Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
What Can Legislators Do To Boost Stock Markets?; Should Medicinal Marijuana Be Legalized?; How Much Longer Will Traficant Be In Congress?
Aired July 24, 2002 - 19:00 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: CROSSFIRE. On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Who lit the rocket under Wall Street? And can the rally last?
The Senate says no drugs for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't believe they came up with such a crummy proposal for seniors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The White House says no Cabinet-level post for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He's not focused on that issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: And is the House just about to say, no more congressional seat for you?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: Beam me up!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washingon University: James Carville and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight we're doing drugs, more than usual, even.
When it comes to the prescription kind for Medicare, the U.S. Senate just says no. But when it comes to medical marijuana, should more people just say yes?
But first, your daily dose of the best political briefing on television. Open wide for the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
This morning a lot of brilliant people were suggesting we could see a stock market crash today. Wrong again. The Dow Jones Industrial may have started out on the downside, but a wave of sanity took over, and the Dow closed up more than 488 points, the second- largest gain on record.
The arrest of some former executives of the bankrupt Adelphia cable company may have convinced investors that the government is serious about cracking down on corporate wrongdoing as, perhaps, did word that House and Senate negotiators have struck a deal on corporate reform.
The remarkable rally was greeted with joy on Wall Street, but with sadness by Democrats, who now have nothing to run on in the fall. Democratic leaders are said to be hoping for famine to strike before November.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: I guess we're not going to run on the soaring deficit or the plunging dollar or rising health care cost or the rise in crime rate, anything else?
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: We're all for the stock market...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: Most market gains have come under Democratic administrations. -- Sure, the crime rate is back, a RUpublican is in office. What did you expect?
CARLSON: I missed that. Thanks for sharing.
CARVILLE: Apparently I have more (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Republicans than I thought. Last week on this program I pointed out that since the economy has gone to hell in a handbasket, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill just might have better things to do than galavanting all over the world.
Here's a clip to prove it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Can you imagine Bob Rubin or Larry Summers leaving the country during the same kind of economy? Mr. Secretary, if you want to visit Georgia, I have a spot for you to visit: Atlanta.
I mean, what is this guy doing, man?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: My gosh, CROSSFIRE is so popular that President Bush has come around to my way of thinking. The president is making O'Neill put off a trip to South America and stay in the country.
Mr. President, I'm glad you liked my idea. I've got lots more too. Call me any time.
CARLSON: So are you the one who got Al Gore to shave his beard?
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) We don't people shaving his beard. What we need to do is crack down on thse corporate criminals, we need to save Social Security, we need to get this crime rate down and we need to show people that we are strong in the world.
CARLSON: Securities fraud will now draw a sentence of 25 years in prison; more than rape. I think that's pretty strong.
CARVILLE: That's because they have Democrats in the Senate.
CARLSON: When it rains it pours, sometimes with hurricane-level force. Just ask convicted felon and prpud Democrat Congressman James Traficant of Ohio's 17th District. In April, Mr. Traficant was found guilty of a laundry list of felonies. As we speak, his colleagues are considering expeling him from the House of Representatives. Later this month he'll be sentenced to prison, probably for years.
Throughout the ordeal, people have made fun of his hair. As if all that isn't enough, this weekend he was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. A patrolman stopped Traficant at 2:00 in the morning in rural Ohio after the congressman's car swerved across the center line several times. Traficant was breathalized and released, but not before voicing some suspicions.
The Congressman was relatively polite, said the county sheriff later, though he did, quote, "raise the possibility that the officer was working with the FBI," which is a perfectly understandable suspicion, considering the circumstances.
CARVILLE: What can I say? He votes Republican all the time.
CARVILLE: He's a great Democrat, James.
CARVILLE: He always votes Republican.
I'm not the only pit bull here in Washington. Even the White House is backing away from Securities and Exchange commissioner and former big-time (ph) accounting friend (ph) Harvey Pitt's latest suggestion. He wants the agency raised to Cabinet-level status, plus an extra $30,000 a year, which would make his annual salary almost $167,000.
Mr. Pitt, you may think the country needs your services and that you're indespensable. But Charles de Gaulle once said, "the graveyards are full of indispensable men."
I have news for you Mr. Pitt: You're one of the most dispensable people inside the beltway.
CARLSON: I agree with you. Everyone is against Harvey Pitt. I would like, when we have some more free time, you to explain exactly what he did wrong; what went from making him this hero to Democrats...
CARVILLE: He fought the very accounting reforms that could have very well stopped a lot of things that happened. His entire perspective is representing big five accounting firms and industry. To my extent (ph), he has never investigated any foreign investor group. He's talked about a kinder, gentler SEC. And the guy is there to just do the bidding of the big accounting firms, and we need someone...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Then Democrats never should have voted for him.
