Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Is It Right for Democrats to Criticize Bush While Country Is at War?; Does Government Plan to Take Away Your SUV?

Aired February 28, 2002 - 19:30   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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, (D-SD), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Where is the end? Where is the end?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Tonight, Democrats on the war path. Is it right for them to be taking on the president while we're still at war?

And start your engines. Is the government trying to take away your SUV?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the crossfire, Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, a member of the International Relations Committee and Republican Congressman John Sununu from New Hampshire, member of the Appropriations Committee. And later, Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club and Jerry Taylor from the Cato Institute.

PRESS: It's CROSSFIRE. Thanks for joining us.

For five months, nobody dared criticize President Bush on the war on terror, but those days are over. Democrats, led by West Virginia's Senator Robert Byrd, have opened fire. How can we say the war in Afghanistan is such a success, they ask, if Osama bin Laden's still on the loose? And with American troops now in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and the Republic of Georgia what's the new game plan, if there is one, and where does it end?

Republicans say that's just one step short of treason. How dare anybody criticize the war effort when there are American troops on the ground overseas. There you've got it tonight. Tonight, welcome to the war over the war.

Bob Novak.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Congressman Eliot Engel, not all Democrats are criticizing the president. And I'd like to get testimony from a Democrat who has a perfectly safe district, who is a very shrewd politician, and unlike most of us, was a war hero. Let's listen to Congressman Charlie Rangel of Harlem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: I don't think it serves the country well to be critical of the president, especially in time of war. And indeed, I think we're fortunate to have a president that has been able to bring together so many friends and allies against a terrorism that struck us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Now Eliot, I'd like to know where you line up? Do you line up with Senator Byrd, the great master of the pork barrel, the former wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, or with Charlie Rangel, the brown star winner from New York City?

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), INTL. RELATIONS CMTE.: Well let me say, first of all, I think that members of Congress have an absolute right to question. That's what we're elected for. I don't think anybody is criticizing the president. I, as well as the entire Congress and the Senate, support the president in his war about terrorism.

But I think when we're talking about the pocketbook and we're talking about the budget, as it relates to the war on terrorism, I think that members of Congress have a right to ask questions.

NOVAK: So I you line up with Bob Byrd, rather than Charlie Rangel?

ENGEL: Well, I line up with Bob Byrd in asking questions. I may not agree with everything he says, but he certainly has the right to ask these questions, as do all members of Congress.

NOVAK: One of the things that Senator Byrd said, he seemed to have some concern that we were going after terrorists, we being the United States, we're going after terrorists, all over the world, wherever they might be. He thought that that was excessive.

I'd like to you tell us which terrorists you wouldn't go after, since it isn't wise to go after all the terrorists? Just me give a little list of the terrorists, who under the Byrd rule, you would not go after?

ENGEL: I think we have to go after all the terrorists.

NOVAK: Oh, you disagree with Byrd on that then?

ENGEL: Well, I think that we have to go and destroy the terrorist cells wherever they are. I was not one of the Democrats who criticized the president for his axis of evil remarks.

NOVAK: That's going to take a long time, right?

ENGEL: Well, I even think we should add countries to the axis of evil, like Syria.

NOVAK: OK, so you would disagree completely with Senator Byrd -- that Senator Byrd's main proposition?

ENGEL: No, Senator Byrd was questioning about where we're going to get the money to do all this. You know with these huge tax cuts, we don't have money. And this is a problem. Which will we choose, the tax cuts or fighting the war on terrorism?

PRESS: Congressman Sununu, candidate for senator from New Hampshire, welcome.

REP JOHN SUNUNU (R), APPROPRIATIONS CMTE.: Thank you.

PRESS: I think -- I'd like us to start on a point that I'm sure you and I agree on. I mean, Senator Lott today, came out and said how dare Senator Daschle question anything about this effort, while there's troops on the ground? I mean, I remember under President Clinton, Republicans criticized the presence of troops in Bosnia. They criticized the presence of troops in Kosovo. I never called them traitors at the time or suggested they were. Surely you agree that it's OK to question an ongoing war effort, without the being labeled a traitor?

Is it allowed? Sure. Is it bad policy, what Senator Daschle was talking about? Is it bad politics? I think that's true as well.

We have Senator Byrd saying well, you know, we may be deployed too far. We've got to look at reigning in. We have Senator Daschle saying let's go, let's move, let's get Osama bin Laden. Of course, we're going to go after bin Laden. Of course, we're going to go after anyone in al Qaeda or the Taliban that hasn't been brought justice.

But at the same time, the president was unequivocal when he first laid out our priorities in this war. It will take time. We will be in more places than Afghanistan. We know al Qaeda has had cells in the Philippines, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Yemen. We've seen already seen activity in those places. And that's got to continue.

