Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Jeb Bush on Marriage; Patriot Act Deadline Looms. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired May 18, 2015 - 08:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:33:29] MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, here we go with the five things to know for your new day.

Monday, the Iraqi city of Ramadi falling to ISIS. The terrorists using bulldozers and suicide bombers to overrun the city, forcing Iraqi troops to retreat.

Full Amtrak service resuming this morning between New York and Philadelphia less than a week after the derailment that killed eight people. The FBI is examining the train's windshield now after reports that it was struck before that crash.

Nine bikers killed in Waco, Texas, during a shootout between rival biker gangs. It happened Sunday afternoon in a restaurant parking lot. Nearly 200 other people were arrested.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate say they have enough support to approve President Obama's free trade initiative. There will be votes on two amendments tonight.

And today President Obama will head to Camden, New Jersey, visiting local law enforcement and meeting with young people in the community. This as he announces a ban on the federal government providing certain types of military-style gear to local police departments.

For more on the five things to know, be sure to visit newdaycnn.com for the latest.

Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: The Patriot Act is on life support. There are just two weeks left before key parts of the act expire. So, now what? We keep hearing we're behind the bad guys too often, especially online. So what are the options? We'll test them, you decide, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:38:49] CUOMO: Jeb Bush attacked for being indecisive on the Iraq War. Well, there's one issue where he is leaving nothing to question, gay marriage. The probable presidential candidate, he hasn't announced yet for all the scrutiny he's getting, he says that traditional marriage is a sacrament. True. And he says for that reason there should be no constitutional right to marry at all, let alone for same- sex.

So let's discuss this Ana Navarro. She's a CNN political commentator, a big friend of the show, and a Republican strategist who is a supporter of Jeb Bush.

PEREIRA: And she's here, which is great.

CUOMO: And she is here in all her beauty and splendor.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So excited to be here with you guys today.

CUOMO: So, what is your friend, Jeb Bush, up to with this marriage statement? Doesn't seem to be the new Republican -

NAVARRO: I tell you, I think - I think the man needs to start eating carbs again.

CUOMO: It will kill you, those protein diets. Why do you say that?

NAVARRO: No, look, I think - I think Jeb Bush is - has very strong social values. I think he has very strong religious values. He is a converted catholic. And I think, as a catholic, he's talking as a catholic. He was talking as a catholic in that interview. Marriage is a sacrament.

CUOMO: Yes.

NAVARRO: You're a catholic. I'm a bad one, but I'm a catholic too. It is a sacrament.

Now, the question of constitutional right - and let me just say that, you know, Jeb and I disagree on the gay marriage issue. And one of the things that I like and appreciate about Jeb Bush is that we can disagree. We've had many discussions and conversations about this issue throughout the years and, you know, he's willing to listen. He's got his very strong held beliefs, but you can disagree with him. And I think that's OK. In America, we can disagree on important issues.

[08:40:20] PEREIRA: I - I agree with that, but he has said before, the quote is, he's said before, there should be respect for the good people on both sides of the issues. And that's a very different tone than what he was coming out with. Could that just be because of who he was talking to? He was at a very conservative Christian group. He was saying those words to them. So is - was he pandering to the audience or is that really where he stands on the issue?

NAVARRO: You know, are they inconsistent, those two statements, to say we should be stalwart supporters of traditional marriage and to say that we need to respect both sides of the issue?

PEREIRA: Fair point.

NAVARRO: I mean can - why is it mutually exclusive to be a stalwart supporters of traditional marriage, and to - which I am - and to also be in favor of same-sex marriage, what he's not, but I am. So I - you know, I think sometimes we make these statements out to be too black and white.

CUOMO: Well, support of traditional marriage has become code for no same-sex marriage.

PEREIRA: Right.

CUOMO: And the problem goes away if legally - if the court declares that there's a right, then this all goes away because, as Carly Fiorina laid out, you have to follow the law if you want to - you know, if it becomes the supreme law of the land after the Supreme Court. Be he has another problem. I understand what you're saying about Catholicism. I grew up with a catholic politician raising me. His religion is not the rule for all in America. The Constitution is our national rule. And those are our rules. So how is he going to separate that because if he says, look, I'm a catholic, for me this is what it is, but he's not only going to lead Catholics.

PEREIRA: Yes.

CUOMO: So he's going to have to figure out how to please the plurality. It seems like this is not a well-calculated move on that front.

NAVARRO: I think everybody has got to figure that out, right? I mean how many catholic politicians, and you know some very well, have had to figure out how to separate state and religion. I mean it's, you know, it is actually how we govern in this country. We have a separation between church and state. And, you know, we go to the question, and, you know, God knows I barely made it through law school. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But is there a right, a constitutional right, to not only gay marriage, straight marriage, in the Constitution? There's an equal protection right, and I think that's what the Supreme Court is going to find, and I think this issue is going to be moot by the time 2016 comes around.