CARVILLE: That's exactly right, they shouldn't. And I think a lot of them would like to take that vote back, and John McCain would too...
CARLSON: But they can't.
You'll never hear Tom Daschle say a bad word about environmental laws -- in public, anyway. In private, like most people, however, he recognizes that regulations designed to protect nature often turn out to be mindless, anti-human and even, yes, counterproductive.
Which may explain why Mr. Daschle stealthily slipped a provision into a recent defense spending bill that would make his state, and his state alone, exempt from many environmental regulations.
The senator wants to reintroduce logging on federal lands in South Dakota. Once caught red-handed, he explained that more logging was needed to prevent forest fires, but just in South Dakota.
The reasoning, apparently, is that forest fires happen only in states from which Senate majority leaders are elected.
He wants to suspend environmental regulations.
CARVILLE: I'd have to look that up.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: Why don't you all go run against him for being to pro- South Dakota.
CARLSON: I don't know, I think that's a pretty good tactic.
CARVILLE: You might think that the American Meat Institute, animal rights activists with nearly naked women would not have much in common. But it all came out today on Capitol Hill.
While the meat industry was throwing it's annual hot dog lunch for lawmakers PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- was offering alternatives. It was a veggie dog party featuring Lauren Anderson, "Playboy's" Miss July of 2002, who just happens to be a vegetarian.
I don't know whether she made any converts, but I must say, being a vegetarian never looked so good.
Now, could I eat a hot dog and look at Miss July?
CARLSON: Let me sum this up. You were saying that "Playboy" bunnies were taking a stand against weenies here?
I have to say, as pro-"playboy" bunny as I am, normally I just can't take my policy cues from them.
CARVILLE: I don't take my policies either. You know, in fact, I don't eat many hot dogs. But I like a hot dog, a hamburger, a good steak as much as the next guy. But I like "Playboy" bunnies too.
Before today the House and Senate were miles apart on corporate reform. It now looks like it'll be headed for President Bush's desk by the end of next week.
Is that enough to lift the markets for more than a day? Will SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt's resignation help even more?
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE tonight, from Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida. And with us is Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada.
CARLSON: Senator Graham, thanks for joining us.
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D), FLORIDA: Thank you.
CARLSON: I want to play you a sound bite from the Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas, not because I think you'll agree with a single word of it, but becuse I think it raises an interesting point that I want to ask you about.
Here he is, Congressman DeLay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY WHIP: Democrat leaders have talked down the market, now they want to pursue political gain from other people's misery. There is a right and wrong in this world, and this is wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now Senator, I don't expect you to agree with all of that, necessarily. But you will agree that Democrats have -- in public congressional Democrats said, look, we are hitching our electoral wagon to the decline of the stock market. Mr. Gephardt was quoted saying virtually just that.
That's not a good strategy, given the fluctuations of the stock market, is it?
GRAHAM: Well, I didn't understand what Mr. Delay said when he said this is wrong. Is he talking about the efforts to clean up the accounting profession, to put some standards back into our corporate governmenance?
What is it that he's talking about is wrong?
CARLSON: Well, I think he was attacking the idea, again, stated pretty publicly by Democrats, that as the stock market falls, Democratic political fortunes rise.
I think the quote from Mr. Gephardt was: If this disaster continues to unfold, we gain 40 seats.
CARLSON: And isn't that not a great strategy? Almost...
GRAHAM: No, it is not a great strategy. I believe that all Americans have a common interest in seeing that we have a strong economy that continues to provide opportunities for all of our people.
That means that we have to have a market that people have confidence in, that they're willing to invest in. And clearly that has not been the case for the last couple of years, as we've seen this decline in the stock market, reaching a bottom a couple of days ago.
And I don't think it's surprising that on the day the House agreed to, basically, the Senate plan of strong new provisions to assure the investor that they're playing with the House and not with a stacked deck that we've had this 490-plus increase in the Dow Jones.
CARVILLE: Senator Ensign, why do you think the current economic team of Secretary of Secretary O'Neill, Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Hubbard is a superior team to, say, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers and Joe Stiglitz?
What is it about this team that you like and trust about them?
DEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R), NEVADA: Remember, as far as the economy is concerned, what we do in Washington has an effect around the edges. We can make recoveries, maybe, a little better, or we can make downturns a little worset.
But the economy is really up to the private sector to do its job. We have to -- it's up to us to create the right environment.
Right now the economy is coming back. But there's so much of a lack of trust in Wall Street that the emotions take over in the stock market. We've seen that.
As a matter of fact, the more the politicians have gotten involved -- we have to do something. It's just that Wall Street does not like uncertainty. They like certainty. And that's why, I think, that they reacted positively today to the fact that we may be doing something, and it will be over. They'll know exactly what they have to deal with in the future.
