Return to Transcripts main page

@THISHOUR WITH BERMAN AND MICHAELA

Steve Israel Talks Iran Nuclear Talks; Arkansas Governor Speech on Religious Freedom Bill; Lufthansa Admits They Knew of Co-Pilot's Depression. Aired 11:30-12p ET

Aired April 1, 2015 - 11:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:36] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We're back again with Congressman Steve Israel, Democrat from New York.

Just a minute ago, Congressman, you told us that you basically run out of patience for the Iran nuclear discussions. It's past time for a deal. If no agreement is announced today, will you vote or move to push for more sanctions in the coming weeks?

REP. STEVE ISRAEL, (D) NEW YORK: Yes, because sanctions have worked. Sanctions have been so effective that they are exactly what brought the Iranians to the bargaining table. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that when you're in a position of strength you begin to throttle back. If there is no deal, I think that we should increase sanctions. They've been working up to now. They will work in the future. Then maybe we can get better terms on the deal.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Real quick, Congressman, before we let you go. What's the definition of a deal? They might come out with a general statement today. Does that -- does a general statement without specifics sound like a deal to you?

ISRAEL: No. As far as I'm concerned, we don't have a deal until we have the details. A framework is not the details.

BOLDUAN: Congressman Steve Israel, thank you very much. It's always great to have you on.

ISRAEL: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: A very important conversation. Heads back to Capitol Hill as soon as we hear what's going on.

BERMAN: We're not going to get the details today even if they announce something. Not likely to be the details. Interesting to have a Democrat say there's no deal in his mind.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely right, John.

Congressman, thank you so much.

Also this. At any moment now, we're expecting to hear from the governor of Arkansas. Asa Hutchinson who will decide, we're expecting him to announce if he's going to sign on to a religious freedom bill in his state. If he signs on, Arkansas will join 20 other states who have taken on this measure. Most importantly, this week, we know Indiana, the governor of Indiana signed a similar bill into law and we've all seen the backlash and the outrage that ensued following that.

BERMAN: CNN's Victor Blackwell on the ground in Little Rock where Governor Hutchinson about to make news one way or the other. Also joining us political analyst, Gloria Borger.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): John, Kate, good morning. In a couple of minutes we're going to hear from the governor of the state, Asa Hutchinson, on his decision on signing this bill. During the time the legislature was considering this, he said he was going to sign it. I spoke with his office. They said also he's going to sign it. Inside the room, we have the cameras, you can see, with members of the media, members of legislature, both parties here, I can see a couple steps away, the minority leader of the House. Right outside the door of governor's reception room are protesters, some with signs who say the bill would not as the governor say and the sponsor protect the religious liberties but be a thin veil to discriminate against the LGBT community in this state. They have said this would also cause economic issues for the state. We've heard from Walmart, the CEO saying it undermines the spirit of inclusion across the state. The mayor of Little Rock says it's divisive that some have more protection than others. The Little Rock nine who integrated says it's dangerous and derogatory. We're expecting the governor to take a few questions to explain his view on this bill. Again, his office said he will sign this bill 1228 -- John, Kate?

BOLDUAN: Victor, stand by for us.

Victor's in the room. We'll keep our eye there.

Let's bring in chief political analyst, Gloria Borger.

Gloria, we discussed this yesterday. Are the political dynamics in Arkansas any different from what we're seeing in Indiana?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, I think in many ways what Republicans are dealing with is their successes in state legislatures during the Obama years. Now you see Republican presidential contenders, what are happening in state legislatures that are dominated by Republicans across country. This puts them in somewhat of a bind as we saw yesterday with Mike Pence and Republican presidential candidates supporting Mike Pence. But on the other hand, the Republican Party wants to be open tent to a degree, a la Ronald Reagan. They've got a lot of conservatives in state legislatures across the country who are going to do what they want and put them on the spot very early in this campaign before most of them have declared their candidacies.

BERMAN: What's interesting to me is the relation with the business community and the states. In Indiana, you had Angie's List stopping projects and pulling money out of Indianapolis.

BOLDUAN: Eli Lily, a huge employer in that state.

BORGER: In Arkansas, Walmart, right?

(CROSSTALK)

[11:35:32] BERMAN: Let me read the statement from Arkansas, from Walmart in Arkansas. They said, "The passage of HB 1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we uphold. For these reasons, we're asking the governor to veto the legislation."

