Return to Transcripts main page
President Biden Touts Infrastructure Plan; Testimony Continues in Derek Chauvin Trial. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired April 7, 2021 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: And just a reminder for all of us what's being debated here.
Chauvin there sitting there masked on his screen, the defendant, placed his knee on the neck of George Floyd for nine minutes, 29 seconds. And the question is whether or not that choke hold killed Mr. Floyd.
We heard from one witness who was from the Los Angeles Police Department. The goal of prosecutors here is to get the opinion of someone intimately familiar with the use of force, but that is also unbiased about this actual incident.
So, here's what he testified today specifically about that choke hold.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have an opinion to a degree of reasonable professional certainty whether the force used as shown in Exhibit 254, whether that force being applied then for the restraint period, which you have defined as nine minutes and 29 seconds, would constitute deadly force?
SGT. JODY STIGER, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what is that opinion?
STIGER: That it would.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is that?
STIGER: Because, at the time of the restraint period, Mr. Floyd was not resisting. He was in the prone position. He was handcuffed. He was not attempting to evade. He was not attempting to resist. And the pressure that he was -- that was being caused by the body weight would cause positional asphyxia, which can cause death.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: CNN security correspondent Josh Campbell is live outside of that Minneapolis courthouse.
And, Josh, I know there was there was quite a bit of cross-examination on this particular witness today. What stood out to you?
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: First, I apologize.
There's some kind of alarm that's going off here near the courthouse, not in the main building nearby. That's the sound that you hear, if you can hear me at all.
Just to tell you a little bit about what we saw, the key witness here today is that LAPD use of force expert. And this is someone who was hired by the prosecution. And, again, if you think about it, if you're the jury, these people are not, for the most part, experts in law enforcement.
And so it's up to prosecutors and the defense to bring in experts to try to explain what they have seen and what it all means. And what we're hearing from this use of force to expert, this LAPD officer, is that the force that Derek Chauvin used against George Floyd constituted deadly force, it was inappropriate.
He said that once, Floyd was on the ground and handcuffed and in that prone position, there was no force necessary. And so that was a very, very powerful moment. We have been getting reactions from inside, our reporter who's been watching the jury saying they have been taking copious notes, paying attention to this witness and the words that he's using to describe Chauvin's actions.
Now, of course, the defense will have an opportunity later on to bring in their own experts, but for his part today, very powerful testimony. Now, one thing that the defense tried to do -- and this is something that our colleague Chief Charles Ramsey said earlier, which is what we have all noticed here -- is basically bringing up all of these hypotheticals by the defense saying that, well, what if this happens, what if that happened?
BALDWIN: Josh, hang on a second.
I just need to make sure you're OK. Forgive me for being that person, but I'm going to put -- I'm going to take you off TV. I'm going to make sure you're OK, whatever is going on around you is OK. We're going to hit -- we're going to time-out. I promise we will bring you back, right?
That's kind of the right decision, Josh Campbell standing by there.
So, OK, listening, my producer.
So, let's -- OK.
Let's go to Cedric Alexander, with all of your years in law enforcement, without fire alarms going off behind you.
Cedric, thank you so much for being with me.
Let's just begin with the examine -- the testimony, the cross-exam, the line of questioning specifically for these use of force witnesses, what do you make of it? How effective has it been?
CEDRIC ALEXANDER, FORMER PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES: Well, I mean, certainly, it's going to create -- the whole idea for the defense is to create some doubt.
But you're looking at a very young lieutenant there who is very seasoned, an LAPD officer who has years of experience in use of force and, over the last day or so really, has articulated himself very well and been able to clarify any questions that have been given to him by either side, both the defense and prosecution.
So, this case is going to continue to evolve around these issues around use of force, when it was -- when it should have been applied, when it should not have been applied, et cetera. But the real key is here, I think, Brooke, as we move forward in this case, it is going to be the science that is going to get to become very, very interesting, when we start hearing from pathologists and...
BALDWIN: The medical -- yes.
ALEXANDER: Medical examiners, et cetera.
That's when it's going to really start to become very, very interesting in this case.
BALDWIN: Which is, presumably, the next phase of witnesses.
But, Elie, just staying on these use of force experts, what do you think? How effective has this back-and-forth been for both sides?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Brooke, so, so much of jury trial strategy is about focus.
And I think we saw that battle playing out today. In their direct examination, the prosecution with this expert witness had his almost complete focus on that crucial nine minutes and 29 seconds. When the cross-examination happened, they were trying to put the focus everywhere else, anywhere else but that 9:29, and then break it into its smallest little bite-sized pieces and argue, well, each of these pieces standing alone was OK.
BALDWIN: Elie, forgive me, forgive me.
Let's go to President Biden.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Last week in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I announced my plan to rebuild what I referred to as the backbone of America through the American Jobs Plan.
