Face the Nation: Cassidy, Cohn

[0:00] We're joined now by Republican Senator Bill Cassidy. He is the chairman of the Health [0:04] Committee and he joins us from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Good morning to you, doctor. A lot [0:10] to get to. I want to start first on something that grabbed our attention. President Trump [0:16] claimed Friday that his son has now repaid a Russian billionaire named Umar Kremlev after [0:23] it was reported that the Kremlin-linked billionaire paid for parts of his son's wedding celebrations [0:28] in the Bahamas. Don Jr. originally called it a gift, but your Republican colleague from [0:35] Utah, Senator Curtis, called it corruption. Your colleague from North Carolina, Tom Tillis, [0:40] said it was beyond bad. Do you think it's corruption and does repaying the funds make a difference? [0:48] Repaying the funds does make a difference. Anytime someone gives a $250,000 gift and they have strong [0:54] ties to the Kremlin, that's wrong. You, with that proximity to power, being the president's son, [1:03] you've got to give faith to the American people that Washington is not a swamp. And even though [1:09] in your mind it might be a gift, the appearance of it is really bad. And so I'm glad it's been [1:15] repaid. Would be nice to have that kind of verified and know it shouldn't have been done in the first [1:19] place. Well, it was the free press that brought it forward in the first place. It was a publication [1:23] called ProPublica. Important reporting there. Let me ask you about an issue that I know is on your [1:30] radar, and that is the debt we are in. As a country, we are $40 trillion in debt. President Trump said [1:38] he's going to pay out $5,000 to Americans if Republicans win in these upcoming midterm elections. [1:44] I know the Treasury Secretary says he'll avoid going to Congress for that money, even if it's not fiscal [1:51] spending. Isn't it inflationary, and is it actually a good idea? It's absolutely inflationary. If Joe [1:59] Biden had proposed that, conservatives would have been all against it. And I say that because if the [2:04] government borrows money, it's going to drive up how much somebody pays for their mortgage, for their [2:09] car note, perhaps for their credit card. And so for that family struggling to buy their first home or [2:14] to refinance a home or to buy a car, it becomes that much more out of reach to you. [2:19] We need to actually pay attention to our national debt. And I can tell you that if we can control our [2:26] debt, that will be a stimulus to somebody. That will help them be able to afford life better. That's [2:32] a better way to go. Anything like that going to happen post-midterms to control the debt? [2:39] Well, so as you know, I've been pushing to address Social Security. And the nice thing about addressing [2:43] Social Security, which I would still love to do this Congress, is that not only do you ensure the [2:52] benefit that has been promised to the American people, but you also take care of 20 percent of [2:58] our nation's indebtedness. And so that's why I've been so pushing for this. If we wait six years till [3:03] the trust fund goes insolvent, my gosh, that's too late. We need to do it now. [3:07] Absolutely. Let's talk more about it in a minute. I'm going to take this commercial break, [3:10] Senator. And we'll have much more with Dr. Bill Cassidy. Stay with us. [3:20] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We return now to our conversation with Louisiana Republican [3:24] Senator and Dr. Bill Cassidy. Senator, you, as we mentioned, run the health committee. [3:33] President Trump spoke at length on Friday, again, about vaccines. And he said he's going to demand [3:40] that drug companies split up kids' vaccines into five doses. He said it will lead, quote, [3:46] to a massive reduction in autism. Take a listen. [3:49] So you have shot one, shot two, shot three, shot four, shot five. So instead of having [3:57] a massive dose of 82 or 88 different vaccines pumped into your arm, we'll take out certain [4:07] vaccines that people are a little worried about. Do you know what vaccines he means or whether [4:15] vaccine makers are actually going to do what he just promised? [4:18] I don't know that. There needs to be, though, radical honesty. Have the president come forward [4:26] and what is he basing this on? Who's giving him advice? And I approach this as a physician. [4:31] I spoke to a pediatrician the other night who says that patients are so worried, [4:35] patients' mothers are so worried. And so we need to address that worry where it is, [4:40] not by coming up with stuff which may have no clue where it's coming from, but kind of in a radically [4:47] honest way, explain what you think. If you want to be radically honest, the vaccines are safe. [4:53] They've been proven to be safe. And the current regimen has been timed to be most convenient to the [4:58] parent. At any point, the parent can say, I want something different. But I would just ask the [5:03] president to be aware that people are listening to him. If he discourages immunization, there'll be [5:08] fewer people immunized. And if we're speaking of measles, there'll be more people