Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With David Obey

Aired November 10, 2001 - 17:30   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.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: I'm Robert Novak. Al Hunt and I will question the Democratic leader in the House on spending policy.

AL HUNT, CO-HOST: He is Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin, senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT (voice-over): President Bush and Democratic members of Congress this week disagreed sharply over how much spending should be in the economic stimulus bill, threatening their worst confrontation post-September 11.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I urge Congress not to break the budget agreement that we signed onto in early October, and I remind them that the $40 billion of supplemental is enough to meet the nation's needs. We haven't even began to spend the $40 billion that they presented.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: I think the 40 billion has been spoken for. I think it will all go out very soon. All we are saying and all the appropriators are saying is, you don't need to spend this additional money, but it probably will be four months before we can actually enact new legislation. Why not put it in place?

HUNT: David Obey at age 63 has been in continuous public service for 38 years, elected to the state legislature at age 24 and at Congress at 30. After nearly 25 years in Congress, he was elected by fellow Democrats to one of its most powerful posts, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Since Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, he has been the senior Democrat on that panel.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: Congressman, President Bush says you're trying to force spending on him that he doesn't want to do. Privately, the White House says the Democrats are playing the old big spending game, and publicly -- let's put up on the screen what Budget Director Mitch Daniels says about you -- and I'm quoting Mitch Daniels: "Their motto is, don't just stand there, spend something. This is the only way they feel relevant," end quote. What do you say to that? REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: Well, what I say to that is this: We should not even be having this fight. It depends on whether you are comfortable with the fact that 400 ships a day dock in American ports and we only inspect about 20 of them. If you're satisfied with that when everyone could contain a bomb, then fine, you think that we have enough money in the budget for our domestic homeland security.

If you're satisfied with the fact that the customs people want 800 more agents to patrol the Canadian border, when in fact we have 64 points of vulnerability on that border, and they're not getting the money, then you think that we are spending enough. All we are saying to the president is with respect to homeland security, we believe we need to spend about $6 billion to $8 billion more than is presently being provided.

We are willing to provide that money on what's called a contingent emergency basis, which means that for each and every item if he doesn't want to actually spend the money, he doesn't have to spend it. Based on the briefings that I've had, we think that this money is absolutely essential, and the Republicans who went with me down to the White House thought it was essential also.

HUNT: Do you think that the budget director, Mr. Daniels, is the dealing with you in good faith?

OBEY: Well, let me tell you what happened in the meeting. We walked into the meeting with the president, we've been asking for a meeting for three weeks to talk to him about added security needs. We walked into the room, the president came in, said, "hello," and then he said this, he said: "I know some of you want to be providing more money for domestic security, but he said Mitch Daniels tells me we've got enough money here, and so I want you to know that if you send me one dime more than you've already provided in the 40 billion, I'll veto the bill."

He said that before we ever had a chance to explain even what item. And so, what I said to the president was: "Mr. President, please simply have your staff people sit down with ours. I have a 21- page document right here which lists the security items that both Republicans and Democrats thought ought to be considered, have your staff look at them. Any that you don't want, we will throw out, but we need to do more than we are doing to protect our borders, to provide stronger immigration clearance, to protect our ports, to provide greater security of nuclear material in the Soviet Union."

HUNT: Let me just ask you quickly, do you think the president and Mr. Daniels have a philosophical disagreement with you, then, or do you think they're playing politics?

OBEY: I don't know what's philosophical about national security. Let me tell you one story. I talked to an FBI agent who was strung out working double shifts and he said to me, he says: "I can't sleep at night. Here I am, trying to work this problem, I see a chain here, I see a chain there, I'm trying to connect them. I can't quite get that last piece of information." He said: "It just kills me thinking that if I could solve this one day earlier, I might save an awful lot of lives."

You've got that going on in the FBI, in the CIA, in a number of agencies, and we need to get those agencies more funding than is presently in the president's package.

NOVAK: Congressman Obey, there is another account of that meeting, some of the sources who were there tell me that you told the president that you had been around for over 30 years and you knew a lot more about the appropriations process than the mere president of the United States who has only been there -- hasn't even been there a year. Is that not true?

OBEY: That's nonsense! What I said to him was this, I said: "Mr. President, when we come to Congress" -- I was talking about members of Congress. I said: "When we come to Congress, all we are is politicians. All we've shown is that we know how to get elected. But when we come to Congress and we get a committee assignment, that committee assignment turns us into legislators, because we have an area that we focus on and we learn about."

And I said: "You need to recognize the fact that the four senior people on the Appropriations Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, believe strongly that we need more money for defense, more money for homeland security, and we recognize that you have in Mr. Ridge a fellow who's new on the job and is trying to get up to speed. So with all due respect, we have experience that we've developed, and we are trying to use that experience for the good of the country." That's what I stated in the White House.

NOVAK: So you were telling the president, you were telling the president, sir, that you knew more than he did. Isn't that, you know, putting it in simple terms?

OBEY: I raised -- I raised four questions. I gave him four special examples of security threats that were raised by his own agencies to us. I asked him if he knew about them, and I asked him if he didn't think that we ought to provide more money in the budget to solve those problems. I am sure -- I am sure that some of those problems the president was not aware of. I do not believe the president is being well-served by the Office of Management and Budget when they don't describe to him what we're talking about.