PRESS: Well, I guesss that's the question is where are we going? And is there, in fact, an exit strategy? Or do we just keep going until we, I don't know, run out of countries? Let's listen to Senator Byrd from the wild and wonderful state of West Virginia. Here's Senator Byrd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BYRD: Now we're talking about going into Georgia, the Republic of Georgia. And now it's Yemen. Where is the end? Where is the end?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: And he doesn't even mention the Philippines, right? I mean, so as a member of Congress, are you just giving a blank check to keep sending troops to any country he thinks of, for as long as he wants to? SUNUNU: We're supporting, as a member of the Budget Committee, the president's priorities he laid out in the state of the union. National security and winning the war on terrorism, homeland security, and getting the economy moving right back here at home. There is no question it's going to take better technology, additional unmanned aircraft surveillance, F-22s, munitions that we used in Afghanistan.

PRESS: The question is any country he wants to, sending troops without consulting with Congress, you don't care?

SUNUNU: No, it's not a matter not consulting with Congress. And the president has consulted with Congress. Secretary Rumsfeld has consulted with Congress. It is a matter of achieving the objectives that he laid out very clearly in the week after September 11.

We need to strike at al Qaeda. We need to destroy their ability to wage terrorist acts against the United States or our allies, wherever they may be, destroying their facilities, taking out their leadership, taking out their command and control. That's what winning this war on terrorism is abou. And if it means moving further afield into the Philippines, supporting them technically, or into Somalia or Sudan, that's going to be supported by the Congress.

NOVAK: Congressman Engel, I don't quite understand where you're coming from, because I guess I gather from our last -- one other change you don't agree with Bob Byrd that we can't go into all these places where there are al Qaeda elements, whether they're in Georgia or Yemen. And surely, you know that we can afford to go after them. We -- the United States ran huge deficits during World War II to finance that war. But I'd like you to listen to what the president himself said yesterday in Charlotte, North Carolina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Doesn't matter how long it takes, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter if it's a month, a year. Al Qaeda, the people who killed thousands of United States citizens, the thugs who want to challenge freedom wherever it exists, those who use religion in the name of murder will be brought to justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Now Mr. Engel, I know in your district there's no chance a Republican can eveb run. I think they would put him in jail if he runs in that district of New York City, but tell me what you disagree with what president said?

ENGEL: I don't disagree with going after terrorists. And I don't disagree with the need for the United States to take the lead. But you know, even Senator Bunnig, who's a Republican, was questioning how Osama bin Laden got away and Sheik Omar got away.

Members of Congress and the Senate have a right to question. There's no blank checks. There's no just following the leader. Yes, the president is our leader and we follow him in the war against terrorism, but we have a right to question the directions that that's going.

That's not unpatriotic, particularly when we have the power of the purse. That's what the people elect us to do. We're not going to just write out blank checks. We want to know what it's going for, where is the next move, and what the administration wants us to do. So it's not being disloyal. It's simply of matter of saying we want to know and we have a right to question.

PRESS: Isn't that a point, Congressman Sununu, as Senator Bunning said, I mean, this thing started out, October 10 it was when we started bombing, we were going to get Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda. And we were going to get Mullah Omar and the Taliban. And as Senator Bunning says, we're spending a billion dollars a day, right? I mean, that's what, $360 billion a year. Don't we have -- and we don't even know where these guys are. How can you call it -- the question is how can you call it a success?

SUNUNU: We're not spending a billion dollars a day. I'm not quite sure where you got that number.

PRESS: Said Senator Bunning.

SUNUNU: Well, Senator Bunning knows we're not spending...

PRESS: But my question, how can we say it's a success in Afghanistan if Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, doing evil somewhere and we have no idea where he is?

SUNUNU: Without killing Osama bin Laden, I think there won't be a capstone to this, a finality to this. And that's why the administration is committed to getting that job done.

NOVAK: I think we're all agreed we have to get Osama bin Laden. Thank you very much, Congressman John Sununu. Thank you, Congressman Eliot Engel.

Coming up next on CROSSFIRE, the White House says no, but powerful senators want to make your SUV, would you believe it, fuel- efficient. Is nothing sacred?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

The White House is reported ready to say no, absolutely no, to fuel economy standards that threaten a favored institution of 21st century life in America, the SUV. Democratic Senators Fritz Hollings of South Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts are pushing an amendment to the energy bill that would establish a 35 miles per gallon requirement by 2013. That's probably a death sentence for SUVs, for pickup trucks, even for my beloved Corvette sports car. Is that necessary to satisfy Americans who don't appreciate the finer things of automotive life?

We're asking an advocate of the new mileage standards, Karl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club and an opponent, Jerry Taylor, director of National Resource Studies at the Cato institute -- Bill.

