Sen. Lee: Health bill is a 'step in the wrong direction'
On 'The First 100 Days,' the lawmaker believes the new legislation is a missed opportunity
This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," March 7, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Breaking tonight, a flurry of activity today on Capitol Hill. As members of republican leadership finds themselves on defense at odds with members of their own caucus and angry constituents after the rollout of their new health care law. I'm Shannon Bream in for Martha MacCallum on this, day 47 of the first 100. The GOP attempting to make good on years of promises to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but right now, it's looking like an uphill battle as legislators from the conservative wing of the party have come out swinging against the leadership bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM JORDAN, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM OHIO: There are three plans out there. There's the Cassidy-Collins plan which basically, if you like ObamaCare, you can keep ObamaCare. There's the Leadership plan that was brought forward, which I believe, when you look through it, is ObamaCare in a different form, and then there's our plan, the one that I think is consistent with what we told the voters we were going to do.
RAND PAUL, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY: Conservatives have a replacement plan. House Leadership has a replacement plan. I'm sure democrats would like to go back and vote on the ACA again. Let's vote on clean repeal, the only way I think this gets done is to separate the issues.
MIKE LEE, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM UTAH: What's been introduced in the House in the last 24 hours is not the ObamaCare replacement plan, not the ObamaCare repeal plan we've been hoping for. This is, instead, a step in the wrong direction, and as much as anything, it's a missed opportunity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: That opposition you just heard clearly, not the way President Trump sees it. Here he is earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're going to work quickly, it's a - it's a great deal, we're going to - we're going to have - I really believe we're going to have tremendous support. I'm already seeing the support, not only in this room, I'm seeing it from everybody. And I'm seeing it from -
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: We've got legislators from the same side of the aisle but different sides of this debate for you tonight. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Kevin Brady, one of the architect of this new American Health Care Act is here to defend the bill while Senator Mike Lee, one of the most vocal critics on the opposition joins us in just minutes. But first, let's go to Capitol Hill to Chief Congressional Correspondent Mike Emanuel on how this dramatic fight unfolded today. Mike?
MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Shannon, good evening. Tomorrow, the work begins as two key house committees begin fine-tuning this healthcare package. Late today, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Chairman Greg Walden all began the full-court press to try to get their colleagues to support this plan. House Speaker Paul Ryan made this prediction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL RYAN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE SPEAKER: We will have 218 votes. This is the beginning of legislative process. We've got a few weeks, we're - we'll have - we'll have 218 when this comes to the floor, I can guarantee you that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: On the other side of the Capitol, Vice President Mike Pence had lunch with Senate Republicans then Pence spoke to reporters saying, the White House is embracing this legislation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT: The President and I believe that the - that the American Health Care Act is the framework for reform. We're certainly hoping to improvements and recommendation in the - in a legislative process. But this is the bill -
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: House Democratic Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Speaker Ryan saying that lawmakers want answers first from the nonpartisan congressional budget office saying quote, "The American people and members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in committee or by the whole house." And late afternoon, some prominent conservatives said there is a split.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: We are divided. We have to admit, we are divided on replacement. We are united on repeal, but we are divided on replacement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: Speaker Ryan said late today, getting big things done is never easy, but said that lawmakers will keep their promise to the American people and get this across the finish line. Shannon?
BREAM: All right. Thank you very much, Mike. Here now, Senator Mike Lee who spoke out in opposition today with other members of the Congressional Freedom Caucus. Senator, good to see you tonight.
LEE: Good to be with you.
BREAM: OK. So just to be clear, are you for repeal but not yet replaced? Where are you on that?
LEE: I'm for repeal. Look, we've been waiting for seven years for the opportunity to repeal ObamaCare. We waited for the election in 2010 where we got the majority in the House. In 2014, where we get the majority in the Senate. In 2016, where we've now got a republican in the White House as a result of that election. This is not the repeal bill that we've been waiting for, for all these years. This is a huge opportunity that's been missed. And it's a - it's a step in the wrong direction. What we need to do is repeal the bill and then bring about an iterative, step-by-step process. One in which we can put the American consumer - patients and doctors back in charge of their own health care decisions rather than having them made by government bureaucrats in Washington.