And I think that's what's important. Forget the partisanship. What we need to do is focus on what is going to take us into the future which will create opportunities for people...
CARVILLE: Again, I'm asking you, what do you think of the president's economic -- Secretary O'Neill, what kind of grade would you give him as Treasury Secretary?
ENSIGN: Well, I'm not an economist; I'm not an expert on the economy.
CARVILLE: But you're a Senator.
ENSIGN: But, you know, there are people that I think that are a lot better at judging economic policies than I am. Bottom line is that I think that what the president has put into place is working to bring the country out of the economic slump that it was in, especially post-September 11th.
But now what we have to do is we have to put confidence back in the investing public. We have it back -- the economy is all coming back. Chairman Greenspan was up in front of the banking committee. He even said that the economy is coming back. What we have to do now though is make sure that Wall Street follows Main Street. And it is so weird how often that those two seem to be mutually almost opposed because so much emotion is in Wall Street any more that it doesn't matter what kind of numbers that the companies come out with. The ups and downs just are based purely on emotion.
CARLSON: And, Senator, let me ask you about that. At the end of the -- at the close today of the market, you saw people on television immediately describing a cause and effect. They were saying, well, this is the result. Investors now have confidence because of legislation that is going to be passed or because they saw cable executives being taken away in handcuffs. Do you think that's true or is that sort of self flattery from Washington, the idea that every little thing Congress does affects the markets?
GRAHAM: Well, this is a complex economy. But clearly one of the key factors is public confidence. Do they believe that they can invest and be treated fairly and get a fair shake? Do they believe they look can look at an accounting statement and believe the numbers that are there?
I think that there has been reasonable basis for people to have their confidence shaken. And now that they are beginning to see some steps that will help to restore confidence and give people a sense that they can believe in the information that is provided to them and make informed judgments, I think that will be a significant lift to the stock market.
CARLSON: OK. Senator Graham, Senator Ensign, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
In a minute, we'll shift gears and ask our senators if they have a prescription for curing the other hot topic on Capitol Hill.
We'll also consider the history-making, momentous decision about to be made in the House of Representatives.
And then our "Quote of the Day," which could set a record in the category of tepid job endorsements. We'll tell you what it is. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Prescription drug prices can be enough to cause dangerous side effects. But so far, Washington hasn't decided what to do about it. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate couldn't muster enough votes to pass either a Democratic or Republican plan to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. But senators know if they can't make your next trip to the drugstore any easier, your next trip to the voting booth will be.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight, Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida; and here in the studio, Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada.
CARVILLE: Senator, I was talking to a Capitol Hill staffer today, and they said something as Democrats, I'm sure you got to set the record straight, because it has to be a lie, a Democrat, socialist, left-wing and typical Democrat lie. They told me that the Republican plan was going to be administered by insurance companies and the Democratic plan was going to be administered to Medicare. Is that right?
ENSIGN: Well, first of all, there is a third plan, and we voted on that today in the House and it actually got the same amount of votes as the Democrat plan. And that was a plan that Senator Hagel and I introduced that actually got more votes from the other side of the aisle than any of the other two plans.
CARVILLE: I'm sorry. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) You really don't have a plan that insurance companies are going to administer as opposed to Medicare.
ENSIGN: Put it this way, our plan does not. Our plan does not administer through insurance companies.
CARVILLE: So, it is just straight Medicare?
ENSIGN: No. Our plan -- the way that our plan works is seniors will get a prescription drug discount card. They will save 25 percent to 40 percent off their drugs up front. Then they would pay the first dollars out of pocket based on income. Pharmaceutical benefit managers would be set up. And those may be AARP, may be a pharmaceutical benefit manager or Merck-Medco could be one or the ones that are out there right now, the employer-sponsored ones could be out there.
CARVILLE: I understand. But, again, it's not true that this is going to be a Medicare benefit under the Democrat plan?
ENSIGN: Yes.
CARVILLE: What is it about Medicare that Republicans don't like?
ENSIGN: Our plan is a Medicare prescription drug benefit and it got four Democrat votes today, more than... CARVILLE: Wow, then it's breathtakingly popular among Democrats. You got four.
ENSIGN: And they were kind of a cross-section. We had Senator Byrd, Senator Carper. We had Senator Breaux and Senator Nelson. So, we didn't just have conservative Democrats. We also had some from the left. So, that's the -- our bill though is the bill that has a chance to pass.
CARLSON: Now, Senator Graham, the main Democratic bill is estimated it will cost $594 billion over 10 years...
ENSIGN: No, six years.
CARLSON: Over six years, says Senator Ensign.