Clearly, they disapprove of the legislation. The question in Arkansas, and I don't believe we've seen it yet, will businesses start to act with their money? Will they pull money out and stop giving business to that state?

BORGER: I think if you look at Indiana, you look at the issues occurring there, simultaneously, I think you have to take a look at Arkansas and say that you would conclude that the same thing would start to happen in Arkansas. Again, you know, these are the conflicts you see inside the Republican party, the establishment, chamber of commerce, if you will, wing of the Republican party, pro-business and conservative, evangelicals in the party who believe that their religious freedom is threatened who do not support gay marriage, for example. And I think that this is going to continue to play out over and over again. And what's so interesting to me, as you look at the Republican party versus the public as a whole, you'll see there are a couple of -- there are a couple of polls that have just been done, there's a new survey by the "Wall Street Journal" showing that 59 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. You know, that's a large, high number. It's a lower number among Republicans. It's only about 40 percent among Republicans. But here's what's interesting. Here's what's going on in the Republican Party. When you do a demographically, 60 percent of young Republicans support gay marriage. So this is a party that's changing and the demographics, as the demographics of the party changes, it's going to be interesting to watch to see what happens to the religious light in this party.

BERMAN: All right. Gloria, stand by here.

We're looking at the podium where we're going to hear from Governor Asa Hutchinson with regard to what he's going to do with the bill passed or the law passed in Arkansas. We know what happened in Indiana. Yesterday, the governor there, Mike Pence, came out and said they're going to fix the bill there, the Religious Freedom Act, to make clear to people that it does not allow --

(CROSSTALK)

BOLDUAN: John, the governor is --

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: There's the governor.

ASA HUTCHINSON, (R), GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS: Good morning. I wanted to invite Speaker Gillam and president dismay to join me if they're in the audience there. I appreciate our legislative leaders and how they've conducted themselves throughout the session and including this process.

As everyone knows, house bill 1228 is now on my desk. And it's time for me to take a look at it and make some comments in reference to it. This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial. But these are not ordinary times. This bill is not really complicated. The bill itself restates the standard of review for the courts to consider in determining First Amendment privileges as weight against the compelling interest of the state. That's simply stated as a summary as to what this legislation does. It's a balancing test. The bill itself does not pick winners and losers. It balances two competing constitutional obligations that our founding fathers gave to us. But the issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions. It has divided families and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue. My son, Seth, signed the petition asking me, dad, the governor, to veto this bill. And he gave me permission to make that reference, and it shows that families and there's a generational difference of opinion on these issues.

So where are we now in reference to this legislation? I have asked through this process of our legislative leaders and members that certain changes be made. In some instances they were accommodated in change and other instances they said no. That's the balance between the executive and the legislative branch. I certainly respect those bodies. It's been my intention all along that house bill 1228, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, be crafted in a way that mirrors the federal religious freedom and restoration act that was passed in 1993 and signed by President Clinton. I came to Congress after that, but I sat on the Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives that considered these amendments, had hearings on this federal religious freedom of restoration act. And so I'm somewhat familiar with it and how it's played out across the country.

It was my intention, because the federal law doesn't cover state causes of action that we have a similar law in Arkansas. But we wanted to have it crafted similar to what is at the federal level. To do that, though, changes need to be made. The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law. It doesn't mirror it in a couple of ways, particularly allowing the First Amendment to be asserted in the private litigation between parties or the reliance upon the state law and those claims. Therefore, I asked that changes be made in the legislation. I've asked that the leaders of the general assembly to recall the bill so that it can be amended to reflect the terms of the Federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. In the alternative, it can be simply have some language changes so that those accommodations and changes can be made. So recall the legislation or having additional legislation that would accomplish those changes. Again, this is difference between the executive branch, the legislative branch, we all have our responsibilities and our different viewpoints.

My responsibility is to speak out on my own convictions and to do what I can, as governor, to make sure this bill reflects the values of the people of Arkansas, protects those of religious conscience. But also, minimizes the chance of discrimination in the workplace and in the public environment. It is important to recognize that the bill currently drafted does not change who we are. It does not change the current protections against discrimination. This bill simply defines the standard to determine the right balance. But how do we as a state communicate to the world that we are respectful of diverse workplace and we want to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance. That is the challenge that we face. Making this law like the federal law will aid us in that effort in communication, but also it was my original objective from the beginning.