BREAM: You know there's been immense pressure from those on the right out there who say, listen, we elected you to do this. President Trump went around campaigning on this. We want it done right now. So, is it your sense that the GOP leadership that crafted this new bill feel like it's the best way forward, do you think they're under pressure to act quickly and maybe they're moving ahead in a way that you think is not the best policy? Or do you think that they're very sensitive to the criticism that, hey, yes, we all wanted want this repeal, those on the right, but - you know, as far as moving ahead with the replacement, we're not quite ready for that.
LEE: I don't work for them and I'm not going to try to speak for them. What I will tell you is what I'm for and what I think the American people who elected us, who elected republicans all over the country want, and that is for us to actually repeal ObamaCare. They want this law repealed. And that's what we want to do. We passed a bill only about 15 months ago in which all the republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for it, we put it on President Obama's desk, President Obama vetoed it. We've been promised. Look, you give republicans a chance to govern, we'll pass the same thing, we'll get signed into law. That's what we need to do.
BREAM: Well, you know the folks who look at this and say, repeal first, or repeal only at this point say, you're going to leave millions without a plan. There's going to be no direction if we - if we put off the replacement part of this, it's going to be just like all the funding. Cliff that we get to, it won't be done on time and we're going to have another crisis when we get to this end of this period where we're supposed to have the replacement in place. If that P.R. for the GOP, It looks like millions of people are going to be left with nothing.
LEE: Shannon, the problem with that talking point is that it's false. It ignores the fact that there's a two-year delayed implementation provision in the repeal bill. That would give us more than enough time that we need to figure out what comes next under ObamaCare. The other problem with that talking point is that it basically plays into a similar mindset that Nancy Pelosi used seven years ago when ObamaCare was passed. When she famously or infamously, by now, said, in essence, you've got to pass this thing to find out what's in it. look, what we want is to avoid the same mistakes that were made when the affordable care act was passed into law, when it was crafted by a small handful of lawmakers and staff behind closed doors, brought forward, rushed through without adequate input from the American people, in this 2700-page comprehensive bill. I'd rather see as repeal in one fell swoop and then move forward with a step-by-step process to bring about the reforms we need.
BREAM: All right. Do you have any real hope - just yes or no - that you'll be able to stop this freight train that's now moving?
LEE: I have every hope that we can do it if the American people will engage. And if the American people will say, do what you promised to do, repeal ObamaCare.
BREAM: OK. Senator Lee, good to see you. Thank you for your time.
LEE: Thank you.
BREAM: All right. Here now to respond, Congressman Kevin Brady is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and one of the architects behind this brand-new health care bill. Chairman, thank you for your time tonight. You've worked very hard to hammer this out.
KEVIN BRADY, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
BREAM: But you know, you've got a lot of skeptics out there on the left and the right. Let's talk about first on the right, Heritage Action fund to saying this, essentially, "unfortunately, this proposal does little to fix the massive issues created by ObamaCare or to lower the cost of health care for the average American. The new house republican proposal not only accepts the flawed progressive premises of ObamaCare but expands on them." And no surprise, you know you'd be getting this from the left -
BRADY: Yes.
BREAM: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says that "working families, older American and people with disabilities are going to face big trouble. Huge new health cost. Families across America are going to be pushed off their health coverage." She goes on and say this, "just so Republicans can hand a massive tax break to the wealthy, as the Joint Committee on Taxation's reports reveals." How do you fight off with the left and the right, and the credit to move forward?
BRADY: Yes. You know, I guess this is to be expected. Look, here's what I think. You know, my conservative colleagues, they are not the opponents here. They have great ideas. In fact, many of their ideas are in the republican blueprint and this bill. The real opponent is ObamaCare, and those like Nancy Pelosi who continue to defend this partisan bill. I was at the White House earlier today, and what the President said was clear. This is my bill, said President Trump. This is our solution on repeal and replace. This is - Congress should act now, must act now, because the choice is clear, the Trump repeal and replace or keeping ObamaCare. So, that is the direction we're headed right now.
BREAM: OK. Do you know - at this point, I know a rule has to be put together before you debate bills. I know the mark-up process is going to start. We don't want to get too wonky for people at home. But some of your GOP colleagues say, there must be a process for amendment. They want to have an ability to make real import, change to this. Will you allow that to the more conservative members of the GOP feel like they've got a voice?