We're not talking about pork. If there's a single piece of pork in this package, I will eat the table in front of me, Bob!

NOVAK: Congressman, you and the president agreed after the events of September 11 on spending of 686 billion for the year, which was a lot more than you had originally, and the congressional staffers -- I'm not talking about some guy who just came out, just dropped off the truck, the congressional staffers say you -- you are going not more -- not just the eight billion, you're going up to $730 billion, $740 billion, you and Senator Byrd, and the appropriators. That is a lot more money than that, isn't it?

OBEY: With all due respect, with all due respect, I'm focusing on one thing, adding $7 billion to $8 billion more on homeland security. That's all I'm focusing on.

I was a party to that agreement with the president. What happened -- and I'm mystified, because when the president first came in, he asked that we give him an unlimited amount of money for an unlimited amount of years to fight terrorism. On a bipartisan basis, we said no, we're not going to give you an open-ended commitment; we'll give you $40 billion as a down payment, and then we will regroup and see what else is the needed.

Everyone, including the president of the United States, is on record as saying that that was a down payment. I think it is absurd to be having a bookkeeping argument when the security of every American is at stake with respect to public health, with respect to CDC, with respect to our ports, our borders. You've got terrorist cells running around this country because the immigration service hasn't been -- they haven't had a clue about where these people are. These problems need to be fixed.

HUNT: Congressman Obey, I think most Americans would support money for homeland security. You unsuccessfully, in the water and energy appropriation bill, tried to get more money to safeguard nuclear weapons in the former Soviet union. I think most Americans would support that. You were unsuccessful, but that same bill added some $2 billion in projects for things like the Army Corps of Engineers. If Congress would give up some of this pork, wouldn't it be easier to get some of the money for security?

OBEY: Al, I voted against that bill for precisely that reason. This sheet of paper lists eight instances in which weapons-grade nuclear material was smuggled out of Russia, and we later recovered it. It also lists six incidents in which nuclear-grade -- I mean weapons-grade nuclear material was found in the wrong hands within Russia, and we recovered it.

We wanted -- please let me finish on this point.

NOVAK: Go ahead.

OBEY: I think this is highly dangerous, because Mr. Bin Laden is trying to get his hands on this material, and yet the budget that tries to take care of this problem was cut $131 million below the amount the agency needs. I voted against that energy bill because I think that we ought to put a higher premium on security items, and we ought to reduce some of those other items in that bill.

NOVAK: Congressman Obey, before we take a break I do want to ask you: There are some notorious items of pork. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has created a lot of laughs when he said the American people's interest is at stake in trying to protect the counsel country from poultry pollution. We have a lot of money for the Indian tribes around Senator Baucus in Montana in his bill. You have to admit that there is a lot of pork in that Senate -- Democratic Senate version that passed by one vote, don't you?

OBEY: Bob, if you want to argue about what's an ascendant bill, ask Senator Byrd and Senator Baucus on your program. I don't even know what's in their bill. I'm focusing on one bill; and the only agricultural item in our bill is an item to change the fact that right now only 1 percent of all of the imported food in this country is inspected when it crosses our borders. Our amendment would raise that to 10 percent. I don't think that's being outlandish.

NOVAK: We have to take a break. And when we come back, we'll talk to the master appropriator, David Obey, about tax cuts and budget surpluses.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Congressman Obey, we're talking about this year's appropriations. But, of course, actions can be taken now that will have effects for years to come. The president is opposed to higher spending, he says, but he has embraced massive tax cuts, primarily for corporations and wealthier individuals. What effect would that have on the government's capacity down the road?

OBEY: Well, the homeland security package that I'm trying to push costs about $8 billion on $9 billion. The tax breaks that the House Republicans passed just 10 days ago were more than 10 times that amount. And $25 billion dollars of that went to give corporations a 15-year retroactive tax rebate so that companies like IBM get a billion-four back, Ford gets had a billion back. I'm amazed that OMB thinks that we can afford these kinds of gifts to corporations, while we can't afford to tighten up some of the security items.

I want to give you just one example with the FBI. Their computer system is a mess. They are trying to replace it with a new system called Trilogy. It's going to take until the year 2004 to get that system in place so they can keep track of their evidence in a wide variety of cases. For $112 million, we could have that up and running next summer. I think that's more important than these huge tax breaks to these corporations.

HUNT: Congressman, whatever Congress does, whatever compromise they reach, we're not going to see budget surpluses again for the next five or 10 years, are we?

OBEY: I am terribly afraid that if you take the tax cuts that were passed last year before all of this happened, that alone virtually ate up all of our real surpluses. Then if you take the hit that the economy has had since then, in addition that, and then you take the cost of the other tax cuts that were passed by the House bill last week, I think that we're in very big danger of seeing those surpluses evaporate. And that creates a real problem for long-term interest rates.

NOVAK: Congressman Obey, you've repeated several times that you're just interested in a $9 billion homeland security package. But if you add up all the Democratic proposals that the leadership is proposing, it comes to $20 billion to $40 billion more than the president is proposing. That really eats up the surplus, doesn't it?