Another option is that we're looking at is to utilize an executive order, which interestingly has not been utilized from my research from the executive branch in state government in terms of protecting against discrimination in the workplace for state government. But we're looking at an executive order to aid in that communication and make it clear that Arkansas wants to be a place of tolerance, we want to be a place that has the right balance between religious protections and religious freedom and nondiscrimination.

Also, I think we can be sure that this will continue to be a robust debate in the future. I understand a ballot title has been approved by the attorney general that may put on the ballot an extension of the civil rights protection to additional classes of citizens of Arkansas. That debate will continue and ultimately be determined by the people of this state, either through their legislative body or through a vote of the people. So this conversation does not end. I've expressed my view to the legislature. It is up to them to respond to the request of the governor that changes be made in the current bill to make it reflect the federal law that I think sets the right tone for Arkansas and its future. We'll look at additional action down the road as need, partly depending upon the action that the legislature might take.

With that, I'll see if the president has any comments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Governor.

First, let me say that I support a RIFRA in this session. I think the majority of both chambers support a RIFRA being passed this session. I think there are some complications and if I'm just being blatantly honest, I've been in the middle of the budget debate probably as much as anything else the last few days. I'd asked brief questions about the language we were passing and felt like we were mirroring and actually given assurances that we were mirroring that federal --

BERMAN: You heard Asa Hutchinson make a remarkable announcement. He's calling on the state legislature to recall the Religious Freedom Act that they have passed. That some people say would allow for discrimination against gays and lesbians in private businesses. The reason he gives is it is too different from the federal law. He wants to see them brought more closely in touch.

I thought the most remarkable thing is he said his own son actually signed a petition asking him to veto that bill.

BOLDUAN: To that exact point, John, this is a key part where this governor is trying to talk about the balance and the difficult spot that these governors and these states, state legislatures have where he says our nation remains split on how to balance the diversities of our culture with the traditions of firmly-held religious convictions. That sums up where the debate is. The breaking news is the governor, some had expected, would sign this one.

BERMAN: Even as soon as now.

BOLDUAN: Which is on his desk. He says he believes there needs to be changes, that he's asking the legislature to recall it and to change the measure before they send it back to him.

A lot to discuss here. Let's bring in Gloria Borger, chief political analyst. She's with us. CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is joining us on the phone.

Jeff, I want to get to you first because the governor was trying to strike a distinction that he said this measure in Arkansas was not similar enough to the federal law that he was comfortable signing on to.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): This was political double-talk. There is only one issue going on here, which is whether private businesses should be allowed in the state of Arkansas as in Indiana, as in Georgia, where these controversies are going on. Do these individuals allow private businesses to not do business with gay people? That's what these days are about. The idea that you can compromise and find some language that allows people to not do business with gay people and also protect them from nondiscrimination -- from discrimination, it's impossible. There are no compromises available here. People either can do -- can refuse to do business or they can't. All these politicians trying to pretend that there's some middle ground, there's none. And that's why none of these amendments so far have succeeded.

BERMAN: Jeffrey, help me understand this more. There are people who say that the intent largely of the Religious Freedom Act when it was passed in the Clinton administration was to protect Native Americans who want to wear a headdress.

BOLDUAN: Go to public school.

BERMAN: Could you keep that part of it and specifically annunciate that this bill would not be used as a course to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Could you do that?

[11:39:35] TOOBIN: Perhaps. But that wouldn't get much support in Arkansas. That's the whole purpose of the bill. I don't see anyway that such an amendment would pass. Remember, the federal law only covers the federal government. It only says the federal government cannot impose on people's religious beliefs. It says nothing about private business. Trying to let florists and photographers and the people we've all been talking about for several weeks -- letting them discriminate is not something that was covered by the federal law at all. So it really is not much of a valid comparison.

BOLDUAN: Gloria, I want you to jump in on this. Jeff Toobin calls it political double-speak. I want to understand what you think this is. I think at the very least, John and I were talking, it shows the enormous amount of pressure that this governor clearly saw coming at him.