It's not a plan that tinkers around the edges. It's a once-in-a- generation investment in America, unlike anything we have done since we built the interstate highway system and won the space race decades ago. It is the single largest investment in American jobs since World War II. And it's a plan that puts millions of Americans to work to fix what's broken in our country, tens of thousands of miles of roads and highways, thousands of bridges in desperate need of repair.
But it also is a blueprint for infrastructure needed for tomorrow, not just yesterday, tomorrow, for American jobs, for American competitiveness. Last week, I said that, once Congress is back from recess, I would get to work right away, because we have no time to lose.
So, here we are. Democrats and Republicans will have ideas about what they like and what they don't like about our plan. That's a good thing. That's the American way. That's the way democracy works. Debate is welcome. Compromise is inevitable. Changes are certain.
And in the next few weeks, the vice president and I will be meeting with Republicans and Democrats to hear from everyone. And we will be listening. We will be open to good ideas and good-faith negotiations. But here's what we won't be open to. We will not be open to doing nothing.
Inaction simply is not an option.
Now, since I announced this plan, I have heard from my Republican friends say that it's -- many of them say it's too big. They say, why not focus on traditional infrastructure, fix what we have already got, the roads and highways that exist and the bridges. I'm happy to have that debate.
But I want to tell you my view. We are America. We don't just fix for today. We build for tomorrow. Two hundred years ago, trains weren't traditional infrastructure either, until America made a choice to lay down tracks across the country. Highways weren't traditional infrastructure until we allowed ourselves to imagine that roads could connect our nation across state lines.
The idea of infrastructure has always evolved to meet the aspirations of the American people and their needs. And it's evolving again today. We need to start seeing infrastructure through its effect on the lives of working people in America.
What is the foundation today that they need to carve out their place in the middle class, to make it, to live, to go to work, to raise their families with dignity, to ensure that good jobs will be there for their kids, no matter who they are or what zip code they live in? That's what infrastructure means in the 21st century.
It still depends on roads and bridges, ports and airports, rail and mass transit, but it also depends on having reliable high-speed Internet in every home, because today's high-speed Internet is infrastructure. It depends on the electric grid, a grid that won't collapse in a winter storm or be compromised by hackers at home or abroad.
It depends on investing in made-in-America goods from every American community, including those that have historically been left out, black, Latino, Asian American, Native Americans, rural communities.
Talk to folks around the country about what really makes up the foundation of a good economy. Ask a teacher or child care worker if having clean drinking water, non-contaminated drinking water in our schools and child care centers is part of that foundation, when we know that the lead in our pipes slows a child's development when they drink that water.
Ask the entrepreneur whose small business was destroyed by the second 100-year flood in the last 10 years in Iowa or wildfires in the West that burned five million acres last year, an area roughly the size of the entire state of New Jersey, more fires than ever, or the devastating damage, seeing more frequent and intense hurricanes and storms on the East and Gulf Coasts.
Ask all those farmers and small business owners and homeowners whether investing in clean energy to fight the effects of climate change is part of infrastructure. Ask folks in rural America, where more than 35 percent of the people lack a reliable high-speed Internet, limiting their ability to conduct business or engage in remote learning for their schools.
Ask them whether investing in Internet access will lead to better jobs in town, new markets for farmers, and better opportunities for their kids. And I'm serious about this. Ask the moms and dads in the sandwich generation, the folks carrying enormous personal and financial strains trying to raise their children and care for their parents, their elderly parents, or members of their families with a disability.
Ask them what sort of infrastructure they need to build a little better life, to be able to breathe a little bit. It's expanded services for seniors. It's home care workers who go in and cook their meal, help them get around to live independently in their home, allowing them to stay in their homes, and, I might add, saving Medicaid hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.
It's better wages and benefits and opportunities for caregivers, who are disproportionately women, women of color and immigrants. Or ask our wounded warriors and military families.
To my Republican colleagues in Congress, shouldn't we modernize VA hospitals, update them? Many of them are more than 50 years old. How about the estimated 450,000 post-9/11 veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, who, when they make that emergency call, or their husband, wife, son, daughter makes that emergency call to the VA hospital, dad needs help, we have to bring him in, and they hear: You have to wait. We don't have room now. Come back. Call me back in eight days, 10 days, 12 days.
Look at the sui -- more suicides in the military than people getting shot.
Is it really your position, my friends, that our veterans don't deserve the most modern facilities that can catch that cancer diagnosis quicker, with access to better roads, cleaner water, high- speed Internet that delivers information faster and more of it?
Above all, infrastructure is about meeting the needs of a nation and putting Americans to work and being able to do and get paid for doing -- having good jobs.
Plumbers and pipe fitters replacing those literally thousands of miles of dangerous lead pipes. They're still out there. Everybody remembers what happened in Flint. There's hundreds of Flints all across America.