OBEY: I don't know what other items you're proposing. The only other two items that we're talking about adding to this package are additional funding for the Pentagon so that they don't have to come back to us for a supplemental in January, and making sure that the president meets his commitment to provide the $20 billion to New York.

I didn't make that commitment. The fellow who said you've got it when the two New York senators asked if they would provide $20 billion was President Bush, not me. Those are the only two items we're talking about adding to this.

NOVAK: Congressman, the administration says that one thing that could really help this economy and really produce more revenue and help business wouldn't cost the government anything, is trade promotion authority, which would give the president some authority to negotiate trade agreements. Are you for that?

OBEY: I came to Congress thinking that I was a free-trader, and I would like to be. And I would be -- I would vote for things like NAFTA, I would vote for things like most-favored nation status and all the rest, provided that we did what we ought to do to help the people who lose their jobs because of that.

The problem we have, for instance, with NAFTA is that -- I gave a speech just before Speaker Gingrich did, on the floor. And I said look, I'll vote for this if you'll promise to put in the budget the money that we need for job retraining, the money that we need for education for people on the low end of the scale who lose jobs as a result of this. The problem is Congress never bellies up to the bar when it comes to dealing with those votes.

HUNT: Congressman...

OBEY: The way these budgets are put together, it's -- my old friend Harvey Dulholm (ph) used to say, all too often the poor and the rich get the same amount of ice, but the poor get theirs in the wintertime. And that's been the case with respect to these trade agreements.

HUNT: Congressman Obey, how is the war on terrorism going in Afghanistan and on the homefront?

OBEY: Well, I think that the Pentagon has put together a quite comprehensive, and not -- and imaginative plan with respect to operations in the north. The problem that we're really having is to get the Pashtuns separated more from the Taliban in the southern part of the country.

I think that's going tough. And I certainly think that we are not using very much imagination or having very much effect when it comes to the propaganda war. I think we've been caught way behind the curve on that one.

NOVAK: Mr. Obey, just before we take a break, the president at the United Nations on Saturday morning said that the United States has to be against all terrorists, and he underlined in his voice the word "all." Does that mean that we are going to about to -- either before or after we finish in Afghanistan, that the United States will attack Iraq? OBEY: Well, I think that we do have to be against all terrorism, but our first job is to deal with bin Laden and his people, and included in that job is dealing with Afghanistan. What comes next I presume is going to be determined by whether we determine Iraq has played a role recently in these events, and, frankly, whether or not Iraq is cooperative in making sure that we have assurances that they aren't going to be unleashing nuclear or biological weapons in the world.

I don't know what the answer is to that question, but I think that Saddam Hussein had better provide us with a decent answer.

NOVAK: We have to take a break, and when we come back we will have "The Big Question" for David Obey of Wisconsin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: "The Big Question" for David Obey of the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Obey, Democrats have often said that in World War II, the United States just spent the money, they didn't worry about accounting budget tricks, but they also passed a huge tax increase with a 91 percent top marginal rate. Do you think the United States, to finance the war on terrorism, should pass a big tax increase?

OBEY: No, I don't think we need to pass a big tax increase. I do think if we wanted to deal with Social Security problems, terrorism problems, Medicare problems and national defense problems, that what we ought to do is freeze the tax rates for the top earners in this country so that for people who earn over $300,000 a year they do not get the additional fat tax cuts that they're scheduled to get.

Over the last 20 years, those people on the average have seen their family income go up by $440,000 per family. They would get a tax cut of $53,000 a year under tax legislation already passed. I think that they can afford to have a whole lot smaller tax cut for the good of the country.

HUNT: Congressman Obey, we only have about 15 seconds left. In that same vein, do you think that we can have a long-term war on terrorism without asking any sacrifice of Americans, especially affluent Americans?

OBEY: Of course not, and I think this country is looking for ways to make sacrifices and help the country.

HUNT: OK. David Obey, thank you for being with us. Bob Novak and I will be back with our comment in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Bob, you know, David Obey is right on both the merits and the politics. Americans would much rather spend money to safeguard ourselves than to give tax cuts to the rich. His problem, though, is some of his fellow Democrats are muddying the water by tossing pork barrel into these various bills. NOVAK: Al, Dave Obey is an honest guy, and he confirmed what I had heard that he told, in all candor, he told the president that he knows a lot more about him than appropriations, that he's been working at it for many, many years. And I tell you, this really burned him at the White House. It didn't help his cause.

HUNT: But the problem at the White House, Bob, they get real concerned about the budget deficit when it comes to spending, but they're willing to give away, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars for the richest Americans. I don't think the American public really is -- agrees with them on that.

NOVAK: Well, one thing that this program proved -- Dave Obey is a great partisan warrior and you're a great partisan ideological warrior.

HUNT: As you are. As you are.

NOVAK: And this is a democracy, and the war on terrorism has not ended partisan and ideological politics.

I'm Robert Novak.

HUNT: And I'm Al Hunt.

NOVAK: CNN's coverage of "America's New War" continues.

HUNT: Thanks for joining us.

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