BRADY: Well, first, we already have, in fact, we made major changes in response to not just conservatives like me but also throughout our republican conference to make sure we're doing this the right way, because we not only repeal all the taxes, of the mandates, all the penalties, and the subsidies, we actually begin two really important things. Restoring state control of health care so it can be designed for communities and families, and restoring the free market. So, we'll continue to listen to good ideas to improve it. But I also want to say this, senate republicans in the parliamentarian air, has the final say. And so, we're counting on our warriors among our senate republicans to deliver as much as we can in this final bill
BREAM: All right. How do you respond to critics who say, this is just another entitlement plan, the way that it's (INAUDIBLE), that it retains a lot about ObamaCare that redistribute wealth and make decisions for people about who's going to pay for blood.
BRADY: Yes.
BREAM: It's still a big plan that's going to cost a lot of money. And you've got Congressman Jim Jordan saying "he's going to reintroduce his full repeal bill from 2016."
BRADY: Well, tell you what. We are building off of and embraced the bill we passed to repeal ObamaCare in 2015, the President Obama have signed. That is the basis or our bill. But look, take a look at the bill itself. So repeals all the taxes, all the mandates, all the penalties, all the subsidies. This is ObamaCare gone, and there is no arguing about that. And on the replacement part of this, we are moving forward with state control in restoring the free market and everything that senate republicans can help deliver for us in this bill. But this won't be the last step. We have to go further than this. That will require hard work for republicans and conservatives together. And at the end of the day, steps two, three, and four are going to be critical as well.
BREAM: Yes. Well, Speaker Ryan says he's going to get the 218 votes by the time he gets this to the floor. You know, we're going to watch every step, every twist and turns. Chairman Brady, thank you very much for your time.
BRADY: Thank you.
BREAM: All right. Don't miss "Hannity" tonight. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price is going to exclusively join Sean to discuss the fight over the American Health Care Act. It's tonight, 10:00, right here on Fox News Channel. And just days after President Trump accused President Obama of spying on him, a blow, very big one to the U.S. Intel Community as WikiLeaks reportedly exposed as the CIA secret cyber arsenal. Karl Rove and National Security Attorney Mar Rove are on here on that. And by some are questioning WikiLeaks suspicious timing. Plus, there are breaking news tonight on just when we might see that investigation into Russia's potential meddling in our electoral process go public and some big-time intelligence officials are said to be called out publicly. More on that, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEVIN NUNES, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM CALIFORNIA: Because of the seriousness of the accusations involved on all sides of this issue, I want to make sure we hold as many of these hearings out in public.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: Breaking tonight, two big stories rocking the U.S. Intel Community, just days after President Trump accused President Obama of spying on him, the powerful House Intelligence Committee announcing plans to probe those claims in open hearings. Plus the CIA is reportedly reeling today after WikiLeaks exposes what it calls the "agency's secret cyber arsenal." Here on all of that, Karl Rove as a former Advisor to President Bush - George W. Bush, and Masdawd a National Security Attorney who has defended clients ranging from members of congress to covert CIA officers. But first, we begin with Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry on this staggering leak. We are told of legit CIA information. Ed?
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: That's right Shannon. The scope is breathtaking. The damage to the Intel Community's credibility may go far beyond previous leaks related to diplomatic cables, because this batch of CIA documents known as Vault Seven suggests there's been spying on everyday Americans. The CIA using special tools to break into smart phones, computers, Samsung TVs, to turn our technology into listening devices, bypassing encryption on WhatsApp and other messaging services, and tapping into smart TVs even when they're turned off to send recorded conversations to a secret CIA server. A veteran cyber expert told our own James Rosen, quote "there is heavy bleep going down inside the CIA as they scramble to figure who gave this to WikiLeaks. No less than expert than Edward Snowden believes it's real, tweeting quote, "still working through the publication but what @WikiLeaks has here is genuinely a big deal. Looks authentic." All coming of course amid President Trump's charges he faced surveillance. Today, Hillary Clinton's former Campaign Manager told FOX he had knowledge of wiretaps being used during the campaign, but he suggested they were targeted at Russian officials, not directly at Trump tower.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBBY MOOK, HILLARY CLINTON FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER: The facts are that Trump aids were caught talking to Russian agents, and they were - they were- those conversations were captured because the Intelligence Community regularly taps the phone lines of those Russian agents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: But pay special attention to this part of the new WikiLeaks story. Another CIA program, known as "Umbridge" is a giant library of cyber-attack tactics that they've gathered from Russia and other countries. This program allows the CIA to hide the origin of their own cyber-attacks, raising questions at least tonight about whether the CIA could have launched some of these cyber-attacks last year and made it appear like someone else was behind it all. Shannon?