We're going to have other issues. We're going to have a very legitimate question on religious liberty. We're going to have the issue of traditional marriage and being supportive of that as making a stronger American family and what that means particularly in the inner cities. But the question on same-sex marriage might be very well moot by next month.

PEREIRA: One question that we're still looking at, we watched last week and it was kind of a cringe-worthy week for Jeb Bush in terms of dealing with the Iraq question. Well, it was Marco Rubio's turn. Let's take a look to see how he answered that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well you were asked the same question and you said, it made sense.

MARCO RUBIO (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, it was not the same - it was not the same question. The question was whether it was a mistake. And my answer was, it's not a mistake. I still say it was not a mistake because the president was presented with intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was governed by a man who had committed atrocities in the past with weapons of mass destruction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But was she asked you was, was it a mistake to go to war with Iraq?

RUBIO: It was not a mistake given the fact what the president knew at the time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, she didn't say that. She just said, was it a mistake.

RUBIO: Well, that's not the same question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: So here's the question I've been asking anybody who will listen, why is it so hard for presidential hopefuls to answer that question?

NAVARRO: Because I think it brings up a bunch of different issues and feelings.

PEREIRA: Is it like having the sex talk with your teenager? You don't want to have to talk about it. It's awkward. You're scared to where it's going to lead. But at the same time, it's an inevitability every parent is waiting for. The inevitability is there for every GOP hopeful.

NAVARRO: And, by the way, whenever the Democrat hopefuls start answering questions, it will - you know -

PEREIRA: It will be their turn too.

NAVARRO: Given that she was actually the only one who voted -

PEREIRA: Fair point. Fair point.

CUOMO: You know what her answer's going to be, though. My guess is going to be that she's going to say, they lied to us about the intelligence. So I wanted to support my chain of command. So I voted for it. It seems like this is a no-brainer. Knowing what we know now, which is that this intel didn't work, we didn't get out of it what we wanted to, we have the current situation, would you do the same thing then? It seems like everybody would say no except Jeb because he's got to worry about the family tie.

NAVARRO: But they - you know, they've parsed the question so - so much that it's, you know, you're - they're being asked different questions, which is fine. I think they have to learn to navigate when different questions are asked and different - and different styles.

PEREIRA: And for policy (INAUDIBLE) -

CUOMO: But was it - was it right then and would it be right with what you know now? Those are the questions. That's not so parsed. NAVARRO: Those are different questions and so -

CUOMO: I know, but it's not that tricky to answer both.

[08:44:47] NAVARRO: Ah, actually - but - but, you know, I go back to thinking that it brings out in Republicans in particular, not just Jeb. I think it brings out different issues. What does it mean for those who served? Is it a disservice to them? Does it dishonor their service there? What does it mean to be answering hypotheticals about the past? When does it stop? Should we have gone into Vietnam? Should we have gone into Korea? Should we have gone into World War II? I mean I want to be answering hypotheticals about the future and what they're going to do in the future.

And of course, there's the issue about President George W. Bush, who is Jeb's brother, but also a Republican and a respected Republican amongst many in the base.

CUOMO: Even more so as time goes on, and he's out of office.

PEREIRA: Love having you here.

NAVARRO: Love being here.

PEREIRA: Good to see you. Love being able to hold your hand.

NAVARRO: When are we doing a show in Miami? We need to talk to -- Who do we talk to about that?

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Well said, Ana Navarro.

PEREIRA: Make it so. Good to see you, Ana.

CUOMO: We have a programming note here. We don't want to leave politics too quick. Allison is not here because she's on the road to catch up with this man. Senator Rand Paul. She's going to sit down, put the questions to him and you'll get to see that tomorrow morning here on NEW DAY.

PEREIRA: Meanwhile, the law that allows the NSA to collect your phone data is set to expire. Should lawmakers renew that controversial measure? That debate for you ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Key parts of the Patriot Act, the deal with NSA surveillance program with how much the government can do and balance of citizens' privacy, well that act is set to expire at the end of the month. Right now Republicans are pushing for a renewal of the measure that allows the bulk collection of Americans' phone data. That's the crux of it. Section 215.

[08:50:01] The Senate is preparing to take up an NSA reform bill that's been approved by the House. The USA FREEDOM Act, now that would limit spying, but proponents say it would go far enough to do what we need to do.

So what is the state of play? We have with us, Representative Bob Goodlatte, he is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and one of the authors of the bill joining us now.

The Patriot Act is expiring, Section 215 is in the crosshairs. Do you believe that we can accomplish the intel needs of the United States and also give people more privacy?

