Return to Transcripts main page


Police Arrest 7 in Connection with London Attack; U.S. Officials: Info Suggests Trump Associates May Have coordinated with Russians; House Intel Chiefs Spar Over Trump Team Surveillance; GOP Struggles to Unite Before Health Care Vote. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired March 23, 2017 - 06:00   ET



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president's associates may have communicated with Russia to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

[05:58:41] REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Right now, it looks like incidental collection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you feel vindicated?


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: The chairman briefed the press in advance of briefing his own committee members. That is a deep, deep problem.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We can't have a presidential whisperer.

TRUMP: We must repeal Obamacare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I came into the meeting with being a no, and I left being a no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm really optimistic that we can get there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chaos in the heart of London.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There were people on the ground. I saw people flying in the air.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Londoners will never been cowed by terrorism.


ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Thursday, March 23, 6 a.m. here in New York. It is a very busy news day.

We begin with breaking news right now. Police in London announcing they have made seven arrests in connection with yesterday's deadly terror attack outside of the House of Parliament. Officials now say it was likely is inspired. We will have much more on this developing story.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We have new information on a different front. The FBI's investigation on the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. CNN has learned the bureau has information that some of the president's associates may have coordinated with Russian operatives in the releasing of damaging information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.

CAMEROTA: There are also growing questions about whether the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia is now compromised after its chairman went directly to the president with new surveillance information.

All of this as the showdown over health care is in the final hours with Republicans still divided.

CUOMO: All right. So there's a lot at stake on the 63rd day of the Trump presidency. Let's get after it with CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez, live in Washington.

You've been working this story from the beginning. What's the latest?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, U.S. officials tell CNN that the FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Now, you remember FBI Director James Comey made his bombshell announcement on Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. The FBI is now reviewing the information that they have, which includes a human intelligence travel business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings.

Now, this information is what raised the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigations that coordination may have taken place, though we do know from officials that they've cautioned that the information is not yet conclusive and that the information, the investigation is still ongoing. Now, the FBI would not comment, nor would the White House, though we've hear from officials that they deny that there's any evidence of collusion.

CAMEROTA: Evan, help us understand this. What does this mean about what Director James Comey said to the committee on Monday.

PEREZ: Well, this explains exactly what he said. If you'll recall, in addition to Comey saying that the investigation includes looking at the connections of Trump associates, he also explained what it means that this investigation is being done. Take a listen to him.


REP. MICHAEL TURNER (R-OH), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Don't you need some action or some information besides just attending a meeting, having been paid to attention a conference, that a picture was taken or that you traveled to a country before you're open to investigation for counterintelligence by the -- the FBI?

COMEY: The standard is, I think there's a couple of different at play. A credibility allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.


PEREZ: So one law enforcement official says the information in hand suggests that, quote, "people connected to the campaign were in contact, and it appeared that they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready."

But other officials we spoke to say it's premature to draw inference that from the information that they've gathered so far, largely because it's still circumstantial. Now, the FBI cannot yet prove that actual collusion took place, but the information suggests that collusion is now a large focus on this investigation.

CUOMO: Now, we knew about the contacts, but you know, a little bit of it is going to be words, but it's going to have huge implications on what the outcome of the investigation is. Coordination, collusion, knowledge, these are going to be the big words. Collusion would be the far end of the spectrum, right?

PEREZ: Right.

CUOMO: Which is you worked with them on it. But just knowledge of what the Russians were doing and maybe even coordination, the new word, that's very different than contact.

PEREZ: That's right and, you know, at this point, we still don't know, you know, who the people connected to Trump that are being investigated as part of this coordination part.

But we do know is that the FBI has been investigating four former Trump campaign associates, including Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page for contacts with Russians known to U.S. intelligence.

Now all four of these men have denied improper contacts. And I'm going to tell you one of the obstacles and interesting things here, one of the obstacles the FBI is facing is finding -- finding this conclusive evidence is that, you know, communications between Trump associates and the Russians have ceased in recent months, given all the public focus on Russia's ties to the Trump campaign.

And some of the Russian officials that they've been watching have also changed their methods of communications, making -- making it all the more difficult for the FBI to monitor what they're doing.

CUOMO: Evan, appreciate it. Thank you very much. Keep us in the loop.

Another story. The political battle brewing over President Trump's spy claims. House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes did something very unorthodox. He went to the White House with information that he had learned about private communications of the president and his transition team being intercepted by U.S. intelligence monitoring of foreign officials.

Remember the distinction. He did not have information that they were the target of any warrant or wiretap but, just like with General Flynn, they may have been caught up in ancillary surveillance.