sick in the [5:12] hospital or even die. Well, and just on the math of it all, he's talking about more shots, [5:18] adding shots rather than reducing them. But your committee holds a hearing this coming week on the [5:26] nominee to be the next FDA commissioner, Dr. Heidi Overton. She was standing beside President Trump [5:34] a few weeks ago when he falsely called the MMR vaccine lethal. You said it was a nonsensical [5:40] executive order that he was signing to change the childhood vaccine schedule. She'd be involved [5:45] with the vaccine makers here. You said her presence and involvement was almost disqualifying. [5:54] Why not automatically? What do you need to hear from her to be persuaded? [5:58] I need to hear that she understands that calling the measles vaccine lethal is absurd. And we need [6:08] radical honesty. Tell us, Mr. President, why do you think this vaccine is lethal? Have you ever seen [6:15] a case of lethality? And what about the people who are not vaccinated, who are getting sick and even [6:20] dying? By the way, a 40-year-old and an 18-year-old most recently. And what do we say to those families [6:26] in the neonatal intensive care unit at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where a child, an older [6:32] child with active measles walked through, exposing those children in that ICU? We should have a common [6:39] voice of radical honesty, of trying to help the American people understand what is safe. And if the [6:46] president calls it lethal, then where are you getting your information, Mr. President? And if you really [6:50] don't have it, why are you willing to risk the lives of fellow Americans? And on this program, Dr. Oz did [6:57] admit that it was not lethal when we pressed him. But no one did on camera. And Margaret, can I also [7:05] point out that the president's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Sapphire, just said in committee hearing [7:11] last week that it's not lethal, it is safe, and people should be vaccinated. Did she earn your vote? And if [7:17] so, when will we see her confirmed as surgeon general? So she did earn my vote, and she'll be [7:25] part of, I'm sure, the en bloc. There's a whole group of people that'll be all approved at the same [7:30] time. But when somebody is willing to be honest to the American people and say that vaccines are safe, [7:37] you should be taking it, and the consequence of not can even include death, well, what else can you ask [7:43] for when it comes to vaccines? You mentioned a moment ago the concern that the Pennsylvania [7:48] Department of Health has said about the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and exposure of babies, [7:54] infants, in NICU. A baby's not immunized until around 12 months of age. So these infants are at risk here. [8:02] And Dr. Paul Offit, who heads the Vaccine Education Center, said the United States is severely [8:08] underestimating the epidemic of measles right now. So we have had, for about two and a half weeks now, [8:15] a new CDC director, Dr. Erica Schwartz. In her very first interview, she said the CDC is working on a [8:23] definition of what a measles-related death is. Is that really what the CDC should be focused on, [8:32] the nuance around the language? [8:34] So Dr. Schwartz and I have communicated on multiple occasions, and there is a difference in medicine [8:42] between caused by and associated with. Of the four deaths in Pennsylvania, one was associated with [8:50] measles, but the coroner did not say that measles caused the death. The other three, a coroner, [8:56] by the way, all Republicans have said that the deaths were caused by measles. Now, there's apparently [9:03] a lag time between the records being sent, received by CDC from Pennsylvania and being posted. But [9:10] the coroner in Pennsylvania has three different cases have said that these deaths were caused by [9:17] measles. And I'll repeat, Margaret, one was 40 and one was 18 years old. Having measles is not a kind [9:24] of victimless kind of experience. It's a little bit like drunk driving. You can drive drunk. You can drink [9:31] and get drunk. But if you drive, you're going to hurt other people. You can get measles. But when you [9:37] start spreading it to other people, a 40 year old dies, an 18 year old dies. Children in a neonatal [9:43] intensive care unit are at risk. People have got to realize, and the government has to realize, [9:46] the president should be saying, be vaccinated. It is safe and effective. [9:51] Do you think this is going to hurt your party in the midterms? [9:53] If you look at polling, women who make most of the health decisions for a family overwhelmingly [10:01] support childhood immunization. And so if the American people feel as if there is a message [10:10] coming out which is not good for the health of the United States and which is confusing people, [10:15] I can tell you it probably does hurt. [10:16] Dr. Cassidy, Senator, thank you for your time today. We'll leave it there. We'll be right back. [10:22] And we're joined now by Gary Cohn. He is the vice chairman at IBM. He previously served as the top [10:28] economic advisor to President Trump during that first term. Welcome back. It's always good