GRAHAM: No, over 10 -- over 10 years.
CARLSON: OK, well, let's give you 10 years. This seems an odd time though, in any case, six or 10 years, to be spending this vast chunk of money. Which taxes would have to be raised in order to pay for it?
GRAHAM: Well, one of those taxes might be the taxes that are yet to go into effect. As you know, we passed a $1.6 trillion tax cut, much of which does not go into effect until the year 2010. We may have to reexamine whether our priorities are exclusively a big tax cut or, as President Bush said, as candidate Bush, we had three objectives. One was to meet our key domestic priorities, one of which was to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Two was to reduce the national debt; and three, if money were still available, to reduce individual taxes.
We've turned those three upside down and we spent virtually all of our money on the $1.6 trillion tax cut, and now we're saying we don't have money to do what the president, as a candidate, identified as a key national priority, to see that we modernize Medicare by providing a prescription drug benefit which will allow it to become a system that deals with keeping people healthy and well as long as possible as opposed to one such as we have today where you have to wait until you're sick enough to go to the doctor or hospital to get any assistance.
CARLSON: But, Senator, I mean, doesn't this put -- let's talk about the estate tax, for instance. Wouldn't that -- the idea of keeping the estate tax or raising it even, wouldn't that put Democrats in a tricky place politically? Obviously, the elderly constituents want a prescription drug benefit, but that they also obviously, and for obvious reasons, are upset about the estate tax. I mean, does that sort of bind you in on both sides?
GRAHAM: Well, the estate tax affects about one to two percent at most of older Americans. The prescription drug benefit affects all of the 40 million older Americans today and the soon to be 45 million older Americans, many of whom live in states such as mine and Senator Ensign's. CARVILLE: I'm assuming that in your state, people are more concerned about the estate tax than they are a prescription drug benefit. Why is it that in your state, people care more about one percent getting a tax cut as opposed to all the seniors that need prescription drugs?
ENSIGN: Well, first of all, Medicare...
CARVILLE: Wait, is that true? Is estate tax elimination more important in your state than a prescription drug benefit, a good prescription drug benefit?
ENSIGN: We can have both and let me tell you how. First of all, Medicare pays for prescription drug benefits through the payroll tax, not the estate tax. Medicare is paid for, everybody pays a payroll tax and that's where you pay for Medicare, not through other taxes. It is through Medicare tax -- or the payroll taxes.
What we have to do though is we have to do this in a responsible way. We have a lot of young people in the audience today and out there watching in America. We cannot afford to forget them in this whole process. That's why I was opposed to the Democrat plan, because I thought it was financially irresponsible to the next generation. We provided a prescription drug benefit for those seniors who are having to choose between rent and prescription drugs. We provided a benefit that helps them without raising their taxes.
CARVILLE: Let me come back (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Why does eliminating a tax on estates over $4 million good for these young people in the audience as opposed to seeing that their that parents have blood pressure medication or diabetes medication or all of the other things they need? I am completely vexed by the Republican stance that the estate tax is more important than a prescription drug benefit.
ENSIGN: The estate tax does not pay for prescription drugs. It comes out of payroll taxes. That's the way our system works.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Let me ask you a question, James -- actually, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: First, let's set the facts straight. The Medicare trust fund,, which is what you pay in to through the payroll tax, only covers the hospitalization portion of Medicare. For the physician's care, which is a voluntary program that 98 percent plus of senior Americans participate, it is paid through a combination of general revenue, of which the estate tax is one component, and the premiums that they pay. It does not draw any funds from the Medicare trust fund and neither would this prescription drug benefit.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Hush. Now, Senator Graham, let me say, very quickly, people in Washington are saying this is not a debate between giving prescription drugs to the elderly and not. It's a debate between a couple of different plans, and Democrats don't want any of them because this is a great campaign issue for them.
GRAHAM: Listen, I have spent all day for the last several weeks trying to put together a plan that would get the necessary 60 votes to overcome the parliamentary hurdles that are going to be placed in front of our plan. And I would say we got 52 votes, as did Senator Ensign's plan, which was, as a percentage, a better vote for the plans than the House got. They were able to pass theirs with less than 52 percent of the House. For us, it is going to take 60 percent of the Senate.
CARLSON: OK. Senator Graham from Florida, Senator Ensign from Nevada, not Nevada, thank you both very much for joining us.
(APPLAUSE)
Still ahead, a drug reform proposal that won't go away, though some say maybe it should. Medical marijuana, hold your breath, don't inhale.
Plus, a fast approaching end of an era on Capitol Hill.