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R), VIRGINIA: Absolutely. That's what the USA FREEDOM Act, the House bill, which was voted by 338 to 88 through the House, extremely bipartisan, carefully negotiated with the administration, with the House Intelligence Committee, supported by the president. It's very bipartisan and it will do just that. It will end bulk data collection, as I think the American people want, but it will, in its place, have a program where under a court order the NSA and other intelligence gathering organizations can go to the phone companies and get in realtime the data they need to track suspected terrorists.

CUOMO: The other side is that the intel community says, Congressman, the threat is getting worse all the time, especially online. If anything, we're behind. If you do anything to take tools away from us, it's going to compromise security. How do you avoid swinging the pendulum towards popular opinion too much and compromising safety?

GOODLATTE: By carefully negotiating this with the NSA, which is exactly what we did. This weekend in "The Baltimore Sun", the last Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the Ranking Member Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger wrote an op-ed endorsing the USA FREEDOM Act. It was supported in the House. The current Chairman and Ranking Member voted for it. The Obama administration has carefully been involved in this as well.

So this is not just a throw out the data collection and don't do anything about it. This is stop the government from metadata collection. And not just telephone metadata, but any kind of metadata, and not just under Section 215, but under several other sections as well of the law. And then protect American civil liberties, but have in place a new mechanism whereby the NSA can get the same information, up to two hops (ph), and once the court issues the order, it can stay in place for 180 days. So new phone numbers coming in on the number that the order from the court said they could get information would be continuing on in realtime. It will be effective and it will protect American civil liberties. You can have a high level of both and that's what this bill does.

CUOMO: Let's play out the two levels of opposition you're taking on right now. One comes imparted. Senator McConnell, who is saying, no, this is the time to reauthorize these sections of the Patriot Act because the threat is greater and you guys are playing politics at the wrong time. Your response?

GOODLATTE: Can't do it, Chris. First of all, the second circuit court of appeals ruled two weeks ago that the current program violates the law. And we believe we're going to see other circuit courts that have also had cases brought, rules similarly. This has got to be changed.

Secondly, we're not playing politics at all. We're protecting Americans' rights under their Constitution and that is very important. It's also important to have the national security protections desired. Senators who are in any doubt, and I think a majority of the Senate already supports this bill, but those who may be in doubt should take a close look at the actual language of the bill.

CUOMO: One of them is another Republican named Rand Paul. He's saying he is threatening another filibuster because he says this doesn't even come close to protecting privacy the way it should. There is no way to need these surveillance tools that you're giving in this reform situation, you're not going far enough in that direction. Your response?

GOODLATTE: Well, the response is very simple. There are measures in this bill that protect our civil liberties and they do it the way we have always done it. When law enforcement or anyone else wants to conduct an investigation, get information, they go to court and they get an order upon the showing of appropriate evidence that they are entitled to that order. That's what the foreign intelligence surveillance act provides for the FISA Court and we simply restore that. It was taken away when the administration several years ago started this data collection program and we simply restore the proper use of the law.

CUOMO: Right. What is the percentage chance of making a deal on this, do you think, at this stage?

GOODLATTE: Well, we have made a deal. We have made a deal between Republicans and Democrats, between defense hawks and civil libertarians --

CUOMO: I'm saying with the Senate.

GOODLATTE: We've made a deal with the administration and the NSA and that's what the House bill is.

[08:55:03] It's time, given the fact that this law expires on May 31st, for the Senate to step up and take the House bill. It's a good bill.

CUOMO: Thank you very much, Congressman, appreciate it. Obviously, we're going to be following the debate very closely.

You've heard what the Congressman says this bill offers to opponents on both sides; those who want more surveillance, and those who want even less surveillance. What do you think? Tweet us and use #newdayCNN and you can post a comment on Facebook.com/newday.

Speaking of the military, we have a great story for you here on "The Good Stuff". This man right here, he is going hungry, this veteran. That's never "The Good Stuff". But guess what happened? That is "The Good Stuff ". We'll tell you all about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PEREIRA: I feel it's going to be really good.

CUOMO: It is. No veteran should be homeless. No veteran should be hungry. We all say it. But you know what? It happens all the time. Even an 81-year-old Clarence Blackman. After months in the hospital battling cancer, he comes home and has no food. He was so desperate, you know what he did? He called 911. The dispatcher so touched by the call, she sent herself and several officers to the grocery store and hand delivered the food. The story got out and now hundreds have stepped up. He has so much food, he's saying give it to the food bank instead.

PEREIRA: I love it. That's incredible.

CUOMO: Right? Good stuff here.

PEREIRA: I love when people step up and help out their neighbor.