BORGER: Well, yeah, governors respond to business in their states. And when a business like Walmart says, sorry, folks, we don't want this, you have no choice but to listen. I think what the governor also said was striking to me because we had talked about it a little bit before he came out. He said, these are not ordinary times, in fact, this is the new ordinary. And the new times are that members of the Republican Party, this is a governor who said he was lobbied by his own son to veto the bill. That the Republican Party itself is changing. There is the evangelical right who believes that these laws ought to be passed. But it is a new world. And when you see in this pew poll that I was talking about that 61 percent of young Republicans are now in favor of gay marriage, that you see how the Republican party is having a very difficult time trying to figure out how it positions itself in a general election in which they know very well they need to broaden the tent. The governor of this state is not running for the presidency. The governor of this state is just trying to keep business in this state and trying to keep peace. I agree with Jeff. I think it's very difficult to figure out a way around the elephant in the room here. He didn't outright veto it. This doesn't mean, though, that down the road he won't say, you didn't fix it, and I'm going to have to veto it.

BERMAN: We don't know what solution they're going to come up with. We'll have to wait and see. What we do know is that this governor has reversed statements he made just in the last few days. He said he was going to sign this. Today, he's not signing it. And, Gloria, it shows the political pressure.

Jeffrey Toobin and Gloria Borger, thanks so much.

BOLDUAN: Also ahead for us, why was he allowed to fly? That's what many folks are asking. Lufthansa now say they knew the co-pilot on that downed plane battled severe depression. They also gave him the green light to fly. Could the tragedy in the Alps have been avoided?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:46:38] BOLDUAN: Many pressing questions at this hour in the crash of flight 9525 is how was the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, allowed in the cockpit of a jetliner if it was documented that he was suffering from severe mental illness? Lufthansa, the parent company of Germanwings, now admits that Lubitz did tell the airline about his battle with severe depression, though in the past.

BERMAN: Want to bring in Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at NYU.

Professor, this is the very definition of medical ethics. Where is the line between public interest and private --

ARTHUR CAPLAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MEDICAL ETHICS, NYU: If you think someone is a danger to themselves or others, including flying an airplane with 149 people on it that they might harm them, you have to report it. We've had that standard in place since 1975 in the U.S. Many cases of people saying, I'm going to harm somebody by rifle or I'm going to go after my girlfriend. Courts have said again and again, you must disclose, you can't invoke privacy. And that standard's been adopted by psychiatrists, doctors, psychologists all around the world.

BOLDUAN: Does the time line matter here? If he had been battling and reported this battle with severe depression back in 2009, 2008, the crash happened last week. What about that time line difference?

CAPLAN: Presumably he would be in therapy. But you'd take steps -- it's what we do when we have someone with a mental illness, you're always watched. You always have a partner. You're not left alone in the cockpit. That should never happen. Yeah, you can go back to work, but you have to be with a partner.

BERMAN: But a current doctor, right? He reported it to Lufthansa, his doctor said he was severely depressed and even had suicidal tendencies way back in 2009. Do current doctors then have to remind Lufthansa in 2015, hey, this guy --

(CROSSTALK)

BOLDUAN: Because they have that letter he never gave up that said he was not fit to fly.

CAPLAN: 100 percent, yes. You have to continue to say, this guy's a risk, he's in a very sensitive occupation. If you're unsure, we have to pull him out, do more therapy and evaluation of him. You absolutely have a duty to warn all the way along.

BOLDUAN: A lot of folks are talking about this question of self- reporting and where is the burden going to be or should there be more transparency in terms of the health and well-being of pilots when they have such an important job with lives in their hands?

(CROSSTALK)

BOLDUAN: How much transparency do you think professionals are going to allow in terms of, if it is mandated that a doctor has to report to their employer?

CAPLAN: Not much. What will happen is this, if you say, everything gets reported right to your employer, there's no danger of being fired or grounded or loss of pay, they're going to use false names and go off the books. They'll find ways to go around without having the employer know. So better carrots than sticks. Let them know they go into early retirement. There's protections out there for them to still get their salary when they're in treatment. But if you say, everything you say here is going right to the employer and it's mandatory, I'm telling you, people will do what they always do. They show up with a phony name, they go off their insurance plans or doesn't register and they pay cash. And they duck it.

[11:49:54] BERMAN: Arthur Caplan, That's why the system, top to bottom, has to be reviewed?

CAPLAN: Absolutely.

BERMAN: Thanks for being with us.

CAPLAN: My pleasure.

BOLDUAN: Thank you all for joining us AT THIS HOUR.

BERMAN: "LEGAL VIEW" with Ashleigh Banfield starts now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everybody. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to "LEGAL VIEW."