to have [10:33] you here. Thanks for having me. So we have a lot of pressure points right now. One of them is diesel [10:37] prices at this record high. Motor oil, jet fuel costs, they're all affecting consumers. And this is not [10:43] just in America. I mean, around the world, the video alone of what's happening with protests in some of these [10:48] countries in Syria, Philippines, Guatemala, all gas price protests. How concerned are you about the [10:56] state of the consumer and the global economy? Well, Margaret, I think you went to the exact topic [11:02] that the consumer in the United States is most concerned about. It's energy and energy products. [11:06] You know, you start with gasoline, the most obvious thing. People go to the pump daily, weekly, [11:10] and they sit there and they hold the nozzle down and they watch the numbers tick and they see [11:14] these numbers are higher than they were last week and they're higher than the week before. Is this [11:18] ever going to stop? So directly they see it. Then indirectly, when you talk about diesel, [11:23] diesel is really the feedstock for food in this country. You know, our farmers go through diesel to [11:30] to grow their crops, to pick their crops, to deliver their crops. The transportation network [11:34] is all dependent on diesel. So they see the secondhand effects of diesel in the economy as well. [11:40] So the consumer sentiment has turned quite negative. And then throw on top of that, [11:44] the unknowns of AI is really concerning people because they see very high prices. [11:49] They're unsure about AI. They're unsure about the job market. And so sentiment has become quite [11:54] negative recently. It's become negative. And yet you hear Treasury Secretary Besson and others saying, [12:00] we've got all these positive data points, right? With like, you know, the poverty rate in this country [12:05] really at a historic low. This morning, he was posting about that on social media as he's getting ready [12:11] to meet with the Chinese. He says there's strong foreign demand for U.S. assets. He refutes the [12:16] ideas that investors are balking at treasuries. But there does seem this concern about America's [12:21] stability and fiscal health. You know, we're in a very funny place here. The overall economy is quite [12:26] stable. So if you look at some of the headline indicators, you look at GDP, you look at employment, [12:32] you look at consumer spending, the numbers are pretty good. They're pretty good to very good. [12:37] So what's actually going on in the day to day economy that Secretary Besson is talking about, [12:41] he's right. But when you ask consumers about how they feel about the economy and where they think [12:47] they're going to be in a month from now or a quarter from now or a year from now, [12:50] then you see this very negative sentiment of all these issues flowing through. But we have not seen [12:55] a slowdown in consumption. That said, we have seen real wages turn negative in the last few months, [13:01] meaning that wage growth is slower than inflation growth. So your purchasing power goes down. [13:07] But people have decided to use their savings and savings is diminishing. [13:11] They've decided to use their savings to continue to consume products the way they have [13:16] always consumed products. Now, that can't go on forever. We will run out of savings. [13:19] Says a lot about us as Americans, doesn't it? [13:21] Well, we are very good consumers in America. [13:24] Well, this past week, we had this significant move, though, by the new Federal Reserve chair, [13:29] Kevin Borscht. I know you know him personally. He came out and said the economy is strengthening [13:33] with new hiring, private sector earnings, capital investment. But the Open Market Committee [13:38] unanimously said we've got to hike rates because of persistent inflation. Did it surprise you? [13:45] Not at all. As you know, the Fed has a dual mandate. Mandate number one is full employment. [13:51] And the chair came out and talked about how strong the employment was. I just talked about how strong [13:55] employment picture in the United States is. Point two that they deal with, the second part of their [14:00] mandate is something called stable prices. Stable prices means that they're trying to shoot for a [14:05] two percent unemployment rate. The chairman has made it very clear, very clear that he is going [14:10] to fight inflation. He said it in his first meeting. He said it in his Jackson Hole. He said it in any [14:15] interview he's given. He's told you he's going to fight inflation. So we now come to this meeting [14:20] last week and we still have inflation up in the high two percent, two point close to three percent. [14:25] And he did exactly what he told you he was going to do. And more importantly, he did it with the [14:30] unanimous vote of all of the governors in the Fed. I think it's been many, many meetings. I don't want [14:36] to guess exactly. It's probably been six six plus meetings since we have had a consensus unanimous vote [14:41] inside the Fed. And on the cost of an election that surprised so many people. But the president said the [14:48] Fed did the wrong thing. Maybe