PRESS: Jerry Taylor, I'm an environmentalist, but I drive an SUV. I mean, nobody's perfect. I can't afford a Corvette. I drive an SUV. My Jeep Cherokee is parked outside, but I don't believe for a second I can't drive a fuel-efficient SUV. You know there's a Subaru out today. It's called a Forrester. It's a good little car. I've ridden in it several times. Today it gets 27 miles a gallon. So let's see, we've got 2002, 11 years for it to get up to 35 miles a gallon. I mean, if the Japanese can do that car, why can't we? You're saying American technology can't do that?

JERRY TAYLOR, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, first of all, you're not the only environmentalist who drives an SUV. And there was a study done by the Recreational Coalition in which they surveyed Americans. They found that 16% of all self-identified environmentalists drove SUVs. Only 12 percent of the American population.

PRESS: So we'll drive a fuel-efficient one.

TAYLOR: So lots of environmentalists drive them. If you want to drive a Forrester, go drive a Forrester. There are 20 cars that get better than 40 miles a gallon the market. You can buy them any time you like. The fact is, though, a lot of Americans feel safer in SUVs, because according the National Academy of Sciences, they kill somewhere between 1300 and 2600 people a year, these cafe standards, which reduce the weight of cars. And that's why they're moving to SUVs and minivans, to feel safe on the road. And I think there's nothing wrong with that.

PRESS: No, but miss the point entirely. My question's about American technology. Look, there was a time when the automobile manufacturers were saying, we can't make cars that meet air pollution requirements. That was under Richard Nixon. He signed the Clean Air Act. Today cars emit 1 percent of the pollution they emitted in 1970 and cars are still affordable. American -- and look, we're the best BS company on earth. You know, and the most technologically advanced. We can make that car, can't we? So why not do it?

TAYLOR: You can certainly make a car that gets better fuel mileage than the cars on the road today, but Americans don't buy them, primarily because they're afraid they'll die in them. And that's according to the National Academy of Sciences, the Brookings Institute, Harvard University. This is pretty well established. I think people have a right to drive in safe cars, even if it means spending a little bit more upon gasoline, even you.

NOVAK: Mr. Pope, I know where you were today because I saw you. You were demagoguing the United Steel workers, worrying about jobs that will be lost unless we have tariffs that destroy the rest of the American economy, but I don't understand why you're so worried about steelworkers jobs and you're not about autoworkers jobs?

CARL POPE, EXEC. DIR., SIERRA CLUB: I'm very worried about autoworkers.

NOVAK: Well, just let cite one witness, and then you can respond.

POPE: All right.

NOVAK: Guy Briggs, vice president of General Motors said this week, "The increase," that's in cafe standards, "would cut more than 100,000 jobs in the U.S. automotive sector. No pickup, van, or SUV GM builds today could survive the higher requirements."

POPE: Well, let's begin with the question of whether they could. You could take a Ford Explorer, an SUV which is built today. You can spend $935 on new technologies, like better transmissions, better cam shafts, Tou could get that up to 34 miles per gallon. You don't make it lighter. You don't make it less safe. You just put better technology in it. You can drive it out of the showroom, once they started intalling this technology, and you will save over the lifetime of that car, 4,000 miles. And there will be more jobs involved in building that better Ford Explorer with better technology.

The fact is, the American auto industry has been obsessed with selling their cars with the oldest technology they can get away with, for the lowest price. And the Japanese are eating their marketshare.

NOVAK: Let me -- you just walked into my trap, Mr. Pope.

PRESS: That was perfect.

NOVAK: Because Mr. -- I want to bring another witness in. I'm not surprised that the Sierra Club dumps on a great American corporation like GM, but let's listen to what Jim Olson of Toyota, Toyota's Japanese as you know, says. Let's put that up on the screen. "There's no way wae can get clear up to the level Kerry is suggesting. And if we can't do it, excuse me, but nobody else can either."

Do you dispute Toyota also?

POPE: Yes, I dispute Toyota, because the fact is, we have heard repeatedly from the auto industry, though we can't do it claims, the Japanese would love not to have these standards in place, because they are quietly getting ready, in fact, to meet the standards. They want to meet the standards while...

NOVAK: They don't want the standards because they're getting ready to meet them?

POPE: No, they don't want the standards.

NOVAK: They don't want them because they're getting ready to meet them?

POPE: They actually told us in California that they could actually meet them. So they've been telling us privately, yeah, we can get there. And maybe they can't get there...

NOVAK: You're calling them a liar then?

POPE: No, wait a minute, I'm saying that what they told us in California is, that if they're given time and incentives, and if we encourage the marketplace, they'll get there. But the most important point, I think Bob is, that we need to start saving oil in this country. We can save a million barrels of oil a day, if we take cafe standards up to 35 miles per gallon. And the National Academy of Sciences says we can do it, we can afford it. And as a matter of national security, I think we ought to get with it.