BREAM: Very intriguing questions. All right. Ed Henry, thank you very much.
HENRY: Thank you.
BREAM: Here now, Karl Rove as a FOX NEWS Political Contributor and Mark Stayed as a National Security Lawyer. Welcome to you both, gentlemen.
KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.
MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Thanks Shannon.
BREAM: All right. The CIA will not comment on the authenticity of these documents, whether they are legit or not, but, Mark, that sounds pretty terrifying to the average American, when you - when you think they could be watching me through my smart TV even when it's turned off.
ZAID: Well, I mean, that's true. And I think probably for the average American, they probably are concerned. For those of us who have worked in this arena, whether it's on the tech arena, the legal arena, the intelligence community, there's not really anything that was that new quite frankly. I mean, we knew of these vulnerabilities for many years, and I think I'll take one somewhat difference with what Ed had said, I don't think there's any indication that I have at least read about so far that the CIA was using this on Americans. Now, American products, yes. And if they were using it on Americans, that's a much bigger and different story. So far, what we know is, they were exploiting vulnerabilities and products to do what they're supposed to do, spy on the enemy.
BREAM: Well, and Karl, the question and the concern for so many people becomes like, "yes, they're looking at the bad guys. They're going to scoop up innocent people and innocent conversation in it sometimes, or you're walking around in front of your TV not dressed straight out of the shower," I mean, the possibilities for abuse of this kind of technology raises a lot of questions.
ROVE: Yes. Look -- but I agree to your other guests. This is unlikely to have been used domestically by the CIA. I think there are two big issues here. One issue is that, if this - the information is accurate, and I believe it is, then all of our available range of tools have been laid out there for our opponents abroad to understand their vulnerabilities to our hacking activities. Second of all, the Obama administration had made an agreement that would notify American companies of vulnerabilities in their software and hardware so that they could - you know, repair those things. And apparently maybe that wasn't done. Maybe they continued to exploit these weaknesses on an iPhone or you know - Samsung or some other kind of a phone so they could gather intelligence from people abroad. But didn't tell the companies involved, you've got a problem with your operating system or problem with your hardware.
BREAM: OK. So Mark, Karl points out that maybe our enemies and bad guys were going to find out some of the methods that we're using to gather Intel on them. What about our allies? Do you think that they're going to be worried or have concerns or have issues that they're going to want to now race with the U.S. government over these disclosures?
ZAID: Well, some of the documents indicated that we were doing this programs with the Brits, which is usually who we're operating with. New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and - you know, we don't know, because we obviously won't get these types of documents, we only have the window into what these documents allow us to see. So Karl is accurate. We don't know whether or not the U.S. government was telling their tech companies of these vulnerabilities. Maybe they weren't, and if they weren't, there'll probably be some issues that will have to be taken up by that. But maybe they were. Same thing with what they were doing with our allies. I presume that they were sharing some of these vulnerabilities with our allies on legitimate intelligence operations.
The problem with this leak, because WikiLeaks is not a friend of the United States, this leak now will enable our enemies to exploit vulnerabilities against us. Now, the major countries, Russia, China, you know, those countries are going to have known about these, I'm sure they have their own programs. But the other countries that don't have as much of a robust intelligence operation or even just the hacker down the street who now has been given some guidance that, like you said, oh, I can turn my neighbor's television on and perhaps watch someone walking by naked. I mean, those are the fears now that I would have much more so than the CIA watching what I'm doing at home.
BREAM: Yes. And Karl, what do you make of this with WikiLeaks. I mean, there are those who say, they're exposing things. They're - you know, apparently the source, and they haven't expose the source here, but WikiLeaks says it was somebody who had access to this information and thought there should be public dialogue about it, the public should know that these capabilities are out there, that the CIA is using them, and they wanted to spark that conversation. It sounds a lot like what we heard from Edward Snowden. So, WikiLeaks, good guys are bad guys?
ROVE: Bad guys. I agree with Mark. These are adversaries of the United States. All you need to do is look at the public statements by their major founder, Assange, and he hates the United States, hates our values, wants to diminish our influence to the world. Shannon you text me on something, I want to return to you though for just a second. You ask about our allies' reaction to this. If I were some of the other major intelligence services that cooperated with United States, today I'd be saying, is our cooperation and our methods and sources of intelligence compromised? You know, can it be easily compromised? If they lost these gems so easily maybe they'll lose the others gems in which our sources and methods of intelligence would be similarly compromised and made public.
