to coverage, but still many more people still need access to coverage. expanded treatment for options by people requiring that people include substance treatment services. the problem that we're having with the current bills being
proposed in congress is they would actually seek to roll back that process. so while obamacare took steps forward, we cannot afford to take more steps back. if we reduce coverage, the states have the option to opt out, including addiction treatment, that will ultimately move us backward that some attorneys general like missouri are suing. the three big phrma companies produce these opioid pills. i think the question becomes if they win or settle, then what, right? if they get a lot of money that goes into the pot, does that do anything? or is that changing the fundamental marketing of these pills, how many pills these doctors are allowed to prescribe? i've about heard numerous dockers prescribe 50 to 100 pills for a rather simple surgery. >> clearly there's no simple solution to the opioid epidemic.
research is a part of it. we need to provide services in the right way. we need to fund intervention programs and we do very little of that. two, treatment in the way of traditional care. >> going after beg phrma is not the answer. >> no. it's important to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable they're not marketing these medications irresponsibly and they're also helping to solve the opioid epidem epidemic. for far too many years they were not engaged. in fact, we know 20 years ago part of problem is pharmaceutical companies were marketing irresponsibly and they were doing so with doctors and patients, and that has to happen. >> you have a documentary "turn the tide." what's that about? >> it was to change the mind about the opioid epidemic and
change the treatment, those that need it. >> dr. murthy, thank you for being here. there's a real opportunity for people to come together to doing. >> there is. the history of addiction in the last ten years has been a bipartisan history. my concern is with the current bill, it tends to take us in a partisan direction. and the bottom line is this. if we want people to be healthy in america, we have to make sure everyone has coverage. that's just a fundamental reality. and every health reform proposal is looking through that lens. is it helping with coverage? if not, it's hurting the american people. >> thank you, doctor. i'm glad you're focusing on the topic. a lot of people are right now. president trump is in the air right now flying to huge meetings at a crucial time, this as north korea is testing an intercontinental nuclear
-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com we do have breaking news. the pentagon just released new information on the intercontinental ballistic missile by north korea. it has seen something it has never seen before. >> let's get straight to barbara starr. good morning. >> good morning. these are u.n. officials speaking exclusively to cnn who are telling us at this hour, the assess mnlts is that the north koreans fired a two-stage missile that has