How many of you know when you send your child to school the fountain they're drinking out of is not fed by a lead pipe? How many of you know the school your child is in still has asbestos in the walls and lacks the ventilation? Is that not infrastructure?
Line workers, electricians laying transmission lines for a modern grid providing over 500,000 charging stations on the highways we are going to build to accommodate electric vehicles, so we can own the future.
Construction workers and engineers building modern hospital -- modern hospitals and homes for American families. Health care workers, steelworkers, folks who work in the cutting-edge labs. Nearly 90 percent of the infrastructure jobs created by our American Jobs Plan can be filled by people who don't have a college degree; 75 percent don't need an associate's degree.
And, as I said last week, this is a blue-collar blueprint for increasing opportunity for the American people. It also includes the biggest investment in non-defense research and development on record.
I promise you -- this is not part of my speech, but I promise you you're all going to be reporting over the next six to eight months how China and the rest of the world is racing ahead of us in the investments they have in the future, attempting to own the future, the technology, quantum computing, investing significant amounts of money in dealing with cancer and Alzheimer's. That's the infrastructure of a nation.
There is a new book out about how we have fallen behind. America is no longer the leader of the world because we're not investing. It used to be we invested almost 2.7 percent of our GDP in infrastructure. Now it's about 0.7 percent.
When we were investing it, we were the leader in the world. I don't know why we don't get this. We're one of only of few major economies in the world whose public investment in research and development has declined as a percentage of GDP in the last 25 years, declined, the United States of America that led the world.
Why does this matter? Investing in research and development helped lead to lithium batteries, LED technology, the Internet itself. It helped lead the vaccine breakthroughs that are helping us beat COVID- 19, to the Human Genome Project, which has led to breakthroughs in how we understand and fight cancer and other diseases.
Government, meaning the taxpayers, funded this research, government. If we stop investing in research, we stop investing in jobs of the future, and we give up leading the world.
When we do invest in research, what we're really doing is raising the bar on what we can imagine. Imagine a world where you and your family can travel coast to coast without a single tank of gas or in a high- speed train close to as fast as you can go across the country in a plane?
Imagine your children growing up to work in innovation, good-paying jobs in fields that haven't even been invented yet, like the parents of every computer programmer, every graphic designer, every renewable energy worker once did? Imagine.
We invest today so that these jobs will be here in America tomorrow, so America can lead the world, as it's historically done. That's why I brought back scientists into the White House. We need to think.
Look, do we think the rest of the world is waiting around? We're not going to make those kind of investments, the rest of the world is saying. Take a look. Do you think China is waiting around to invest in its digital infrastructure or in research and development?
I promise you, they are not waiting. But they're counting on American democracy to be too slow, too limited, and too divided to keep pace.
You have heard me say it before. I think this generation can be marked by the competition between democracies and autocracies, because the world is changing so rapidly. The autocrats are betting on democracy not being able to generate the kind of unity to make decisions to get in that race.
We can't afford to prove them right. We have to show the world, but, much more importantly, we have to show ourselves that democracy works, that we can come together on the big things.
This is the United States of America, for God's sake. Now, of course, building the infrastructure of tomorrow requires major investments today. As I said last week, I'm open to ideas about how to pay for this plan, with one exception.
I will not impose any tax increases in people making less than $400,000 a year. If others have ideas out there on how to pay for this investment without violating that rule, they should come forward. There's all kinds of opportunities.
Just list all the tax breaks that I find difficult to explain, wealthy deductions, $360 billion if you cap them, top rate of 39 percent, which it used to be for 100 -- for years all the way to the Bush administration, almost a quarter of a trillion dollars, corporate minimum tax, and the fossil fuel giveaways of $40 billion, et cetera. I could go on. But let me tell you what I proposed, how to do it. We're going to
raise the corporate tax rate. It was 35 percent for the longest time, which was too high. Barack and I thought it was too high during our administration.
We all agreed five years ago that it should come down somewhat, but the previous administration reduced it all the way down to 21 percent. What I'm proposing is that we meet in the middle, 28 percent; 28 percent would still have lower corporate rates than any time between World War II and 2017. And we will generate over a trillion dollars in taxes over 15 years.
A new independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations used the various loopholes to pay zero federal income tax in 2020. It's just not fair. It's not fair to the rest of the American taxpayers.
We're going to try and put an end to this, not fleece them, 28 percent.
If you're a mom or dad, a cop, firefighter, police officer, et cetera, you're paying close to that in your income tax.
I have also proposed the global minimum tax which is being proposed around the world for U.S. corporations at 21 percent.
Let me tell you what that means. It means that companies aren't going to be able to hide their income in places like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda in tax savings. We're also going to eliminate deductions used by corporations for offshoring jobs and shifting assets overseas.
