CNN "State Of The Union With John King" - Transcript

Interview

CNN "State Of The Union With John King" - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Beautiful shot of the Capitol. Look at that blue sky on a Sunday here in Washington, mid-September. Joining us now, three members who work in that building, three members of the United States Senate, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Susan Collins of Maine, and Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California.

Welcome. Let's start with the health care debate.

And I'll start with you as the Republican at the table. The president gives a big speech. One of the goals is to bring Republicans on board. More likely or less likely after that speech to join the Democrats?

COLLINS: Well, I don't know that the speech really changed the dynamic, but I was glad that the president has followed up with some individual meetings and bringing people together.

I believe all of us want to see a bipartisan bill. That, obviously, would be the best approach. But what's in the bill will determine whether...

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: ... it has bipartisan support.

KING: You have said, Senator Collins, you don't want a public option.

COLLINS: That's right.

KING: What about a trigger? Would that be acceptable, if you have, maybe, co-ops and you see if competition takes place, but there's a trigger in there; if two or three years down the road, that hasn't happened, then the public option kicks in. Is the trigger acceptable?

COLLINS: No. The problem with the trigger is it just delays the public option. Because the people who are going to be making the determination about whether the market's competitive enough want the public option. So I think the trigger is just a delay.

KING: Senator Shaheen, you were in the meeting with the president the other day, and this issue came up. You were a supporter of the public option. Did you tell the president, sir, we can't get it; it's time to move on, or do you want to fight for it?

SHAHEEN: I am a supporter of the public option. I think that's a reasonable way to go. But I think it's important to stay focused on what we're trying to accomplish. And the president pointed this out in his speech.

We want to get competition in the health insurance market. We want to make sure that people who can't afford health insurance are going to have an affordable option that they can use. We want to improve health outcomes for people. And we want to, long-term, lower the cost of health care.

So I think keeping our eye on what we're trying to accomplish, what our goals are, are what we need to do. There are a number of ways to get there, and we need to -- to keep focused on the goal.

KING: If we keep focused on the goal, though, Senator Feinstein -- you have been here before, and reporting when you go home, people are worried about how much this is going to cost. The president says $900 billion. He promises it won't add a dime to the deficit. He says he can squeeze from Medicare and Medicaid most of the money he needs.

Does the math add up to you?

Have you seen enough details to convince you, yes, I can sign on to that math?

FEINSTEIN: Well, for the first time, yesterday, I met with Finance Committee staff and White House staff, and for the first time, did see some of these details. And, yes, I believe it is possible to put together a bill which does not adversely impact the deficit and may -- I say, may -- even reduce it over time. Important to me is, one, that you have insurance reform, major insurance reform. And that's not easy to accomplish, but it can be; secondly, that you have the individual mandate in a way that it does not create another entitlement; thirdly, that you don't just simply push the costs on to the states. I have a huge state, unable to bear more cost.

And if you can do these things, I think we've got a very good chance to put together a bill. The key to the public option and the reason people want the public option is to keep costs down. There is more than one way to skin that cat.

And I think the Finance Committee is aware of it. And, for example, an idea that's been put forward is to have, instead of the walls around every state with respect to purchasing pools, extend those purchasing pools nationally, have federal standards and regulations that must be followed.

I think the health insurance industry, the nine big, public companies do not have antitrust. Only baseball and health insurance is outside of antitrust. And they don't have a strong moral compass. And so they've made huge profits, and premiums have doubled in the last eight years.

So I think how you reform that industry is key to the bill. And for the first time now, I believe that ideas are floating which can enable a very prudent bill to be on the floor of the Senate.

KING: Well, Senator Shaheen, let me come back to you. Senator Collins says she can't support even a trigger.

So does the president have to make a decision? If a moderate Republican voice like Senator Collins, who is known to try to deal with Democrats, who voted for the stimulus -- if she can't support a trigger, does the president -- has two choices, one, give it up, or two, do this with all Democrats. What should he do?

SHAHEEN: Well, first of all, I think that we're going to have a bill that has significant bipartisan input, regardless of how the votes come out.