The key here is Nunes did this, going to the White House, before he talked to his own committee, and it raises an obvious question. Is this investigation compromised? Does Nunes have to be removed?

CNN's Joe Johns live at the White House with more. This was a big move. It was a big gamble for Nunes.

[06:05:05] JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Chris. With a federal investigation underway and the eyes of the nation focused on how the Congress is handling this, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee appearing to do an end run around established committee procedures, raising new questions about the ability of this committee to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.


JOHNS (voice-over): House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes stunning Washington.

NUNES: I thought it was important for the president to know this.

JOHNS: Rushing to the White House to warn President Trump that communication involving members of his transition team may have been picked up through normal incidental surveillance, apparently all legally conducted.

NUNES: It does appear like he -- his name and people, and others ended up in two intelligence reports. Most people would say that is surveillance.

JOHNS: Nunes himself, a member of the president's transition team, under fire for going to the media before briefing Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We can't have a presidential whisperer.

JOHNS: The White House immediately seizing on Nunes's statements.

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There's a lot of questions that I think his statement raises.

JOHNS: The top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee angrily responding to the Republican chairman's actions for potentially politicizing their bipartisan investigation into Russia's interference in the last election.

SCHIFF: The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he's going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both.

JOHNS: President Trump responding to the revelations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you feel vindicated by Chairman Nunes coming over there?

TRUMP: I somewhat do. I must tell you, I somewhat do. I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found.


JOHNS: Despite all the drama over intelligence today, the big issue at the White House is health care. The president will be bringing truckers and CEOs from trucking companies to the White House to talk health care this afternoon -- Chris and Alisyn.


Thank you for all of that. We have a lot to discuss with our panel. Let's bring them in right now. We're going to bring back Evan Perez, who has shared his reporting with us.

Also joining us, Maggie Haberman, CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times." We have Phil Mudd, CNN counterterrorism analyst and former CIA counterterrorism official.

So let's begin, Maggie, with, sometimes we overuse the word "bombshell." However, if Evan's reporting is ultimately confirmed by officials and law enforcement that there was some sort of coordination between members of the Trump campaign and Russia in terms of releasing the e-mails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton, where are we with this?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, for Donald Trump, if that is all confirmed, we're in a pretty bad spot if you're him. I think that we are a ways away from that. I do think this is another additional piece of information that seems to suggest there is a reason that the FBI has been so focused on this, and while I know that there is some school of thought that, if they had found something already we would know it and the public would know it, and it would have been sort of leaked out to the press in some way.

Actually, these investigations take a really long time, so I don't think that that is a surprise. I think that, until there is actually anything conclusive, however, this is just a daily drum beat for the Trump administration that is really challenging for them and for which they have had no disciplined answer, no clear answer, contradictory answers. And it is really bogging them down, if this is proven, then I think that that raises a whole other host of questions, but for now it's shackling them to a degree that they've been surprised by.

CUOMO: Right. The right word would be proven, right? Evan's reporting is solid, and we know the sourcing on it. If they're able to make those conclusions that are the premise of the reporting, then you get into a different ball game.

But Phil, look, we know that they had to be looking for corroboration, collusion, knowledge, something more than contact, because that would be the root of the need for an investigation. The revelatory aspect of what happened in the last 24 hours is Nunes. Is that -- he took information that wasn't necessarily revelatory, but it was convenient to help the White House. He then forgets that he's supposed to be doing an independent investigation, runs over to the White House to try to help them and does a press conference afterwards.

Can he stay in charge of anything that's supposed to be objective?

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I don't think so. Let's look at two pieces of this, Chris. First, what he did. If I were to go up, and I went up many times before Hill hearings. If I were to go up before this committee in front of a chairman of the committee, that's saying reveal what you know about an investigation that reaches the White House, and I'm looking at him, saying the first thing he's going to do is to run down the street and tell the targets of the investigation potentially what's underway.

[06:10:06] How do you go into that hearing, thinking or hoping that it's a real process and the game isn't rigged? This game is rigged, and we just learned that yesterday.

The second is how information is being manipulated as it's going live to the chairman of the committee.

Two things that were confused yesterday, completely inappropriately, that you touched on. A couple weeks ago, we had the president misleading the American people by claiming that his predecessor broke the law. The president of the United States cannot order a wiretap. That's breaking the law. Devin Nunes and others are trying to suggest that surveillance of foreign officials, legally backed by a court and carried out by the FBI and the Department of Justice that incidentally collects American citizens is somehow related to what the president says, and then the president suggests that's true.