BREAM: All right. Karl, Mark, thank you both very much.
ZAID: Thank you
ROVE: Thank you.
BREAM: All right. Coming up, President Trump attempts to make a deal with Planned Parenthood, telling the organization that if they want federal dollars, they can just stop doing abortions. We're going to have an executive with us from Planned Parenthood who talks about the group's refusal. And then a Dana Loesch and Krystal Ball debate of fallout. Plus, President Trump sets off controversy by suggesting President Obama is alone as well for ex-Gitmo detainees to return to the battlefield. Charles Hurt and Mo Elleithee take up that debate next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He's letting them go, one after another, and they're going back - many of them are going back to the battlefields. You've seen what's happening. They're going right back into battlefields.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: Developing Tonight, President Trump on defense tonight after an early morning tweet suggesting his predecessor is solely to blame for once-Gitmo detainees returning to terror. Writing this quote,"122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision." Trace Gallagher has the facts checked and the defense from team Trump and (INAUDIBLE). Hi Trace!
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey Shannon. Here's what we think led to this. It's 6:12 Eastern time this morning "FOX & FRIENDS" did a story about a former Guantanamo bay detainee released by President Obama who was killed this weekend at a U.S. air strike in Yemen. The story went on to say Yasir al-Silmi also known as Mohammed Tahar was let out of Gitmo even though Department of Defense recommended he stay behind bars. "Fox & Friends" then ran a factoid saying 122 prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay returned to the battlefield. Then at 7:04 Eastern time, President Trump sent out the tweet lumping all 122 of those former Gitmo prisoners as being released by Obama, but the Director of National Intelligence says of the 122 let go, 113 were released under President George W. Bush. Only nine under President Obama. And overall, about 21 percent of prisoners released during the Bush administration went back to terrorism versus 6 percent of those released during the Obama administration. Here is White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer trying to clarify the President's tweet.
Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Obviously, the President meant in totality the number that have been released on the battlefield that have been released from Gitmo - since individuals have been released. So that is correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Correct, except for the part about blaming Mr. Obama and not Mr. Bush. We should note, George W. Bush explained in his memoir that he released prisoners because quote, "the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies." Of the 122 former detainees who returned to terrorism, 30 are now dead, 25 back in custody, 67 are still thought to be active. Shannon?
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Quite a recidivism rates. Trace, thank you. Meanwhile, democrats are using the latest from the president's Twitter feed to open up new lines of attack. That includes Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, who went so far as to suggest Mr. Trump is destroying the credibility of the office through social media.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
DICK DURBIN, SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS: Donald Trump is destroying the credibility of the office of president 140 characters at a time. This charge that he has made about some wiretapping before the election without a scintilla of evidence, no evidence whatsoever, has been refuted not only by the former president but also the former director of national intelligence and the head of the federal bureau of investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: Joining me now is Charles Hurt, political columnist at The Washington Times and Mo Elleithee, director of Georgetown's Institute of Politics and Public Service, both are Fox News contributors. Good to see you both tonight.
MO ELLEITHEE, DIRECTOR OF GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Shannon.
CHARLES HURT, POLITICAL COLUMNIST AT THE WASHINGTON TIMES, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Shannon.
BREAM: Charles, I want to start with you. Is this an unforced error? I mean, the president knows that the left is going to be coming after him all the time. Why not be super extra duper secondarily careful about anything that you tweet out? You know they're gonna be coming for you.
HURT: And he does have the finest intelligence services on the planet at his fingertips, so he could probably get a lot of really great information if he took a minute and tried to get it. But, the bottom line is, you know, the underlying thing here is that, you know, Gitmo is a place that the past president, President Obama, wanted to shut down, he campaigned on shutting it down and this just highlights the seriousness of the situation and the need to have a place like Gitmo in order to retain some of these people who want to commit Jihad against the United States.
And also, the other thing that I sort of find kind of interesting about this is President Trump has never made -- had any qualms whatsoever about not only going after Barack Obama and democrats, but he also goes after republicans and George W. Bush policies with abandon. So I don't really know that that's so much of a big deal as it is the fact that, you know, Donald Trump won the election promising to fight the campaign against terror with, you know, utmost vigor, and I think that that is a much bigger issue than under who it was that certain detainees got released.
BREAM: Yeah, but Mo,I mean, this has to be a gift to the left that the conversation that Charlie talking about that it is important to be having about Gitmo, how to get lost when people are now thinking, well, this is just another "Saturday Night Live" skit. Something that didn't have to give the left but I'm sure you got it.