PRESS: I want to take your million and I want to raise you one, OK, Jerry? In fact, I want to make that point. Because everybody agrees, as Carl just indicated, you know, we've been saying this for years. We have to free ourselves from OPEC oil. We need energy independence in this country.

Now some of it may be drilling more in domestic sources, but there's not enough fossil fuels there. Let me show the easiest way. OK, the easiest way is, right now, if these cafe standards go into place by the year 2000, if they were in place today, we'd save 1.6 barrels a day, which is as much as we imported from Saudi Arabia last year. By 2020, we would save 2.6 barrels a day, which is as much as we imported from all the Persian Gulf countries last year. That is the single best ticket to energy independence. Why don't we do it?

TAYLOR: Two reasons. First of all, the amount of oil we import from abroad has to do with world oil prices and very little to do with cafe standards. For example, when we first put cafe standards in place back in the '70s, we were importing 35 percent of our oil needs from abroad. Since that time, fuel efficiency for light cars and vehicles increased by over 100 percent. Fuel efficiency for light trucks increased by 50 percent. Yes, they did. And the amount of oil we imported from abroad went up from 35 percent to 55 percent.

So just because because you increase fuel efficiency, doesn't mean you decrease oil imports. Secondly, it doesn't matter how much we import from abroad. Even if all of our oil came from Texas, an OPEC production cutback would affect domestic prices just as high as it would affect Kuwaiti price.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Wait a minute, Bob, but you're wrong. It does impact how much oil you import. If you're using less, you have to import less. And you're saving money at the pump as well.

TAYLOR: Not necessarily. It might well be, that if you cut back on the amount of oil you need, what you're going to do is cut back on the highest cost sources first. The lowest cost sources are from abroad, from the Persian Gulf. And that's why...

NOVAK: I'm going to get, despite my partner's rudeness, I'm going to get this question in. And that is, the fact I like to drive a Corvette. The last I checked the mileage indicated I'd been driving it around town, it had 12.6 miles per gallon that I was getting on it.

You know, the one thing the Cato Institute and I believe in, that the Sierra Club doesn't, that's individual liberty. You're going to say that because of these theoretical arguments and your pretentions about wanting to save oil, I can't drive the carry want to drive?

POPE: No, of course, you can drive your Corvette. We're not going take your Corvette away from you. What we're going to do is say to the auto industry, put some good technology on the Ford Explorer. Put some better technology on your Corvette. Let people choose the cars they want...

(CROSSTALK)

POPE: Then make sure those cars have good technology.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: We've to jump in our SUVs and get out of here. Jerry Taylor, thanks for coming. Carl Pope, thanks for coming.

And next, as part of our continuing campaign to clean up politics, root out corruption and make streets safer at the same time, Bob Novak and I crackdown on suspected wrong doers in our world famous Thursday night CROSSFIRE police blotter.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: And now the CROSSFIRE police blotter, where we report how people who should know better get in trouble.

It seemed only yesterday that everybody just loved popular historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin. But lately, it's nothing but trouble for poor Doris. This week, the University of Delaware canceled her commencement address. And worse yet, PBS's program, "THE NEWSHOUSE WITH JIM LEHRER" discontinued her regular appearances.

The problem is unattributed passages from other people's books in her 1987 book, "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys." Many more have just been discovered than were admitted by Doris Kearns Goodwin just in January.

PRESS: And when politicians leave office, it's hard to give up the job, but it's even harder to give up the perks. Take homeland security director, Tom Ridge. He resigned as governor of Pennsylvania last October 5, but continued to live in the governor's mansion until just a couple of weeks ago. Pennsylvania Democrats are demanding he pay back rent. Rumor is that Ridge may move into Dick Cheney's bunker. What the hell, it's free and furnished.

NOVAK: The Chicago-based Citizenship Education Fund, which raises money for the Reverend Jesse Jackson's empire, reported revenue of $10 million for the year 2000, but it didn't file a state income tax report. It's now eight months delinquent in filing, has not asked for an extension, and has not responded to repeated notices and even phone calls from the Illinois state government. No explanation why.

Now the Illinois Attorney General's office say it may cut off the authority of Jesse Jackson to do something he loves, raise money.

PRESS: And finally, something that's not a crime, but should be. The first President Bush, remember him, W's daddy is in hot water for what he said about hot water. Referring to American Taliban John Lindh, Bush 41 said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BUSH, FMR. PRESIDENT: I am not on the side of this poor, misguided Marin Country hot tubber."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: Bush has since apologized to the good citizens of Marin County, including me. But whether the Press family has its own hot tub remains a secret. Only the Press family knows.

NOVAK: I bet you do.

PRESS: We'll read your e-mails tomorrow night. Crossfire@cnn.com to me, Bob and Tucker. From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good-night for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE in the hot tub.

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