Let me tell you what it is. It's nonsense. The two are totally different.

CAMEROTA: Evan, back to the substance of your reporting. Is it your sense, as Adam Schiff, Congressman, said yesterday, that we've moved from circumstantial, where it was like Trump associates may be talking to Russian operatives from -- has it advanced from circumstantial to something else?

PEREZ: Well, one of the interesting things about this investigation, Alisyn, is the fact that you talk to officials, and they're looking at some of the same evidence and some of them think what they are looking at, to say well, that looks like someone is giving the thumbs up; someone is actually coordinating the release of information. Someone is giving a wink and a nod to release damaging information to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Other people are looking at the same information, the same evidence, the same intelligence come back and say, "Well, you know, we're not there yet." We still think we need more to be done here. And I think that's how the FBI works. I mean, you do have differences of opinion inside an investigation as it's ongoing, and I think part of it is the fact that, you know, you have intelligence.

Some of it has gotten in ways that you can never use in courts, and you do need to get more evidence, more information that you can present in court if you should ever bring a case. And that's what Jim Comey was talking about on Monday. We -- one of the reasons why we did the story -- frankly, we've been working on this for some time -- was we wanted to explain a little bit about why Comey did what he did. He felt that not only was the -- was the information solid enough for them to share some of this with the public, at least what they're looking at, he felt that it was important enough for the public to know that the FBI is not turning a blind eye to this.

CUOMO: And you know, Maggie, as you know, Evan and the rest of the team have been reporting from the beginning that there had to be a suspicion of "there" there for them to look at the contacts in the first place, because there's nothing wrong with meeting with the Russian ambassador on its face. It's what the point of purpose was. And was it part of a larger dynamic. They've always been moving down that road and has been chronicling it very well with the team.

You get into the implications of what are they going to be able to prove? You have the separate issue of what Nunes did, and that deserve a lot of attention. That is hugely compromising to the ability to get any objective truth in this situation. And it is a shock, no question about that. But when you look at Paul Manafort, Maggie, you've got your questions. You've got your salacious allegations. You have the White House saying they didn't know about him and his contact with the Russians, which strains credibility.

So how much of this story winds up falling back on the White House anyway? Are they going to make a case about Manafort? Who knows? Wait and see. Far-fetched at this point. But the White House once again, like with Flynn, saying, "We didn't know" something that was painfully obvious about the man's background.

HABERMAN: To your point, I mean, the White House has a habit of extending this story well beyond, you know, something as a one-day story. The White House has rarely missed an opportunity to turn it into a four-day story.

I can't speak to what may or may not come out about Paul Manafort. I've seen the reports like everybody else. What I don't believe is that there was a total lack of awareness about at least the representation that he had done, maybe not the details of the contract was reported on yesterday by the Associated Press.

But I don't believe -- I find it hard to believe that no one at all was familiar with the fact that Paul Manafort had represented a certain client.

And that is where the White House is getting itself into, I think, a sticky issue, is they have repeatedly said something, including a couple of days ago, Sean Spicer said that Paul Manafort was here for a limited time with a limited role. Technically, it was a limited time in the broad span of a, you know, an 18-month campaign, because it was about five months. It was not a limited role. He ran the campaign. He was equivalent to John Podesta.

And so that, even having to clear that up yesterday, and I just think that the more time they have to spend kind of covering their tracks to explain things they've said before, it's just -- it's confusing for them and problematic.

CAMEROTA: Phil, what do you think of the new reporting about Paul Manafort or at least the new revelations that, in fact, there might have been these offshore accounts and that he might have been paid $10 million...

CUOMO: A year.

CAMEROTA: ... a year to do this work with this Ukrainian leader?

[06:15:07] MUDD: I think it gives me a clue that I didn't understand 48 hours ago. On the surface, this doesn't look like it takes us that far, because as we're suggesting, earlier, as Chris said -- I think he's got a law degree; I'm not certain about that. As -- as Chris said earlier, there's an air gap between, there might have been contacts between -- between campaign officials and the Russians. That's not a legal case yet.

However, let me give you one fact that we're glossing over here. The FBI director was castigated through the summer and into the fall for doing something FBI directors rarely do, acknowledging they had a case based on the Hillary Clinton e-mail issue. Months later he comes back and says, "I've got a case open." That tells me something was very serious, and that serious thing is what we just learned.

CUOMO: And just to be clear, it's hard to say that the stuff we're hearing about Manafort now is new. You can go and Google the first interview Manafort did when he joined the Trump campaign on television was with us. We asked him about his contacts and his business dealings right then. The idea that the White House didn't know about them is almost impossible to believe.