he meant politically. But practically speaking, what will this hike do? [14:55] So practically it's an interesting hike because we all know that the inflation is being driven from [15:01] the supply side of the equation, meaning that we don't have enough supply in the system going back [15:05] to energy. If we had more energy in the system, the price of energy would come down and we'd see some [15:11] of the deflation come out of the system. So this is not this cut can't change the amount of oil that's [15:16] in the system. It can't create diesel. It can't create gasoline. But what this increase does, [15:21] sorry about that, this increase does, is it makes the cost of borrowing more expensive. And that's [15:26] the intention. The intention is to have consumers buy less product. Therefore, there's less demand [15:33] that offsets with the lower supply that we have in the in the system. It's really a balancing act in [15:40] here. Now, it's 25 basis points. And remember, it's federal funds, which means it's the very front [15:45] end of the interest rate curve. So they raised the rates in the front end of the interest curve. [15:50] An interesting thing actually happened. The longer dated securities, interest sensitive, [15:55] actually got cheaper or the rates went down on them. So the key, the government bonds. So in essence, [16:02] the curve, which had been fairly steep, meaning the difference between the overnight rate and the 30 year [16:07] rate, it technically flattened. So the differential between those two rates flattened. So to the extent that [16:12] people are getting a mortgage or they're getting a car loan or they're financing their credit card, [16:16] the rate of which the banks used to set that really did not change or went lower over the [16:22] over the course of the week. And the rate at which depositors can get money overnight on their deposits [16:26] actually went up. Well, you thank you on the yield curve and bonds, because that's where I was going on. [16:31] Besant, the Treasury secretary, buying $5 billion in U.S. debt. Does that improve anything or is it really [16:39] just Congress has got to cut their own spending? Well, ultimately Congress has to cut their own [16:43] spending. And it's not only just Congress. We have enormous demand from the data centers in the AI [16:48] world. There's more debt being issued by corporates as well as the governments than we've seen in a [16:53] long period of time. But what Secretary Besant was doing is exactly what Chairman Walsh is doing. [16:59] They're both trying to make the longer end of the curve, the part of the curve where you and I borrow [17:04] money when we get a car, when we buy a home. They're trying to make the longer dated maturities [17:09] cheaper. They're trying to drive the interest rates down on the long end of the curve. Secretary [17:14] Besant used the tool he has available to him and Chairman Walsh used the tool he has available to [17:19] them. And they're both driving the same outcome. Well, we'll see if it works. We will hope it works. [17:25] We'll hope it works. Gary Cohn, always good to have you here. Thanks for having me. We'll be back in a moment. [17:32] As the debate over the direction and future of artificial intelligence intensifies, [17:37] our new CBS poll shows Americans are fundamentally divided on the technology and the questions of [17:43] at what pace or should we even develop AI technology? 43% of Americans say AI companies should [17:50] slow down development. 12% say we should stop, while 44% say we should keep the current pace or even speed up. [17:59] Nearly two thirds of Americans, 64%, say the US developing AI is necessary to compete with other [18:06] countries. After an AI researcher spoke earlier this month of his concerns that the technology could [18:12] pose a threat to humanity within 10 years, Americans say they do have concerns about AI models potentially [18:20] causing harm to humans, with half saying they probably or certainly will, with the other half divided [18:26] between those who think the models probably or certainly will not or are not sure. [18:32] One industry leader who's firmly on the side of acceleration is NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, [18:38] whose company makes chips used by AI developers in both the US and China. He spoke with our [18:44] Joling Kent for CBS Sunday morning. Here's some of their conversation. [18:48] Joling Kent for CBS Sunday morning. Are we all going to be, in the words of some, gone in a decade? [18:54] No, that's completely false. And that kind of narrative is dramatic. It gets a lot of attention. [19:03] Of course, obviously, it's gotten the attention of the press. And I think, at its core, [19:10] they care deeply that the products are built safely. They're transitioning from a lab to engineering. [19:15] They have to dedicate a lot more of their research, researchers, a lot more of their compute to safety. [19:26] All the messaging around the drama of it is unnecessary. It is, quite frankly, too much drama, [19:35] irresponsible. It is now grounded on facts. It's now grounded on science. [19:39] So it's wrong. [19:40] Well, it's wrong because it's not grounded on science. Their concern