And also, it's a packed show, our "Quote of the Day." Where is a friend when you need one? The question we'll ask. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Being minority leader of the United States Senate is a tough job. You have to keep in touch with a bunch of Republicans in the White House, plus continuously thinking up ways to obstruct Democrat plans to improve the country and help big business buddies instead. You just don't have time for extraneous things.
Which is why Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott gets our "Quote of the Day." When reporters asked him to weigh in on Harvey Pitt's request to become super SEC man, Lott replied, "I don't know Harvey Pitt." (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I guess you don't know Bernie Ebbers either, do you?
CARLSON: This is the sad thing about Washington sometimes. There's just no loyalty. You remember when President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and all those crack dealers. You couldn't find a single person in Washington to defend him. Even people who defended him fears -- they ran. I don't think you ran. I think you defended the crack dealer pardons. But most people didn't.
(CROSSTALK)
But it's depressing. Someone should stand up for Harvey Pitt.
CARVILLE: I think somebody needs to defend these Republicans for having $165 billion deficit. I think that's really pretty important. I think there are a lot of things that need to be defended. But I don't know... CARLSON: But abandoning Harvey Pitt, I feel bad. I just feel...
CARVILLE: You feel bad for Harvey Pitt?
CARLSON: I do, actually.
CARVILLE: The guy makes $3 million a year on Wall Street. Why don't he go back there and make $3 million a year and get out of the way.
CARLSON: He may. He may.
CARVILLE: Good.
CARLSON: Finally, a happy ending to the story of a little girl's disappearance. See for yourself next when Connie Chung has a CNN "News Alert."
Then, we'll ask, just who are the supporters of medical marijuana trying to fool?
And he's nobody fool. Is the House just about done fooling around with Congressman James Traficant? It's a very foolish show and we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful Foggy Bottom.
Since Congress can't seem to get around to providing a drug benefit for Medicare, perhaps folks should just be allowed to grow their own. A lot of people think marijuana can't hurt people with cancer, glaucoma or other painful diseases, and it may even help. So why not let them have it?
In the CROSSFIRE is Keith Stroup, executive director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; and joining us from Oklahoma City is Asa Hutchison, who heads up the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
CARLSON: Keith, thanks for joining us.
KEITH STROUP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORML: Thank you. Nice to be here.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Here's the problem I have. If you're for legalizing marijuana, I think you have a legitimate argument, probably not a correct one, but a legitimate one on your side.
STROUP: Thank you.
CARLSON: Why not just make it, rather than rolling out, as you did today at a press conference, people who are ill almost as a form of moral blackmail, support our position or you take a position against these ill people here up on the stage? Why not just make the argument directly rather than this kind of phony roundabout medical way?
STROUP: I would actually suggest that it is the other side that's doing that, and let me briefly explain. We do favor, my organization NORML believes, you should not arrest responsible marijuana smokers regardless, whether they're a patient or just smoking it for the fun of it.
Nonetheless, that issue is a side issue. The country is largely divided on that issue. I think we have a slight majority of the country on our side. But there's a lot of debate that has to happen. On the issue of whether seriously ill patients should have marijuana as a medicine or if their doctor recommends it, 73 percent of the American public now support that. Nine states have now approved it under state law, eight by voter initiative and one, Hawaii, by legislature.
It is inconceivable to me that we would want to deny an effective medication to seriously ill and dying patients. There are tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who get no relief from traditional medication. These are cancer patients, AIDS patients, MS patients, people with chronic pain, especially neuropathic pain. If marijuana helps them, I can't imagine a justification for denying them that medication.
CARVILLE: Mr. Hutchinson, let me give you just a chance before I get into it to respond to what Mr. Stroup said. He made a lot of points here. I thought some of them sounded good. So, tell us why he's all washed up and wrong.
ASA HUTCHINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: Well, first of all, on the point that we would not want to deny effective medication to someone who is ill or dying, we would not want to do that. We're a compassionate society. But we have always listened to the scientific and medical community as to what is good medicine. And thus far, they have not said that.
I think that we ought to listen to the American Medical Association that believes there is a not a medical benefit for marijuana, for smoking marijuana. And so I think that's the group that we should listen to, and they have not said it is good medicine. We want to be -- we are a compassionate society. We want to provide good medicine. We're authorizing continued studies of any health benefits. Thus far, they're not there and so we have the right policy.
CARVILLE: Let me read to you -- let me show you something here, Mr. Hutchinson. I'm going to read to you from Al Hunt's column in the "Wall Street Journal": "John Ashcroft's pre-September 11 agenda was fighting gun control, abortion, state laws permitting assisted suicide or medical marijuana and going after hookers and their clients, not terrorism. There are many more crimes and crime-catchers in America. So, priority is important." my question to you is, why should I really care or you care or the FBI or John Ashcroft care if some guy is taking chemotherapy, wants to take a couple of tokes. I mean, let him have it. What the hell. What's the problem?
HUTCHINSON: Well, first of all, Attorney General Ashcroft is certainly concentrating on our fight against terrorism. We have priorities that are out there from heroin and cocaine to terrorism. We also have responsibility, one of them is to enforce our laws in regards to marijuana.
Whenever you look at marijuana, 400 -- excuse me -- 225,000 Americans each year are admitted to treatment programs because of marijuana dependence. More teenagers go into treatment for marijuana addiction than any other drug including alcohol. It is a serious problem in our country. It has health consequences. It is more toxic than tobacco, and most people are not out there advocating we ought to increase tobacco use. When it comes to medical use, let's listen to science and medicine, and whatever they say, we should follow.
CARLSON: Now, Keith, here is the problem I have with the medical marijuana issue. It is apt, A, to make liars out of people. I think it already has in some places where people pretend to have ailments and they need to smoke dope to relieve those ailments; and, B, I think it implicates the government in the dope trade, essentially. San Francisco considering growing marijuana on city-owned property.
STROUP: Well, but they're only considering growing marijuana because the federal government will not allow the state to provide medicine that patients need. For example, the bill that we held a press conference on today, that former President Ronald Reagan's top chief, Lynn Noffsinger (ph) supports for example, and Dana Rohrbacher from California. It's not just a bunch of liberals.
What this bill does is simply amend federal law so that states that wish to allow the medical use of marijuana may do so legally and may provide it so that you don't have to have the city of San Francisco growing it. Right now, what happens is there is a conflict between state and federal law.
CARLSON: But I am just struck that there's no -- I mean, look, if smoking marijuana, as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) would say, marinol, you know, the pill form, if smoking marijuana was a treatment that was so effective that no other treatment could work for gravely ill patients, you would imagine -- you would have physicians protesting in the street on behalf of it, but you don't have that, do you?
STROUP: No, no, you do have many. In fact, the Institute of Medicine report that came out that the drug's czar's office spent $800,000 on two years ago, one of their major points was this: Marijuana is, without question, a therapeutic agent that can help cancer and AIDS patients and MS patients, et cetera.
They did say they want to find another way to deliver it other than smoking. So they're working on sublingual sprays and things like that. But they said: If someone is within six months of dying, if they're a terminal patient and no other medication would work, let them smoke marijuana.
CARVILLE: I think, Mr. Hutchinson, he makes a point here. I'm sure that you were a strong supporter of state's rights when you were in the United States Congress.
Why should you care if the state of California or Alaska or Vermont or any other state wants to make medical marijuana legal? Why should the federal government need to be butting into that decision that that state wants to make?
HUTCHINSON: Well, there is a conflict between state and federal law. But if you take, for example, bank robbery, it's a violation of both federal and state law. Just because the state legalizes it does not change the fact that it's a violation of federal law.
That's the conflict that we have. Federal law is...
STROUP: But should we have it, Asa? Should we have a conflict? Shouldn't the Feds step aside?
CARVILLE: You're really not equating bank robbery with a guy taking a couple tokes on a joint?
HUTCHINSON: I'm equating the fact that there's a lot of laws that we have out there that are both federal and state in conjunction, and they're separate jurisdictions.
Just because the state changes a policy on regards to marijuana does not mean that that changes the federal policy. You have the conflicts there.
We're continuing because it's the congressional mandate, because we have enforcement responsibilities to enforce the federal law.
I believe the American people still are opposed to legalization movement. I think that they want us to determine medicine based upon our FDA approval process. And that's what we want to be able to follow.
We shouldn't have referendum-based medicine. And that's the difficulty we're finding ourselves in.
CARLSON: Very quickly, Keith Stroup, that's, I think, an important point. Should we have referendum-based medicine? Why not wait for the FDA to approve it?
STROUP: Well, because we've been waiting for over 20 years already, and the government has planted their head in the sand.
Canada just legalized the medical use of marijuana. England is just a step away from legalizing it. Most of Western Europe is too.
So the fact that we have ideologues in our Congress who refuse to deal with marijuana as a medicine on a rational basis does not mean we should deny it to patients.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: We're going to have to leave it there.
Keith Stroup, thank you so much.
STROUP: Thank you.
CARLSON: Mr. Hutchinson, thank you.
CARVILLE: Thank you so much, as always, both of you. Thanks for coming.
CARLSON: Coming up, your chance to "Fireback" at us.
One viewer says there's a profound disconnect between the way James Carville sounds and the way he should look.
But next, we're looking at the immediate future of Congressman -- or is that soon-to-be-ex-Congressman James Traficant. It's a poignant story. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRAFICANT: Experts around the country say to solve the problem, Congress should give them more money. Beam me up!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Over the years Ohio Congressman James A. Traficant made a name for himself with blowhard speeches featuring the catch phrase "beam me up" when he didn't understand or didn't like something.
Well, tonight Congress is getting ready to beam him out.
The House of Representatives is debating a resolution to expel Traficant, who was convicted of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and bribery this year.
Joining us from Capitol Hill is California Democratic Representative Loretta Sanchez, who was the first to call for Traficant's expulsion, and a very distinguished, and great American.
CARLSON: Congressman Traficant, thanks -- I beg your pardon. Congresswoman Sanchez, thanks for joining us.
In contrast to -- most of your Congressmen coddled Mr. Traficant over the years. You've been hard on him. And he was asked about this last night on the Connie Chung show here on CNN.
I want you to listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRAFICANT: The reason Loretta Sanchez is doing that, is if you recall, she was embroiled in an election with Bob Dornan, that there was questionable illegal aliens that possibly voted in there.
And I was the only Democrat that voted to, in fact, have a new election. I don't think illegal aliens should determine the outcome of a federal election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now, it's pretty clear this is payback, isn't it? You're going after him.
REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D), CALIFORNIA: No, Tucker, this is about Americans having confidence that their people in the House of Representatives, their representatives, are honest and that they have integrity.
And certainly Traficant doesn't, and that's why we need to get him out.
CARLSON: But Congresswoman, this is really news from nowhere. I mean, he's been exploding on the House floor for, you know, almost 20 years now. He's written magazines -- he wrote a piece for a Holocaust denial magazine. He defended a Nazi war criminal. He was indicted in 1982 for bribery.
And people have known a lot about Traficant for a long time. Democrats have said nothing about it lo these many years. Why not?
SANCHEZ: Tucker, this isn't anything about erratic behavior. I mean, you can have erratic behavior and be in the Congress.
This is about a guy that has done something very illegal, has been convicted of it, is a felon, should be serving prison time, and certainly should not be collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers.
CARVILLE: I just want to clear up one thing, doesn't he vote with the Republicans like 90 percent of the time?
SANCHEZ: He certainly votes with the Republicans.
But this is really about his bad behavior, about illegal activities. And in particular I think most of my colleagues are very upset at this whole issue of kickbacks from his staff.
CARVILLE: Let me show you a clip from Tucker's ideological soul mate here and something else he said that I want to give you a chance to respond to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRAFICANT: And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm elected from a jail cell, because people know I got railroaded back here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Do you think he was railroaded, or do you think that he was convicted in federal court for a crime, and it's time for him to shut up and pay his debt to society?
SANCHEZ: I believe, in particular, he was convicted. If there is one thing that has nothing to do with railroading, and that is the fact that he required his staff to give him money back for having a job with him.
That's totally unacceptable. There are too many young people who come here to the House of Representatives who want to serve in public service, want to learn the system, you know, are just great to work with.
And the last thing we need is an example of a congressperson giving them a job and taking money for that.
CARLSON: Wait a second, Congresswoman. Shouldn't this really be up to the voters of District 17 in Ohio?
Democrats for decades in that district have voted willingly, under no pressure, for Congressman Traficant. I bet, knowing Democratic voters, they'll vote for him again, even if he is in Leavenworth.
Shouldn't they be allowed to represent the Democrats of Ohio 17? Why not?
SANCHEZ: Tucker, I just can't believe that you're defending a felon. But let me tell you why...
CARLSON: I'm defending a choice that Democratic voters have made...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: Isn't this hilarious, that a Republican is defending voters after they steal a presidential election?
CARLSON: I'm defending voters, the people, James.
But seriously, the question stands. Shouldn't they be able to choose?
SANCHEZ: This tarnishes the rest of the congresspeople.
You know what? I work seven days a week. I work too hard to show people that I have integrity, that I'm working on their issues, that I want them to believe in their government, to have someone like Traficant sitting here pulling a paycheck at taxpayers' expense when people back home are earning minimum wage and are struggling through this economy.
We have got to get him out of here. CARVILLE: I think you ought to run for the Senate. You make more sense than anybody I've heard on the Hill, Congresswoman. You are my hero; I have a new hero now, and it's you.
CARLSON: I wonder, Congresswoman, does it make you uncomfortable when you get a question that's such a transparent, suck-up, pander like the one James...
CARVILLE: I think she's a great lady. I'm not -- I think she's a great lady.
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: So what is the next step here for Congressman Traficant? Where are we in this process?
SANCHEZ: Well right now we're listening to -- one of his colleagues from Ohio asked for an extension. We will take a vote on that. I believe we'll vote that down. We will have another hour, half of that will be with Traficant. And then I believe that we will be voting him out tonight from the United States Congress. And it is time to do that.