They offshore the jobs, shift the assets overseas, and then don't have to pay taxes on all they make there. And we will significantly ramp up IRS enforcement against corporations and the super wealthy who either fail to report their income or underreport it. Estimated that would raise tens of billions of dollars.
It adds up to more than what I proposed in just 15 years. It's honest, it's fair, it's fiscally responsible. And it pays for what we need and reduces the debt over the long haul.
And, by the way, I didn't hear any of our friends who were criticizing this plan say that the corporate tax cut, which added $2 trillion to the debt, the Trump tax cut, $2 trillion, $1.9 trillion in debt, wasn't paid for, the vast majority of which went to the top 1 percent of the wage earners. I didn't hear anybody hollering in this recovery, the so-called, before I became president, this K-shaped recovery, where billionaires made 300 billion more dollars during this period.
Where is the outrage there?
I am not trying to punish anybody, but, damn it -- maybe it's because I come from a middle-class neighborhood -- I'm sick and tired of ordinary people being fleeced.
Let me close by saying this. Whatever partisan divisions there are around other issues, there don't have to be around this one. The divisions of the moment shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing for the future. These aren't Republican bridges, Democratic airports, Republican hospitals or a Democratic power grid.
Think of the Transcontinental Railroad, interstate highway system or the space race, where one nation, united and connected -- as I said last week, I'm going to bring Republicans to the White House. I invite them to come. We will have good-faith negotiations. And any Republican who wants to get this done, I invite. I invite them.
We have to get this -- things done. We're at an inflection point in American democracy. This is a moment where we prove whether or not democracy can deliver, whether it can lay the foundation for an economy and build from the bottom up and the middle out, not trickle- down economics from the very top, whether it can lay a good foundation for good jobs in a 21st century economy.
I tell the kids, the young people who work for me, I told my kids, when I go on college campuses, they're going to see more change in the next 10 years than we have seen in the last 50 years. We're going to talk about commercial aircraft flying at subsonic speeds, supersonic speeds, be able to, figuratively, if we made -- if we decide to do it, traverse the world in about an hour and travel 21,000 miles an hour.
So much is changing. We have got to lead it. I believe democracy can come through when the American people come together. We saw it in the American Rescue Plan. We're seeing it with the Jobs Plan.
The American Rescue Plan, which got so badly criticized, how many of my Republican colleagues have you seen have gone on your stations or your newspapers and say, boy, people in my state really like it?
Because it would be improper, I haven't asked permission, but a number of Republicans and Democrats who were hesitant have called me, saying, God, this really works.
Overwhelming majority of the American people, Democrats, Republicans and independents, support infrastructure developments that meets the moment.
So, I urge the Congress, listen to your constituents, and, together, we can lay a foundation for an economy that works for everyone and allows America to remain the world leader. When we do that, I believe, as I said last week, that, in 50 years from now, when people look back, they will say this was the moment, together, that we won America's future.
I really believe that. Thank you, all, may God bless you, and may God protect our troops.
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you willing to go lower than the 28 percent corporate tax rate? BIDEN: I'm willing to listen to that. I'm willing -- I'm wide open to
-- but we have got to pay for this. We have got to pay. There's many other ways we can do it, but I'm willing to negotiate that.
I have come forward with the best, most rational way, in my view, the fairest way to pay for it. But there are many other ways as well. And I'm open.
QUESTION: Will you have failed on your promise of bipartisanship if you don't get Republicans on board for this plan? Your first plan passed along party lines.
BIDEN: Look, what I said was, I would try to work with my friends on the other side.
There are things we're working on together, some of which we have passed and some we will pass. But the last plan, I laid out what was available, what I was suggesting, and how I would deal with it, and a bipartisan group came to see me. And then a Republican group came to see me.
And they started off at $600 billion, and that was it. If they had come forward with a plan that did the bulk of it and it was a $1.3 billion or 4, 2 or 3, that allowed me to have all the pieces that was in there, I would have been prepared to compromise. But they didn't.
They didn't move an inch, not an inch.
But, for example, I am dealing with a bipartisan group that came to see me. Now it's about, what, three, four weeks ago, when they came about computer chips and about -- and they said, look, we have to have our own supply. We have to work together.
I -- we're working on that. Chuck Schumer and I think McConnell are about to introduce a bill along those lines.
So, I'm prepared to work. I really am. But to automatically say that the only thing that's infrastructure is a highway or bridge or whatever, that's just not rational. It really isn't.
I think the vast majority of Americans think everything from the sewer pipes to -- the sewer facilities to the water pipes, I think they're infrastructure.
Anyway, thank you all so very much.
QUESTION: What are you going to do on guns?
BALDWIN: OK, Phil Mattingly, let's jump right into this, senior White House correspondent.
Listen, I mean, he is bringing the fire. He's bringing the heat today.