Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Reporter's Notebook: Washington's Political Agenda

Aired September 01, 2001 - 09:33   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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush and Congress are preparing to get back to work, and there's a lot of contentious issues on the agenda.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: You could say that, yes. We'll try to put it all into focus in today's "Reporter's Notebook."

And joining us live now from Washington to take our questions is Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report." We also have got CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace and CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider. Thanks to all of you for joining us this morning.

The first question, actually, we want to get from the e-mail, and this comes from Ian Thomas from Pennsylvania. And he writes, "Is the Bush administration at all concerned about the possible consequences from its failure to attend the conference on racism in South Africa? It would seem that the U.S. is going it alone yet again."

And Ms. Walters -- Ms. Walter, rather, since you're first out of the box here this morning, let's ask you that one.

AMY WALTER, "COOK POLITICAL REPORT": Well, thank you. Good morning.

I don't know if this issue is going to have a tremendous amount of resonance for the administration coming into another very contentious few months here back in Washington. Certainly for folks who are very interested in this issue, I think it may be just one more example of perhaps how the Bush administration just doesn't get it for them.

But I think we're going to be overwhelmed by the number of other contentious issues in front of Congress, that this may, in fact, just be shelved for not much in -- a little bit of time, actually.

PHILLIPS: Kelly, you want to pipe in on that, or Bill?

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes...

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that they -- you know, and remember, this issue has gotten embroiled in Middle East politics. And a lot of Americans wonder what in the world does a conference on racism have to do with the conflict in the Middle East? Well, every international conference seems to bog down in Middle East politics. And I believe a lot of people respect and admire the administration for taking a principled stand here, even though it does worry a lot of Americans that just about every international conference or agreement, the United States seems to back out on.

But this one may be an exception.

PHILLIPS: Kelly?

WALLACE: Yes, I was just going to add, you know, the administration saying that it is there although it is not participating, and again, really talking on principles in the fact that there was discussion about equating Zionism with racism, the administration very much adamant against that, against any such wording, any such discussion at the conference.

So on that stance, as well as reparations for slavery, those are two principles that the administration was talking about about why it would not be there. And again, as Bill said, I think many people respecting the administration for taking such a principled stance and in its position there.

PHILLIPS: Well, on the theme of the Middle East, we have an e- mail from Adam Goodkind from New Jersey, and he says, "Do you believe that President Bush should take a more proactive role in the Middle East? And if not, what should be done?"

Bill?

SCHNEIDER: Well, I think that, really, nothing -- no progress will be made unless the United States intervenes, because, frankly, these parties -- this is two 73-year-old men, Arafat and Sharon, they're not about to make a deal with each other, not without an enormous amount of outside pressure. And they're not getting it right now, and that's why the situation is so rapidly deteriorating.

Each of them will deal with the United States and trust the United States as a partner, but if the United States takes a back seat and says, We're not going to do anything till they stop fighting with each other, they're not going to stop fighting with each other.

SAVIDGE: Kelly, what's the view...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHNEIDER: ... the United States has to get involved.

WALLACE: Yes, it's...

SAVIDGE: What's the view directly from the White House there on this?

WALLACE: Well, it's been very interesting, because you've heard some Arab allies, namely Egypt, coming forward and saying the only country, the only one that really can make a difference here, is the United States, exactly as Bill mentioned, because of the respect and the influence that the United States could have in the region.

But you see the administration very sensitive to any criticism that it is not engaged, administration officials saying it is engaged, saying that Secretary of State Colin Powell just last week on the phone with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

So that's again, it is sort of saying, Look, the U.S. can't go in and force the two sides to stop the violence. They have to do that. And then the U.S. will step in. This administration clearly concerned about sending over an envoy or stepping in and trying to make a difference, concerned about failure there, and right now saying the onus is on the parties, and only then will the U.S. really be able to actively get the two sides together.

SAVIDGE: All right. Well, let's bring in now Bob on the telephone. He's calling from Virginia. Go ahead, Bob, with your question for us.

CALLER: Good morning. I have a question, basically it's for Bill Schneider. What political damage could be had from the budget impact, and what if any, will there even be a, quote unquote, God forbid, a "government shutdown"? And which party is going to suffer the most from this? Because of the elections, in certain states this year, and then the congressional and governor elections next year, Bill? And we know that the budget surplus is gone.

SCHNEIDER: Wow. Well, there were about four questions there. But, you know, political damage, you know, there'll be a lot of fighting in Washington. Look, the surplus -- the non-Social Security surplus is just about gone, everyone agrees.

And -- but, you know, for years the government would spend the Social Security surplus and consider that just government revenue. It's only in the last few years they decided to mark that off, put it in the, quote, "lockbox," that -- the word that Gore used, and say that we're not going to touch it. Both parties agreed to set it aside.

But now there really isn't any money. That's going to produce an enormous amount of fighting, because both sides want new programs, prescription drugs is part of Medicare, new spending on education and President Bush's missile defense fund -- plan. And to do that, they're going to have to cut something. That's going to be a lot of fighting.

Will this create enormous amounts of political damage? No. Will there be a government shutdown? No, because the Congress learned a bitter lesson in 1995 and 1994 that a government shutdown just destroys any confidence in Congress.

So my feeling is, the political damage from this will be limited. It'll all be seen as, Oh, that's Washington fighting with each other again, unless one of two things happens. The economy continues to deteriorate, in which case they'll want to know, Why aren't you doing something about that? Or, number two, there's any threat to cut Social Security benefits, or if it looks like the Social Security system is rapidly becoming insolvent. And that doesn't look like it's likely to happen any time immediately.

PHILLIPS: Amy Walter, you want to chime in?

WALTER: Well, I think Bill did answer it very, very well, and I think he brings up a very good point. The question really is, you know, at the end of all this finger-pointing, and there's going to certainly be a lot of that in these next few months, who gets stuck with the political hot potato? Who's going to take the blame, if the economy continues to falter over the next year?

And if we do start to see that this so-called surplus and the lockbox and those issues that have been brought up so many times in so many elections start to get compromised, I think one party or the other may ultimately take a fall.

But again, we still have another year before the elections, and certainly it -- we've talked a lot about the Middle East here in the first couple of minutes. That could change the dynamics of this next election just as much as the economy or Social Security or any other issue.

PHILLIPS: All right, we're going to go to another phone call. Mark from Nevada's on the line. Go ahead -- oh, it's an e -- actually, don't have that e-mail. The e-mail I have -- let's see if this comes up -- Mark Bradshaw from Henderson, Nevada. "Could somebody please explain what the 13 spending bills are? Whose responsibility is their appropriations process?"

Oh, boy, I don't know if we're going to be able to get into 13 spending bills. Kelly, you want to try and tackle that?

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: ... in there from my vantage point here at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Well, basically what it is, is, there are 13 spending bills that Congress must approve and then send over to the president to keep the government running. They deal with education and defense and agriculture, everything that the federal government does in terms of spending.

Those bills, 13 of them, again, the House and the Senate must approve them, send them over to the president, he signs them into law. It's all supposed to happen by October 1, and then everyone's happy and the government keeps running.

But as you've seen, these budget battles get rather contentious. Often the lawmakers may hold off on dealing with certain issues in order to put off decisions or exert some leverage and try and get some increases in spending by the end of the time, again, putting some pressure on the president or on other lawmakers.

So this is what's supposed to happen over the next month. Again, if it doesn't happen by October 1, as we've seen in previous years, the president can go ahead and sign what's basically an extension, gives the government time to keep going on an emergency basis until lawmakers finish up their work.

So we'll see what happens. But I don't think anyone expects all this work to get done by October 1 -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Kelly.

SAVIDGE: Well, we want to go to another e-mail, and that's Duane in Tennessee, and he writes, "Why hasn't the Senate been criticized for taking off five weeks with so much unfinished work, budget bills, presidential appointments, so on? All we ever hear about is the president's vacation. Why not equal opportunity criticism?"

Amy, how about that one?

WALTER: Well, you know, members of Congress don't like to call it a vacation, as, you know, it's called a recess. But they also like to call it a home work period. All right, so they use -- they say, We're not taking a break here, we're going home to our districts, to our states, we're talking to people, we're working even harder than we're in Washington, because if you're from a big state, you're getting on a plane and you're flying all over your state, or you're driving all day.

It's their way, they say, of getting back to their home and learning about the priorities of the people they represent. But it's a very interesting question.

SAVIDGE: Bill Schneider, did the president suffer any fallout from his extended time away?

SCHNEIDER: Yes, he did. I think a lot of people think any time Congress is not meeting in Washington is probably good for the country. But the president, people believe the president works for me. I'm paying him, it's my tax dollars. Nobody gives me a month's vacation. He's been in office, what, six months, and he's already taking a month's vacation?

That outraged a lot of people, and that's why the White House was at great pains to show, Oh, this is a working vacation, he's going here, he's signing bills, he's giving a speech on stem cell. So working vacation, that's a great American oxymoron.

SAVIDGE: Quickly, Kelly, the last word, what does the White House say on that...

WALLACE: Well, I think people were -- here were echoing what Duane said, Hey, wait a second, the president's already back in Washington, why isn't anyone talking about lawmakers in the House and the Senate who have been in their districts for so long? They've been very sensitive to this criticism, Marty and Kyra.

And again, I do think some administration officials conceding they could have handled this better, communicated it better before the president left, outlined exactly what he was going to do so it didn't look like they were trying to sort of respond to criticism that, Hey, wait, he's going to be traveling around and meeting with everyday Americans, talking about issues.

They are sensitive to it, but they do think, just like Bill said, lawmakers, it's good when they're out of Washington. They think it's good when the president's out of Washington, talking to everyday Americans. The more they see pictures of him with everyday Americans, the better, that's the view from here at the White House.

PHILLIPS: Kelly, you were out on his ranch. You saw him with his chainsaw, chopping up firewood in his cowboy hat. You can relate to that.

WALLACE: Well, I don't -- can't relate to a chainsaw. I'm from Brooklyn, New York, after all. No, but I do think, people here said that those images, when people see the president out on his ranch, talking about his love of the outdoors, talking about how he loves to be home, how he loves to be a regular guy, that people really respond to that. And so they think that the president benefited by all those photo opportunities that we saw on his ranch.

SCHNEIDER: The idea is that when the president and Congress leave, they're on a vacation from Washington, but not from work. That was supposed to be the impression.

SAVIDGE: All right. Kelly Wallace at the White House, Bill Schneider, thank you as always. And we want to say hello and goodbye to Amy Walter also for joining us this morning. Thanks for taking part in our travel discussion, in a way.

PHILLIPS: There we go.

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