CARLSON: But, Congresswoman, one last thing. As a parting shot, he, Congressman Traficant, and his attorney have implied that he has a bombshell that he is going to out other members of the House for their misdeeds. Who do you think he is talking about?
SANCHEZ: I have no idea. All I know is what the committee of ethics has brought to us. They have unanimously said, we need to get him out. He tarnishes our reputation, the rest of us who are working hard and diligently for America.
At a time when we are trying to tell Americans to have confidence and to restore confidence in our business leaders by putting in the right accounting rules, et cetera, we also need to have them believe that their government officials are working hard for them, are honest, have integrity and are in government because they believe in public service. That's why Traficant has to leave.
CARLSON: OK. Congressman Loretta Sanchez from California. Thanks for working seven days a week and coming on CROSSFIRE. We appreciate it.
Will they beam him or us up? One of our viewers has e-mailed a question about Representative Traficant's hair. We'll attempt to answer that in a minute. Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for "Fireback." We ask you to fire back. You do. Here they are, your e-mails. First up, David Adinolfi from Raleigh, North Carolina. "Why has no one mentioned the fact that Congressman Traficant has what appears to be a dead possum on his head?" Well, I don't know about that. David, let's take a look. Let's go to tape. No, in fact, that is a raccoon, I would say, not a possum.
CARVILLE: Maybe it's a nutria (ph).
All right. What have we got next. "A Democrat will be elected into the White House every eight years. It's the only folks can make enough money to vote Republican." L. Stapp; Houston, Texas. You know, Mr. Stapp, I am always reminded what Harry Truman said, "people ought to vote like a Democrat so they can live like a Republican." There's much truth to that. God, I wish we had this Clinton economy.
CARLSON: Bada-bing, bada-boom. OK, the Clinton economy gave us what we have now. Next, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin: "I'm amazed at how Tucker's voice raises in pitch, his face turns beet red when responding to the most liberal guests on his show. Does he do it all on his own or does a producer sneak behind him and give him a wedgie?" David from Milwaukee, who obviously knows a lot about television, he's caught our wedgie technique. Yes, in fact, it is a wedgie technique.
CARVILLE: All right. What have we got here. "Can you please ask James Carville to tone down that thick southern accent? I can't help but think about hillbillies, moonshine and people with only two teeth in their mouth every time I hear his voice." Peter; Los Angeles, California.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: You know, the sad thing actually, Peter, is that James is really from Oregon. It is all a put on.
CARVILLE: Actually, Peter, I grew up in south Louisiana and there's not a hill within sight of me within a hundred miles of me. But, anyway, you wouldn't know that anyway.
CARLSON: Good point. Or with three teeth. We go to our questions. Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, I'm James Reynison (ph) from Montemeda (ph), Minnesota. I was just wondering, do you think the Traficant situation will affect confidence in the government or will voters see this as an isolated incident?
CARLSON: I think they'll see -- I mean, unfortunately, I think a lot of voters think everybody in Congress is like Traficant. And, in fact, that's not true. Most are pretty straight arrow decent people who earn their money and more, as far as I'm concerned.
CARVILLE: Don't tell me I agree with you.
CARLSON: Well, he's a great Democrat. That's the other point I would make, Jim Traficant...
CARVILLE: He votes like a Republican. He's all y'all little people's ideological soulmate.
CARLSON: Yes, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello. I'm Leslie Shon (ph) from Midland, Michigan. Don't you think that Bush's war on terrorism, that is so frightening to the American public because it seems to have no limits, is the main obstacle to the recovery of the U.S. economy?
CARVILLE: No, ma'am, I don't. And I think what's really frightening to the American people is these terrorists knocking our damn buildings down.
CARLSON: Amen.
(APPLAUSE)
Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, my name is Anna Hall (ph) and I'm from Temecula, California. And my question is, why do myself and other young people have to pay for the prescriptions of the elderly when the elderly make more money than all of us or they live on pensions that they have gotten from retirement and they receive Social Security, when, like, young people like myself pay taxes and work and we won't be seeing this. And people like Bill Gates when he retires and the elderly will be able to.
CARLSON: I don't think anybody would have a problem paying for the prescription drug benefits of the elderly poor. But, of course, it is going to be expanded much beyond that. And the bottom line is that...
CARVILLE: Young lady, when I was your age, the elderly poverty rate in the United States was 30 percent. Today, it is 10 percent. That is because the Democrats enacted codes (ph) for Social Security. That is the act of a moral and just nation. That is the act of a nation of a moral and just God, as opposed to these gay marriages and all that stupid right-wing junk. Taking care of old people is what moral and just and polite people do.
From the left, I'm James Carville.
CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Good night from CROSSFIRE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