ELLEITHEE: Yeah, I mean, if you want to have a conversation, a debate over Gitmo policy, totally legit. We should have that debate. We should have that conversation. But because of this president's itchy Twitter trigger finger, he keeps feeding into a narrative that I think is borne out well by the facts that he doesn't know the facts, that he is willing to play fast and loose with the truth.
And when you look at the just the past several weeks and months whether it is this issue, whether it is the debunked claims about the president wiretapping him, whether it is the debunked claims about widespread voter fraud, these are all issues that are demonstrably false.
He can engage in the underlying -- I mean, Charlie was, you know, always work there trying to bring it back to the issue that the actual policy debate, we can have those policy debates, but when you are playing fast and loose with the truth, it feeds into the narrative that this is a president who will say whatever it takes to score political points.
BREAM: All right. Charlie, there are nuggets of truth in each of the things that Mo pointed out there. But when they were overstated or words are used incorrectly. I mean, words matter. So even if there is some truth to some of those situations, it gets lost in the misinformation. Should there be someone pre-approving his tweets?
I (inaudible) agree with that. I mean, what he loves about this is that he can go straight to the people (inaudible) people love about access to him as well, and he gained millions of votes for the presidency.
HURT: Sure, and of course, people in the press. I will never understand why people in the press keep wringing their hands saying that he needs to stop tweeting, it is great for news.
BREAM: People love it.
HURT: It is highly entertaining.
BREAM: Yeah.
HURT: And it is important that there is always a kernel of truth to these things. I would say far more than that in a lot of cases. In the case of whether the president or his claims about blogging (ph) Trump Tower, that was based on a newspaper story that has not been debunked. And remains out there as a, you know, that intelligence officials got (inaudible) court approval in order to spy on.
Shannon: To people who will say the word wiretapping was never used in that original reporting and has been shut at least in part by President Obama through a spokesman. Again, when you have to parse those facts, it takes away as you said.
HURT: Absolutely. He has always been very artful the way he uses colloquial words. And I realize it gets him into trouble, but it is also part of the genius.
BREAM: All right. Well, we've got to go. I know Mo is not going to agree to anything involving genius and Donald Trump, but a lot millions out there will and they like him going without the filter of the media. We got to leave it there. Thank you both so much for your time tonight. Will regulation nation soon be a thing of the past?
While democrats and members of the media are consumed with the Twitter feed, the president is wasting no time in actually getting things done, taking ax to the heart of the regulatory state constructed under President Obama. We are gonna debate that ahead.
Plus, President Trump offered Planned Parenthood a deal. They said, no thanks. An executive vice president from the group tells us why they rejected his offer. And then, Dana Loesch and Krystal Ball debate the repercussions. That is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent, I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3 percent, but I would defund because I am pro-life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: That was then candidate Trump just over a year ago (inaudible) is now attempting to make good on that promise. President Trump offered Planned Parenthood a deal, don't do abortions and keep your federal funding. The organization quickly refused that offering. In a moment, we are gonna be joined by representative from Planned Parenthood.
But first, to debate the fallout politically, Dana Loesch is host of "Dana" on The Blaze TV and Krystal Ball is a senior fellow at the new leaders council and the author of a new book. We're going to tell you all about that book, coming up, I don't know the title, but I know it's gonna be awesome. Crystal, thank you. Here is it, "Reversing the Apocalypse." All right. Thank you both for joining us.
(CROSSTALK)
BREAM: All right. Crystal, do you think that the president thought they would potentially take the deal? It wasn't floated publicly. Do you think the private conversation, there was any legit chance they would take it?
KRYSTAL BALL, AUTHOR, SENIOR FELLOW AT NEW LEADERS COUNCIL: No, absolutely not. You know, as the president pointed out in his comments, abortion is not core to what they do in terms of the number of procedures that is about 3 percent of the procedures that they perform.
BREAM: "The Washington Post," not a conservative rag by any of stretch of the imagination, gave that claim, 3 out of 4 Pinocchio in lie test and said it was not true.
BALL: Well, a number of independent sources have verified 3 percent, about 90 percent of their patients come in for something other than abortion. While it is not core to the services they provide, it is core to their values and that they believe that women should have access to the full range of medical care including abortions.