Lady, gentlemen, thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: Thank you for all the reporting.

Now we want to get to other top stories: the showdown over health care. The House is expected to hold a cliff hanger vote in just hours on the GOP's plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Republicans still deeply divided, and negotiations have been going on through the night. President Trump, still at this hour, as far as we know, does not have the votes for this to pass. CNN's whip count has 28 Republicans at this hour, saying they will vote against it or they're leaning that way.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux on Capitol Hill. What's the latest, Suzanne?


Well, the House is set to vote for this tonight, even if they don't have the support, they don't have those numbers quite yet. But there are new issues at play here. This is whether or not health insurance must cover things like maternity care, hospitalization, mental health, even prescription drugs. These are all potentially concessions to conservatives to get on board.


MALVEAUX (voice-over): Down to the final hours. President Trump trying to unite Republicans behind the American Health Care Act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're really optimistic that we can get there. I mean, there's still a lot of details to work out.

MALVEAUX: After vowing to vote no, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus now says he could close the deal with the White House.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say that we've got a deal. That wouldn't be accurate. The president and I came to an agreement in principle.

MALVEAUX: Conservatives like Meadows want to strip the Obamacare provision of essential health benefits, something they say will lower the cost of premiums. But satisfying these conservatives could mean jeopardizing support from more moderate Republicans.

RYAN: We feel like we're getting really, really close.

MALVEAUX: House Speaker Paul Ryan huddling with moderate Republicans behind closed doors who are angered by some of the proposed changes. A key figure in the moderate pool, Representative Charlie Dent, delivering a blow, declaring he will oppose the plan, saying in a statement, "I believe this bill in its current form will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans."

The White House, though, remains optimistic.

SPICER: Member by member, we're seeing tremendous support flow in our correction and the count keeps getting stronger.

MALVEAUX: And in a final effort to sink the bill, billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch pledging millions of dollars to help reelect Republicans who vote against the bill.


MALVEAUX: And President Trump is set to meet with the Freedom Caucus again today at 11:30 to see what it is that they want to get them to sign on to this bill.

In the meantime, the House Rules Committee will go ahead and issue an emergency rule to allow the changes to the bill before it goes to the full House. And of course, if Republicans do not have the count to actually pass that, all eyes are going to be on the Republican leadership to see if, in fact, they will delay this vote tonight -- Chris.

CUOMO: Suzanne, as you've been pointing out, we don't have a time certain yet for the vote. And is that an indication of their keeping their options open? Appreciate you keeping us in the loop. Thank you very much.

So there's no question that the GOP, within its own party structure, is divided on the health care plan. Will the White House postpone this vote? Again, we don't have a time for it yet? It will be easy to set. But a near miss here is a big loss. Next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm really optimistic that we can get there. I mean, there's still a lot of details to work out, Sean, so to say that we've got a deal, that wouldn't be accurate.


CAMEROTA: All right. House Republicans are still divided at this hour. Some conservatives are jumping on board with health care bill after these proposed changes were made, but those changes are angering moderate Republicans. So how will this all play out?

Let's bring in our panel. We have Maggie Haberman. We also want to bring in CNN analyst and national political reporter for "The New York Times," Alex Burns. And CNN political commentator and senior writer for "The Federalist," Mary Katharine Ham.

Maggie, I want to start with you. So it sounds like the president was able to make Mark Meadows and the House Freedom Caucus happy last night with some of these provisions but in the process angered moderate Republicans. Are these mutually exclusive? And then how's that going to work?

HABERMAN: I mean, they're pretty close to mutually exclusive. I mean, I spoke to somebody who's involved in the whipping for Paul Ryan yesterday, and -- last night, and they are still believing they will likely get there. This is not spin; this is actually what they think that it's going to be very close.

But this is going to come at a cost. They were surprised at the blowback that they got from moderates over these concessions that were made to the House Freedom Caucus. You know, among them are proposals like eliminating the basic coverage that is required of insurers on things like mental health, that's going to be pretty controversial. It's going to be pretty controversial with some Trump voters. And so -- I think that they are taking a big gamble in doing this. The president did work the phones very hard yesterday. He was very engaged in this. So is Mike Pence.

They're not there yet. I think that they -- they are likelier than not at this point to get there, but there are still hurdles to climb over. [06:25:08] CUOMO: There's a little bit of subterfuge working on this

issue, and you know, people say, "Hey, I don't need maternity care. Why would I want it priced into my plan? This is good for me. It will lower costs." What they're not seeing is what this could be for preexisting conditions for certain people and, obviously, mental health not being fixed in there. We saw what happened before it was fixed. You know, the companies don't want it covered. They don't want to give it parity. So you have the substance. But then you have the politics.

Do you think they scheduled a vote for tonight, if they're not 100 percent sure? What are you hearing about what the margin of certainty has to be to go ahead with the vote, because if they take a loss, it's a big defeat.

MARY KATHARINE HAM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'm hearing the same things that Maggie, is that they would feel like they would probably get there, but it's going to be pretty razor-thin, and I think this is going to be an hour-by-hour discussion.

This is also an arbitrary date. It does not have to be today, but obviously, they don't want to bring it to the floor and fail. On the essential health benefits, look, the idea that you gut all the essential health benefits and then there are no requirements of insurance companies is just not true. This is a highly regulated industry. It would go back to the state regulations. So there would be plenty of those preserved in the preexisting conditions part, which you were discussing, is part of this package. It's part of balancing this whole act and part of trying to bring down these prices by...

CUOMO: But state by state...

HAM: Because you, sir, are paying for pediatric dental, even if you don't have children.

CUOMO: Right, but...

HAM: That is a problem.

CUOMO: But state -- but there was a reason, right? Everything has a reason, and this was about pre-existing conditions.

HAM: Yes, because liberals love federal power.

CUOMO: When you go -- I mean, look, you can look about it or you can look at the facts. You make your choice. State by state, you're going to get different...

HAM: You can be nasty about it or you can listen to me.

CUOMO: So answer my question. State by state, you get different regulations. Right? The reason they built it into the ACA is because states weren't covering it, right, because you were having short falls? Right.

HAM: They were not covering all of the things, sometimes including pediatric dental for single men with no children. Yes, they were not covering those things.

Look, these things bring up the prices. I am a person, single mom of two, who has lost three or four plans since Obamacare passed. I was told I would not. That was a lie. When I said that I would lose my plan, people called me a liar when this was going on. I have had 160 percent increase in my premiums. I was told those would go down. And I have had a 300 percent increase in my deductible.

People are getting coverage that they cannot use, because it is so expensive. That is something we have to deal with.

One of the ways you can deal with that is cutting some of these, quote unquote, "essential health benefits," because some are, indeed, not essential. And you could give people more flexibility to have slightly less expensive and slightly less comprehensive plans, which is what many young people would like to buy. But they're not allowed to any more, because it's illegal.

CAMEROTA: Yes, Mary Katharine's not alone. That's what people were so angry with Obamacare about, everything that she's just delineated.

But by the same -- I mean, it sounds -- let's get back to the politics for one second. Donald Trump pulls off surprising wins. We've all learned that. So just because, at this hour, they don't have the votes doesn't mean that this afternoon or tonight when this happens that this won't go through.

ALEX BURNS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's absolutely right. And an advantage that he has, relative to the last president we saw negotiating health care is that he actually has very fluid -- you know, to be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about it, extremely fluid views of his own on the subject, right? So there are not that many things going into a negotiation that are just totally off the table; we're not even going to talk about that. It has to be in the bill.

Having said that -- and I was talking last night to Republican strategists who advise a number of members of the House of Representatives. And the great fear right now is maybe less that they don't pass something and more that they drag this bill to the right in order to pass it by one or two votes, knowing full well that it cannot come close to passing the Senate in its current form.

So what you potentially end up doing here is asking a whole bunch of members, not even just moderates but also conservatives in somewhat vulnerable districts to go way out on a limb on a political vote like this, knowing that the substance just isn't there.

And this is the big challenge in a lot of ways that the Freedom Caucus poses over and over and over, that because they are so intransigent on the policy, it's actually the moderates who end up the vulnerable members who end up walking away.

CUOMO: It becomes a little bit of a farce, right? M.K., as well, articulating the House right to far-right version on this. In the Senate, you have a very different proposition, Maggie. And they're saying a lot of the things that I'm presenting out there, even though they're Republicans. They're saying, "I don't know that I can shop millions of people losing care because of the Medicaid reductions. I don't know that I can deal with pre-existing conditions that way."

So what's the long game here?" If you do cram it down in the House but you're dealing with that resistance in the Senate, then what?

HABERMAN: I don't know that there is a long game, Chris, honestly. At the moment, they are basically, in the White House, telling themselves failure is not an option, that we have to get -- it will pass. It will pass.

There has been little talk from their side about how they will grapple with the differences between where the House is and where the Senate is. Alisyn is exactly right. There are a lot of Republicans who are going to be asked to sort of walk the plank on a precarious vote for them for something that may not end up -- let's say that this does go to the Senate.