The bill that came out of the health committee in the Senate had 167 Republican-sponsored amendments that were adopted. So there has been significant Republican input already into the legislation.

And, you know, I think -- I think we can do what Senator Collins would like to see us do, what others in the Senate have said they would like to see, with a bipartisan bill.

We can lower costs. We can improve health outcomes. Senator Collins and I have legislation that I think is going to get incorporated into the Finance Committee bill that would lower Medicare costs for people who are hospitalized. We know that a number of them go back into the hospital within 90 days. We can reduce that number. We can save $5,000 per Medicare patient. We can make them healthier. And those are the kinds of improvements we want to get into any health care bill.

KING: I want to get up for a second and walk over to the wall here. Because, as we discussed the substance of the health care debate, I want to show you something that I found stunning about the politics of the health care debate. And I'm going to pop this graph up here.

This is our latest polling; "Approve or disapprove of the president's handling of health care policy?" And the number that jumps out at me is this one right here.

Senator Collins and Senator Shaheen especially; Senator Feinstein from California are from states with a great number of independents in them, in some cases, more than Democrats and Republicans.

Sixty-one percent of independents -- 61 percent -- now disapprove, Senator Collins, of the president's handling of the health care issue. Your state has more independents than it does Democrats or Republicans.

KING: How did the president lose all those Independents?

COLLINS: Because he did not initially focus on cost. That is the number one concern, as I talk to my constituents. They're concerned that we may be creating an expensive new entitlement program. They're worried about the amount of debt that we already have accumulated. They're worried about the expansion of government's role in the financial system and the automobile industry and now in health care. They're very concerned that we're not dealing with the number one issue. And that is the escalating cost of health care. Jeanne Shaheen just mentioned the bill that we joined on together. There are a lot of bills like that that could save billions of dollars in health care costs while improving quality. That should be our focus. We should focus on delivery reform.

KING: If that's the case, Senator Feinstein, and there's a credibility question out there with the American people, can we afford this, post-Katrina America, a lot of people just think the government can't do anything big and get it right, should the president do this incrementally? Maybe take this legislation, take other legislation, prove that you're bringing down costs and do this in pieces, or do you have to do it in one, big sweeping bill?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I tend to be an incrementalist when I look at huge programs. It's very difficult to remake one sixth of the American economy at a time of tremendous economic angst out there. So I think that's part of it.

KING: Why doesn't the president disagree with you?

FEINSTEIN: Well, but I think the way -- now, I'm talking about the Finance Committee bill because I actually think that's the bill that is going to matter greatly in the Senate. And they have Medicaid and Medicare jurisdiction. Medicare begins to run out of dollars in eight years. So the entitlement issue that Susan mentioned is really a very important one. And I won't vote for a bill that creates a new entitlement. And we pay, this year, over one-half of all the dollars go just to entitlement -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' benefits. And they are going up.

If you add interest on the debt, you come up to about 56 percent of every dollar is spent that way. This, long-term, is a very, very unsustainable system. So we've got to make these reforms. So the key is that cost curve. Not that it goes like this, but that it continues to go like that, in the out years. And that will be the test of the bill that the Finance Committee puts forward. And I think Susan is absolutely correct that the cost is a big factor for people, insurance reform is a big factor, and, you know, eliminating the prohibition on precondition -- pre-existing conditions, having a sound, competitive system, bringing down the price of premiums. I talked to somebody who just got a 20 percent increase in their premium. They can't sustain those kinds of increases. It must be changed.

KING: Much more to discuss including the global challenges facing the Obama administration. One of them, whether to send more U.S. troops into Afghanistan. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with three influential United States senators, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and with me here in Washington, Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California.

I want to move to overseas issues facing the president. One of the biggest challenges is whether to send more troops into Afghanistan. We saw five Americans killed just this weekend. The death toll has been going up. Among the leading Democratic voices on foreign policy is Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who says before he will agree or support sending in anymore troops, he wants the president of the United States to do a better job getting the Afghans up to speed. Let's listen to Senator Levin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: We should increase and accelerate our efforts to support the Afghan security forces in their efforts to become self-sufficient, delivering security to their nation before we consider whether to increase U.S. combat forces above the levels already planned for the next few months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Senator Collins, you were there recently. You have been at the Pentagon to be briefed on the plan. My understanding is you've also had a conversation with Secretary Clinton recently about this issue. Is Senator Levin right? Do we need to do more to train the Afghans before sending another U.S. boot on the ground?

COLLINS: Well, he's certainly right that we need to increase the size of the Afghan army. When I was in Afghanistan, I was appalled that one of the most dangerous sections in southern Afghanistan, we had 10,000 American marines and only 800 Afghan troops. That's just not right.

So he's right that we need to build up the Afghan army, but I'm going to await the recommendations from General McChrystal, in whom I have a lot of confidence before making a decision on troops. I will tell you, having spent two days there just last month, that I just don't know that more troops is the answer. We clearly need more American civilians to help build up institutions. We need to grow the size of the Afghan army, but we're dealing with widespread corruption, a very difficult terrain, and I'm just wondering where this ends and how we'll know when we've succeeded.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

FEINSTEIN: I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

So there's the mission and the time. And from an intelligence point of view, I think gains have been made. I think the use of drones have been effective, in terms of targeting leadership with careful intelligence. I think that's been one of the unsung successes.

KING: Senator Shaheen, you sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. What is the dilemma facing the United States?

The president has to debate whether to send in more troops. Senator Levin says spend more time training the Afghans. There are a lot of people who believe the president of Afghanistan was complicit in major fraud in the recent election -- if not him directly, people who work for him and who are aligned with him.

Should the United States be sending more young men and women into a risky situation and possible death and injury, when we question the legitimacy of the government?

SHAHEEN: Well, I think we have to listen to what Senator Feinstein said, and I agree with her. We have to remember why we're there. And September 11, this week, should be a reminder of that.

We went into Afghanistan to try and go after Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. And, unfortunately, they're still there. This effort was under-resourced over the last eight years.

And I think now we need to -- to give a chance to assess General McChrystal's report, see what he's going to recommend. I think we need to get the measurements that Congress has mandated from the White House on how we're going to determine progress in Afghanistan.

And on the elections, we have an independent election commission; we have an electoral complaint commission over in Afghanistan. They're investigating each complaint. We need to let that process proceed and see what the outcome of that is and, I think, really assess what we're doing there and move carefully.

I think it's too soon -- while I appreciate Senator Levin's concerns and think they're very real, I think it's too soon to be able to make that determination. We need to assess these reports.

You know, I was in Afghanistan at the end of May. And the trainers that I talked to were optimistic about the potential of the Afghan fighting force. They said, this is a fighting force that's willing to fight the Taliban. The people of Afghanistan don't like the Taliban, and we need to help give them the resources and the training to do that.

KING: I want to close -- Senator Collins, you're the ranking member, Republican member, on the Homeland Security Committee.

There was an incident the other day and there were some questions about how the media handled it. And we're going to deal with those in the next hour of this program in "Reliable Sources." But eight years after 9/11, the Coast Guard was conducting an exercise on the Potomac River when the president was at the Pentagon and about to pass over the very bridge under which those boats were operating. The Secret Service had no idea what was going on there.

COLLINS: Well, the Coast Guard's doing exercises every day. It's not really practical for the Coast Guard to notify all the agencies that might be interested every single day when it's doing routine exercises.

Now, in retrospect, given what was going on, given the anniversary of the attacks on our country, the timing can be questioned. But I think it's important to know that, every single day, our Coast Guard, to protect us, is out there doing these routine exercises.

KING: So you're not worried, eight years later, we still have these communication breakdowns that limited the response on 9/11?

COLLINS: We do have communication breakdowns, although there's been tremendous improvements, but I don't think this was one of them.

KING: All right. Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein, Senator Shaheen, you're all welcome back anytime, right here, as the health care and other debates go forward. And we -- thanks for coming in today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source