So, this analogy is not perfect, but it would be a bit like going to a Jewish hospital and saying, we'll keep giving you federal funding as long as you stop doing circumcision. It is not the entirety of what they do, it's not even the majority of what they do, but it is important to their values and their belief system.
BREAM: All right. Dana, a lot of people have no moral objection to circumcision. They do have moral objection to abortion. The country is pretty evenly split on that, and even though federal funding is not allowed because of the high demand that go to any abortion procedure, you know, there are those who have questions about the fungibility of the money, a half a billion dollars.
DANA LOESCH, HOST OF "DANA" ON THE BLAZE TV: Right.
BREAM: --in government money that planned parenthood gets every year.
LOESCH: Exactly, and to your point, Shannon, if it is only 3 percent, if it is only 3 percent of the services offered, then what is the big deal about eliminating that in order to continue receiving those valuable taxpayer dollars? To me, it seems like an easy decision to make. Unfortunately, that is a little bit of fuzzy math.
I think the analogy that has been used before or rather to example to highlight this, like saying, you are going to a baseball game to watch baseball, but because you buy a hot dog, it looks like major league baseball just in the business of selling hot dogs. That's the bulk of what they do. It is weird and how they counted.
You are right, there are number of entities out there which say that that number is completely false. But more so, Cecile Richards herself said that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from performing abortions. This is a for-profit business that should not be receiving as much federal money as they are receiving.
And fungibility is a great point with this. This money that is given to Planned Parenthood, $500 million annually, allows them to continue this abortion mill business that they are running. Without that, they wouldn't be able to run the abortion bill business.
And you have community health centers that provide the actual full suite of health care services for women. They provide better care. They provide prenatal care. They outnumbered Planned Parenthood 3-1 in every single state in the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
BREAM: Are you okay then with the money because the plan now that the GOP is proposing is to redirect the money to federally approved and qualified health care centers that provide all of those things for women, cancer screenings, breast exams, all those things, but without abortion, what is your objection?
BALL: The problem is that Planned Parenthood operates in roughly 400 counties in the United States, out of those, in 100 of them, there is no other clinic that offers, in particular, access to low income women for contraceptive services. One of the things we have seen over the past eight years is we've actually seen a huge decline in the rate of abortion that has been tied to increased access to contraception.
In a way here, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. This has been successful in reducing abortions, particularly for low income women when they don't have access to birth control.
(CROSSTALK)
BREAM: I'm sorry, but we want to make sure that we bring in -- we have a special guest with us. Dawn Laguens is an executive vice president for Planned Parenthood. Dawn, I'm assuming that the deal, the offer that was made by President Trump was dead on arrival.
DAWN LAGUENS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD: I didn't really hear a deal exactly, I heard a disaster for women's health care, and I also heard a White House that is very, very concerned about taking away birth control, STD testing, and cancer screening for millions of women in this country who don't have anywhere else to get those services.
BREAM: But if they can go to the other federally qualified health care centers, there are 700 roughly planned parenthood clinics in this country. There are more than 9,000 of other qualified health care centers that do those screenings, all those kinds of things, but without abortion. Is it accurate to say women would have nowhere else to go?
LAGUENS: It is. Actually, the head of the American Public Health Association called the claim that Planned Parenthood patients could go to federally qualified health centers all over the country with ludicrous, and federally qualified health centers have themselves said, hey, we are already overrun with patients. We have four weeks, eight weeks, 12-week wait, and you know, a woman who has a lump in her breasts or needs birth control can't wait eight weeks or 12 weeks to get an appointment.
BREAM: Those clinics serve more than 21 million patients last year, you all served less than 3 million. A lot of those clinics say that they do have the space for it, that they are spread out all over the country in rural places and otherwise.
So let me ask you though, if the president is saying, you're getting $500 million of government funding every year, if you give up something that you claim is only 3 percent of your business, why couldn't you still operate? Why not take that deal? Strictly about making sure that you stay on the abortion business?
LAGUENS: We believe that women in this country deserve the full range of reproductive health care including safe, legal abortion, and we are committed to providing the full range of services. Two things I want to say. First, federally qualified health centers and community health centers are our partners. They refer people to us, we refer people to them.
This is a patchwork quilt of trying to take care of, especially low income people in this country. Secondly, let's just talk about how Planned Parenthood gets federal funds. The whole term defunding is very misleading. Planned Parenthood does not get a publishers clearinghouse check for $500 million. We are not a line item in the budget, we are not (inaudible) proposal for the president says. We get reimbursed for services. Just like a hospital actually.