is not wrong. I just want to make sure [19:46] that, at the core of it, the concern is not wrong. [19:49] Do you think that we should be pacing the development of AI right now, given where we are vis-a-vis China? [19:57] We should go as fast as we can, but not faster than we should. And if we're compromising safety, [20:04] that can't happen. If you're compromising safety and you deliver products that are unsafe, [20:10] that put people in harm's way, we have laws of all kinds to come after you. And so, [20:16] the companies that are developing these technologies are perfectly incentivized to do the right thing. [20:23] And I have every confidence, I have every confidence, because they're incentivized to do so, [20:28] they have the capability to do so, that we will deliver, we will create AI, [20:34] advance AI in a way that's safe to society. [20:37] The president is calling this fear a hoax. Do you agree with his characterization of it? [20:42] I believe the claims of the end of the world, stirring fear across America, [20:54] and doing it by the people who are doing it makes no sense to me. [21:00] So they must be doing it for ulterior reasons. That's, that's, maybe it's political, [21:08] maybe it's otherwise, maybe it's just attention-grabbing, maybe so that they could get a great [21:13] interview with you. I don't, I don't know what is the reason for it, but however it's characterized, [21:21] 2030 is not going to be the end of the world. There is 0% chance that's going to be the end of [21:26] the world. And so, I think that scaring people is unnecessary, it is irresponsible, and I don't know [21:35] what their motives are. However, what he did say and some of the other things. So, [21:42] so that's one thing that he said. The other thing that he said was, was that we don't need more [21:48] regulations. We need to apply the current regulations we have. That's a very practical, [21:54] very sensible thing. And, and we just spoke about that as well. And I agree with that. [21:58] You will be attending the state dinner with President Xi Jinping of China. If you get a chance to speak to [22:04] him about this situation that we're in right now, the one that Americans are so concerned about, [22:10] what will you say to the president of China? I would say that, that I'm delighted to see [22:16] AI's technology transitioning from, from laboratories to now really useful capabilities and products and [22:24] services. And because it's making that transition, it would be good for all countries that are developing [22:32] and advancing AI. To do so in a way where we share best practices, maybe, maybe set global standards [22:41] about product expectations. Work closer together. Of course, work closer together. If we want, look, [22:52] they want China to be safe. They want China to have the benefit of AI. They want China to prosper, [22:59] just as we want the United States to prosper. I'm glad they have ambitious expectations and aspirations. [23:06] As they advance the technology, we ought to make sure that we work with each other as much as we can. [23:12] I want to ask you about something that's really bothering a lot of Americans right now. [23:16] There's a lot of people who don't want data centers in their backyards. [23:20] Yeah. Yeah. [23:21] This is rare bipartisan unity. The backlash is bipartisan. NVIDIA powers a lot of data centers. [23:31] What do you say to the people out there who are speaking out and saying, [23:35] we do not want these in our neighborhoods? I would say, we're sorry we didn't come [23:41] talk to you sooner. We need to go engage the communities long before we set up the data centers. [23:49] And I think all of my colleagues recognize this today. You know, it's just all of this happened [23:55] so quickly and it happened all over America so quickly. We didn't realize and we didn't get a [24:02] chance to be polite, to be a visitor in some new town. However, I will also say [24:12] the data centers are also improving tremendously and tremendously quickly. [24:15] Joe Ling's full conversation with Jensen Huang can be seen on the CBS Sunday morning YouTube channel. [24:22] And this breaking news development with the president's plan for a 250-foot triumphal arch [24:30] to be built near Arlington Cemetery just across the Potomac River in Virginia, [24:34] inspired from the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. In a new social media post, the president says it may [24:41] now feature a national security facility featuring drones and snipers. Quote, [24:45] at the strong request of the United States military and for national security purposes, [24:49] I have agreed to convert the magnificent triumphal arch planned since the Civil War era many years ago [24:56] at the receptive circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial Bridge into a top grade military complex [25:01] triumphal arch to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, [25:08] plus snipers on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of [25:15] sniper ammunition in storage. And we will continue to follow that one. That's it for us today. [25:22] Thank you for watching. Until next week. For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.