Return to Transcripts main page

CNN The Point

How Will Democratic Control of the Senate Change Politics in Washington?

Aired June 05, 2001 - 20:30   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JAMES JEFFORDS (I), VERMONT: This was done solely because of our disagreement on issues, and I want to emphasize that I still feel very strongly that they are on the wrong path.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: A shift in the Senate turns Washington upside down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We still can get things done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight, tipping the balance of power in favor of the Democrats.

Our POINT: the Democrats take control.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: It takes two to tango.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: We'll be joined by senators Barbara Boxer of California, and George Voinovich of Ohio. And our POINT panel on getting things done in Washington, and beyond.

Plus, what really happened in the final days of the Clinton White House?

THE POINT. Now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: He's the linchpin. Had it not been for one man, the Republicans would not be losing control of the United States Senate. That man, Vermont Senator James Jeffords. And it's no wonder he received a standing ovation from Democratic senators today. Call him a traitor, call him a man following his passions, call him whatever you'd like, the bottom line: he's the reason for a very short six months of Republican control, until now.

Tonight's "Flashpoint": the Democrats take control.

With the bang of a gavel in the Senate, the end of the day's session, but more importantly, the end of the Republicans' reign. And with the Jeffords switch away from the GOP, a new configuration, a new dynamic: 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and one independent.

Jeffords says he has no regrets for leaving the GOP and giving Democrats a piece of Washington again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFORDS: This was done solely because of our disagreement on issues, and I want to emphasize that I still feel very strongly that they are on the wrong path.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: With the balance of power shifting, new calls for bipartisanship from the president today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I think we have an opportunity -- I know we have an opportunity to show the American people that although the structure of the Senate may have been altered somewhat, we still can get things done in a way that is positive for America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: But from the former Senate majority leader, sour grapes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: I think that it was very unfortunate that a number of Democrats came right out last week, and basically said, well, this is the end of national missile defense, this is the end of, you know, an opportunity to have additional oil supply in the ANWR of Alaska, but worst of all, that this is the end to conservative judges, and we are going to have a litmus test. I thought all of that was very inflammatory and unfortunate on behalf of the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: And from the new majority leader, a new pledge of cooperation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: We have a lot of things we are going to do. We are going to get off on what I hope will be the right foot, a positive and constructive foot, and it will involve working together to see just how much we can get done. I really, truly believe that bipartisanship isn't an option, it's a requirement, and it is all the more a requirement now under these circumstances.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Now let's get right to it: what does all of this mean? Joining me now from Washington, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California, and Senator George Voinovich, Republican from Ohio. Welcome to both of you.

And first to you, Senator Boxer: I understand the impact on the Senate, I understand the impact on the media of the shifting of the power, but when will the American people feel it, and how are they going to feel it?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: I think they will feel it when they see Tom Daschle stepping out into this leadership position that he got as a result of Jim Jeffords just saying that he did not feel the Republican Party was on the right track, as it relates to education, as it relates to a woman's right to choose, as it relates to the environment, energy efficiency, and he listed a host of issues.

You know, this is really, in many ways, about two wonderful men, and one of these men happens to be Jim Jeffords. This is not a man who seeks attention. This is not a man who seeks power. He had power, he was the chair of a committee. And it's also about a wonderful man named Tom Daschle, who, as a result of this, now is, in fact, the spokesman for the Democratic Party.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, let me let Senator Voinovich respond. Senator Voinovich, the question I posed to Senator Boxer is when will the American people feel the effect of this change?

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R), OHIO: I don't think that the American people are going to feel much different than what they felt during the last couple of years. I believe that if you look at the record, the only time that the Senate can really get anything done is when a consensus is reached. It's a wonderful place to be able to stop something from happening, but in order to get something done you need consensus, and if you looked at the budget we put together -- it was passed on a bipartisan basis, the tax reduction was done on a bipartisan basis.

If the Democrats want to get something done on some of these issues that Tom Daschle talked about, he is going to have to gain consensus, and that's the way we move things along in the United States Senate, and there will be a different initiative, there will be some different leadership, but in terms of the final product, the final product is going to have to reflect a consensus in the United States Senate, or it won't happen.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you saying, Senator Voinovich, that this is essentially irrelevant? VOINOVICH: It's not irrelevant in terms of the initiative. We have lost the initiative. We've lost the chairmanships. We've lost setting the agenda, but the fact of the matter is, that even these past six months, with our 50/50, I was a subcommittee chairman, I had two of them. And I had to consult with my ranking member about the hearings that we were going to hold, I had to consult with my ranking Democratic member in terms of the witnesses that we were going to have.

And if we are going to get anything done, it's going to be that same kind of reaching out to each other and trying to find things that we can agree on, rather than concentrating on those things that we disagree on.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me go to Senator Boxer. Give me sort of the background. When you are sort of -- when you are the minority party, it seems like you are very interested in consensus and cooperation and bipartisanship. When you are the majority party, Senator Boxer, it seems that you are more in the driver seat, and you have a terrific amount of power. Am I right?

BOXER: Well, let me say this. This is a very close United States Senate. We have a one-vote advantage, and I think Senator Voinovich is right on this point. To get things done, we are going to have to reach out to one another, but the difference which he seems to gloss over, but I think really important is, who is setting the agenda in the Senate.

It is going to be Tom Daschle and the Democrats. That means we are going to go forward with an education bill, we are going to stress public education. We are going to go forward with a patients' bill or rights, which has been languishing. We are going to push for campaign finance reform with Senator McCain, and it is going to be a different feeling.

The power sharing situation is different now. It's not 50/50. We now have the advantage, and that's going to be the difference. What we hope is that we can reach across the divide and come up with consensus, but we will be setting the agenda. Just as George Bush will continue to do it in the White House, we now finally have one of two houses where Democrats are in control, and I think it's going to be a big difference. I really do -- just in that sense.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator Voinovich, was -- former majority leader Trent Lott, was he sort of showing sour grapes in his comments?

VOINOVICH: I don't think so. I think that he was responding to the comments Senator Daschle that, you know, that things were going to be different in terms of some of the issues. I have to say that I know that Senator Lott and a lot of Republicans are unhappy about what happened. It's unprecedented in American history, that this kind of thing takes place, although we had a couple of Democrats who came over to Republican side in '95, and I think Wayne Morris at one time changed his party.

So, there are some hard feelings, but again, I want to emphasize that even though the Democrats have the agenda and they are going to set the agenda, in order for they to go forward and get patients' bill of rights and some of the others things that they have talked about, they are going to have to have support from some Republicans in order to get the job done.

VAN SUSTEREN: But how different, Senator Voinovich, is the education bill, or patients' bill of rights, or campaign finance reform, how different are those issues now going to be in light of the fact that Republicans have lost control of the Senate?

VOINOVICH: In the education thing, I think that Barbara would agree that we have been working, I think on a fairly bipartisan basis. There is just a little tweaking that needs to be done in order to get this education bill passed. There is a little difference of opinion about straight As and a couple of other things, options that we would like to make available to the states and local school boards, but we are not that far apart on the education bill, and I don't -- I think that if we put our minds to it, we ought to be able to get it down in the next several days.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator Boxer, why has this happened? Is this a White House problem, or is this a Republican leadership problem in the Senate?

BOXER: You know, I am going to take Jim Jeffords at his word. He is a very honest man, and what he basically said, Greta, is that the Republican Party is on the wrong track on a whole host of issues. And he was very clear. If you listened to his statement, he went through them. He said education, he said environment, he said energy policy, he said choice.

And he said, quote, "a host of other issues" -- that's what this is about. And I just want to say to my dear colleague and friend Senator Voinovich that I agree we're making progress on education, but I'll tell you where there's a difference: how much we spend on it. And that's where we're going to see an enormous difference.

VOINOVICH: And that's -- and that's...

BOXER: And we have on our side the people who really are saying if you care about our kids, you can't pass all these things about helping our disabled kids without putting the resources...

VOINOVICH: But the fact of the matter -- there's where the rub comes in, is that -- is that many of us that are Republicans -- I'm a former governor -- believe that education is a state and local responsibility, and that many of you on the other side of the aisle want federalize education and spend an enormous amount of money on education when there are other federal problems that are going left under responded to. And so that's a legitimate difference of opinion. And I think that that difference is going to continue to be in the Senate.

BOXER: That's right.

VOINOVICH: And I think that if, you know, if we ultimately get reauthorization passed, there will have to be a compromise there, and that compromise will be made in the authorization bills. You can -- or in the appropriations bill.

BOXER: But George, that's why -- that's why Jim Jeffords...

VAN SUSTEREN: And let me...

BOXER: ... left your party, because...

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, let...

BOXER: ... you're not willing to put the resources there.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Senator Boxer, you get the last word. I was going to cut off Senator Voinovich. My thanks to senators Barbara Boxer and George Voinovich for joining me.

Coming up, as House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt says, it takes two to tango. The question is, will both parties in Washington be up for the dance? And how is all of this playing outside of Washington? THE POINT back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Tonight's POINT, the Jeffords defection and the GOP's reversal of fortune. Joining us from San Francisco, syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux.

JULIANNE MALVEAUX, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Hi, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Here in Washington -- hello, Julianne -- "TIME" magazine's Michael Weisskopf, and in New York, Deroy Murdock of the Scripps-Howard News Service. Hello to you, gentlemen. I've said hello to Julianne.

Let me go first to you, Michael: Behind the scenes at the White House, what are they saying about this GOP defection?

MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, "TIME": A big sigh of relief that the tax bill is behind them and that the education bill is moving on, and a lot of teeth-gnashing, a sense of loss of momentum and possible initiative, but a recognition, Greta, that the president is going to have to stop pressing his own agenda. The polls are showing that that alone is -- is torpedoing his job approval. The public wants him to work more aggressively with Democrats.

VAN SUSTEREN: And Deroy, in response to that sort of who's responsible -- Is it the White House or Trent Lott? -- let me quote to you your own statement, something you've already said: "Trent Lott is more than just a fool. Far worse, he is someone whose cowardice and negligence have hindered the causes of freedom and prosperity. He is the weakest link."

Clearly, you're beating around the Bush on your thoughts about the -- about the senator. Why do you blame him? DEROY MURDOCK, SCRIPPS HOWARD: I'm being my usual diplomatic self, Greta. Well, there's one man who has a responsibility for doing one thing, which is to maintain or increase the majority in the Republican caucus. That was Trent Lott.

In January of 1997, he had 55 votes in that caucus. In November, it went down to 50-50. It went down to 49 and now he's minority leader.

And whether through threats or intimidation or charm or cajoling or whatever, Trent Lott's responsibility was to keep Jim Jeffords' rifle pointing out. Now, Jim Jeffords' rifle is pointing in toward the Republican caucus.

And whether he could have told the White House to go easy on Jeffords, he could have told Bush to meet with Jeffords and perhaps come up with a commission to study special education or whatever, and Lott didn't do it. And as long as Trent Lott is there, I think that the Bush agenda and the free-market conservative cause is going to be in very big trouble.

He's a man who is not courageous. He is cautious to a fault. And I think he's so interested in getting along and being everyone's buddy that he fails to lead, and now we see the consequence. Republicans are now in the minority.

VAN SUSTEREN: Julianne, do you agree that the senator is the weakest link or are you more charitable? And why did this happen?

MALVEAUX: You know, I hate to be in agreement with Deroy, but I think that in this case he's absolutely right. What you had here was a situation where you didn't have to lose Jeffords. He himself had said that he's been toying with such a move as the Republicans have moved to the right.

But George W. Bush talked about being the president of all people when he came in. He really did push a right-wing agenda, which Trent Lott has been a very big part of.

So I'm amused and actually amazed that Deroy and I are on the same side of the coin on this one.

MURDOCK: May be a first.

MALVEAUX: May be a first.

VAN SUSTEREN: Michael...

MALVEAUX: Only on Greta's show.

VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, good. Well, Michael, the two senators who were just on with me seemed to suggest -- and this is probably my word -- but the fact that the power has shifted is almost irrelevant because they're so closely divided. Were they being diplomatic or is largely irrelevant? WEISSKOPF: I've heard congressional critics talk about moving the deck chairs around on a sinking ship. This is literally moving a desk from one side of the aisle to another. It's happening tonight. Probably that will be the most movement we'll see for a while.

The biggest number here and the most important number is not 51 but 41, and that is the number of Republican votes it will take to filibuster any Democratic initiative. They will be as tied up, as gridlocked as ever on issues coming from the extremes. Minimum wage, for instance, a mainline Democratic issue, will have trouble, as much as the drilling in the ANWR would have from the Republican side.

VAN SUSTEREN: Julianne...

MURDOCK: One important thing...

VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.

MURDOCK: ... that desk is moving across the aisle, but the very important difference will be control of the committees, obviously, and I think that's nowhere more important than in the Judiciary Committee, where Pat Leahy, the incoming head of the committee, apparently is not interested in anyone who's qualifies who's a conservative to serve on the federal bench. Case in point is Christopher Cox, a Republican congressman, very well-liked on both sides of the aisle, liked very much by Democrats and Republicans, eminently qualified. And he basically has taken his name out of contention because Democrats have essentially said...

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: ... short-lived there, Deroy, because actually, you know, the Republicans have done all these kinds of tricks and have not had any opposition. Now, the Democrats are simply saying let's take another look at this.

Christopher Cox is indeed an extremist. Both Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein have raised objections. There has been a customary pass from your home state that he did not have. So don't make this into an extremist thing...

MURDOCK: Well, you may remember...

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: ... but no, let's be real clear here.

MURDOCK: You may remember he led -- he led this...

MALVEAUX: Let's be real clear here.

MURDOCK: ... he led this...

MALVEAUX: They want there -- the Republicans want to have it both ways, and now they're finding that they're being hoisted by their own petard. WEISSKOPF: Greta...

MURDOCK: Well, for example -- briefly on Cox. Cox led this investigation on whether the Chinese infiltrated our nuclear laboratories. That was well-regarded as a very bipartisan discussion.

One thing Trent Lott did last year was to allow 16 of Bill Clinton's liberal Democratic judicial appointees to go on the bench in exchange for one man...

VAN SUSTEREN: All right...

MURDOCK: ... Bradley Smith, to go on the Federal Election Commission.

(CROSSTALK)

MURDOCK: That seemed very, very...

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me...

MURDOCK: ... very accommodating in my book.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me shift gears and go to Michael. Michael, you wanted to get in there.

WEISSKOPF: Just that these judicial nominations are part of an important power play going on. Unless the Republicans can get assurances that the Democrats will let those judicial nominees onto the full floor for a vote, they are threatening to filibuster the reorganization of the Senate, which would mean that the committee structure would revert to where it was at the end of the last Congress, with a slight Republican advantage in terms of committee chairman.

VAN SUSTEREN: Julianne, we're running out of time, but quickly, when am I going to feel the impact as a citizen? I still haven't gotten that answer from anybody.

MALVEAUX: You won't fell the impact for several months, I don't think. I think they are gridlocked. they're going to be gridlocked. There's going to be a lot of discussion on programs like this about what the real meaning of this is, but you do not -- have not changed anything substantially, except for perhaps education. Senator Jeffords will get his way on a few things and we may get some moment on minimum wage.

VAN SUSTEREN: Speaking of movement, Deroy, will there be any movement, any more party switching, and is there a lot of courting going on behind the scenes?

MURDOCK: I imagine there's a lot of courting going on behind the scenes and of course, who knows what could happen with Senator Torricelli of New Jersey? He's in potential legal trouble, and if he should happen to get into some kind of problem and resign, there's a Republican governor in New Jersey. This whole thing could switch back the other way. We could be back here in a month or two, having exactly the same discussion, if the Republicans come back into power.

MALVEAUX: Wishful thinking, Deroy.

VAN SUSTEREN: Michael, in 30 seconds, which senators have problems in 2002, if any, to get reelected?

WEISSKOPF: Well, let's see. I'll tell you who won't be having trouble, and that is Democrats who are new assuming committee chairmanships. They'll be in a position to garner a great deal of publicity and a great deal of campaign money, so long as they are able to succeed to these chairmanships.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Extraordinary times a Capitol Hill. Julianne Malveaux, Michael Weisskopf and Deroy Murdock, thanks for joining me.

MURDOCK: Thank you.

MALVEAUX: Thank you.

VAN SUSTEREN: When we come back: when is enough, enough? Now, if I had my way. We'll be right back after a short break and our "MONEYLINE Update."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Graffiti, vulgar voice messages, cut phone lines? Sound like a college fraternity prank? Tonight's "Final Point": Did they or didn't they? And at this point, do you care?

You may remember this one. It started just seconds after President Bush took office. The press began reporting that the new administration claimed the outgoing one had vandalized the White House. The outgoing administration denied it. The general accounting office tried to investigate, but the new administration declined to participate and the investigation was dropped.

The Democrats claim that the Bush administration's failure to participate proved the vandalism didn't happen, and so Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York demanded an apology. So then the Republicans got mad, and now the fuss has escalated. Now the White House says it will give the GAO a list, and Representative Bob Barr wants an investigation. As President Reagan said, "There you go again."

My take: I have no idea who's right and who's wrong, but let's give this one a rest. Let's secretly tell each side it is right and hope each side will then just drop it. Let me know what you think about the Senate power shift. Send an e-mail to askgreta@cnn.com. That's one word, askgreta.

I'm Greta Van Susteren in Washington. Up next on "LARRY KING LIVE," a psychic, and a skeptic.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com