BREAM: We got to leave it there because were out of time, but that is federal, local, and state taxpayer money. A lot of folks have objections to the way that it is. But we know it, federally, under the law, none of that is supposed to be going to abortions. We thank all of our guests for coming with us tonight on that debate.
Still ahead, while the democrats and the media focus largely on the palace intrigue inside 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, the Trump administration has quietly and methodically sent regulation nation reeling. Paula ___ and ___ join us with that debate next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: Over the course of his campaign, President Trump promised to reduce the red tape and roll back regulations in Washington, and it seems he's already starting to make good on that pledge. More than 90 regulations have reportedly been delayed, suspended, or revoked since Mr. Trump took office, but that is just part of more than 20,000 regulations put into place under the Obama administration.
Let's talk about it with Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist and Jessica Tarlov, senior director of research at bustle.com and a democratic pollster. Welcome to you both. Mollie, he promised he was going to do this, one of those things he can't get done without congress, a lot of this, I mean, by executive order, but it's interesting to note that The Hill reported I think it was today that there are a lot of democrats who have actually voted for some of these regulatory repeals, they're crossing the aisle on this.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR AT THE FEDERALIST: There are many reasons to oppose the growth of the regulatory state. As you noted, 20,000 regulations during Obama's presidency. Last year, a 100,000 pages added to the federal register. This regulatory state strangles the economy, limits economic opportunity, and disproportionately affects low-income Americans. This is something we can't afford in an economy that has been struggling for quite some time.
BREAM: Jessica, during the campaign, President Trump, then candidate Trump said that he would want to get in place but we have now, the two-for-one, one-for-two.
JESSICA TARLOV, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AT BUSTLE.COM, DEMOCRATIC
POLLSTER: Yeah.
BREAM: --You know, you got to get rid of some if you're going to pass new ones. He said he would keep things in place that protected safety and health. I know you don't think he's been faithful to that.
TARLOV: No, I don't. I think this was a campaign promise he made for his base. I understand why. Mollie is correct in saying that the majority of Americans do feel like we are over-regulated, but not in certain areas (inaudible) ratio of 59 to 34. Americans think that environmental regulations are worth the extra costs. I know (inaudible) haven't heard that or Donald Trump. I don't know how it makes Americans safer or better off to let people with mental illness have access to handguns.
BREAM: Just to be clear on that. We are talking about a regulation that the house got rid of, the congress got rid of, would have required the social security administration to report people for certain things including people with immune (ph) disorders. And there are lot of folks that thought, you know, listen, if you're going to take away second amendment right, you've got to have due process.
TARLOV: Yeah, but that's also just the Trump administration really (inaudible) and I understand it was a congressional vote here and republicans have control of the congress at this moment with signing of the NRA as oppose to the safety of Americans. We can debate this all day, but I am just saying that this isn't just straight off, we're just getting rid of the excess fat here.
There are things that he's taking away that are just really feeding the, quote, swamp, that he said he was going to go after with the pharmaceutical industry.
BREAM: Mollie, is he making things more dangerous?
HEMINGWAY: No. The federal state and local regulations that go into people's wallets, into people's medicine cabinets, into their refrigerators. Environmental regulations to determine that if you have some pond water, all of a sudden, you need to be regulated by the EPA and they can seize your property. This is the actual regulatory state that people are fed up with, and it is harming the economy.
I mean, if you have regulations just at the level that they were in 1980, you would have more than $13,000 for every man, woman in America each year in addition to what we have now. So this is real cost that are really harming Americans. And again, we're not in a place where we can handle this.
TARLOV: Mollie, what is the point of.
BREAM: 15 seconds.
TARLOV: --okay, of letting corporations (inaudible) not have to reassess when they violated worker safety laws, allowing them to keep that secret, as it were. How does that help anyone? That's what I don't understand, there are some that have gone overboard, but obviously, you've got to see that this two-for-one idea is totally ridiculous.
HEMINGWAY: Right. Deal with the other millions of regulations.
(CROSSTALK)
BREAM: All right. Thank you both. Good to see you. We will be right back on "The First 100 Days."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: We started the show tonight talking about what many see as the split within the GOP on the issue of ObamaCare. The president tweets, I feel sure my friend, Rand Paul, will come along with a new and great health care program because he knows that Obamacare is a disaster. We'll see. We'll see you tomorrow at 7:00.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox