Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With Trent Lott

Aired January 19, 2002 - 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.
MARK SHIELDS, CO-HOST: I'm Mark Shields. Robert Novak and I will question the top Republican in the United States Senate.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: He is Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): The second session of the 107th Congress convenes Wednesday with investigations of the Enron scandal scheduled and economic stimulus legislation heading unfinished business.

This week, Senator Edward M. Kennedy set the tone for Democrats who want the stimulus bill to roll back future upper-bracket tax cuts that were proposed by President Bush and passed by Congress last year.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We can and should postpone a portion of the future tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. Future additional tax breaks for the wealthy do not deserve higher priority than strengthening education, covering prescription drugs under Medicare or protecting Social Security or meeting other urgent national priorities.

NOVAK: The stimulus bill is only one of several bills passed by the Republican-controlled House that are pending in the Democratic- controlled Senate, including insurance and trade legislation.

Trent Lott, first elected to Congress in 1972 at age 31, was elected Republican leader of the Senate in 1996 after Bob Dole resigned. He became minority leader last May when Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party to give the Democrats a majority.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: Senator Lott, with the papers full of stories about greedy Enron executives cashing in while the ordinary workers are without a dime, do you think this is a tough time to -- what Senator Kennedy's saying, this is a tax cut for the rich -- to go ahead with the scheduled tax reductions in the upper brackets?

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: Well, first of all, it's not news when Ted Kennedy says what we need is more federal government spending and tax increases to pay for it. And any way you describe it, that's what he's talking about, it's a tax increase, just as sure as if you were told you're not going to get a cost-of-living increase if you're on Social Security, then that would be described as cutting your Social Security benefits. Nobody wants to do that.

And the Democrats have a real problem with this, even though Senator Kennedy was following up what Tom Daschle had to say, and actually saying what Tom meant, which was, "Let's raise taxes so we can spend more money at the federal level."

But there are a lot of Democrats that don't agree with that. You've got at least a dozen out of the -- about a quarter of the Democratic caucus has voted for the tax relief package, and they certainly don't agree with that. I've got quotes John Breaux and Max Cleland and, you know, Dianne Feinstein, saying, "No, we should not mess with the tax relief given to Americans."

Plus, one final thing, Bob, and that is when you do have a downturn in the economy, when you have a recession, the last thing you do is move toward raising taxes. I remember a President Kennedy that showed the way in cutting taxes back in the '50s.

NOVAK: But Senator, how do you answer Senator Kennedy's statement that you don't have money for prescription drugs, that if you cut taxes, you would have -- if you didn't cut these taxes, you would have more money for health, education? How do you answer that?

LOTT: As a matter fact, we raised significantly the funding for education during this past year. We had provisions in our budget last year that would have provided for an opportunity to go to a prescription drug component. That's something we're still going to be working on.

There will be funds there to provide the necessary needs for the American people in education and in health care. We don't need to come up with another $300 billion, $350 billion in tax increases.

SHIELDS: Senator Lott, as I listen to Senator Kennedy's speech, I understand him to say that he was postponing or denying the tax cut for the top income bracket in 2004, which is two years away. Now, you're not suggesting that we will be in a recession in 2004, because that's when the tax increase, as you call it, will take place.

LOTT: Well, now, I would think that he'd be one of the first ones to say exactly who knows what the economic situation will be then. I assume and I hope and I think that we will take necessary actions to make sure that that doesn't happen.

But now, you talk about upper brackets. I think a couple, a man and a woman working making $130,000 a year in America don't think of themselves as upper-income. Now, they're both probably working, probably have got children at home, have to get a babysitter, and the idea that they would not get tax relief that they now have been promised, they won't like that.

Plus, what do you say to the farmers, the small business men and women and the individuals who've been told, "Thank goodness, at long last, we're phasing out the death tax"? Senator Kennedy said we should not do that. He thinks we ought to keep the death tax on the books.

So I think that this is going to be a hard sell for him, even in the Senate. I don't believe there will be anywhere near a majority that would vote to roll back the tax relief that working Americans, working couples, not just upper-income, but middle-income couples also.

SHIELDS: Senator Kennedy's speech was almost blacked out, as was President Bush's signing of the education bill last week, by Enron, as Bob talked about.

We're seeing the implications everywhere already this week. Privatization of Social Security as an issue for the Republicans in 2002: gone. Deregulation: gone. I mean, you could feel the impact and the influence of this scandal as Republicans try -- and Democrats too -- try and move away, turning back money.

I mean, how big is this Enron thing going to be politically?

LOTT: I don't think it's going to be that big politically.

It is a tragedy that a major industry of this size has gone into this sort of a situation. It's a tragedy, more importantly, for the individuals, the employees that are seeing their 401(k)s be, you know, wiped out, in effect, by this.

I think that the Justice Department, the government has a responsibility to find out what happened here. And I'm sure there are going to be some congressional hearings to see what happened: Was there fraud involved here? Do we need to take a look at the laws on the books?

As a matter of fact, I understand the House has already passed a bill that would provide some assistance in this area, in terms of ability of employees to know about how the investments are being used.

So I would suggest, once again, the Senate quit being a sinkhole of inactivity and take up some of the good legislation that maybe would help address this problem.

NOVAK: But Senator, some of your fellow Republicans feel that the White House is covering over, is acting as though it has something to hide. Vice President Cheney not releasing the names and the details of his energy task force.

Do you think, just politically now, there is a problem in the way the White House is handling this?

LOTT: No, I don't. I think they've been very forthcoming. I was with the president on Thursday night of this past week, and he feels very strong that, you know, this needs to be looked into.

And we don't know for sure exactly what happened, but clearly it looks very bad in terms of what appears to have been the conduct of the top executives of that company -- not providing truthful information to the employees, and it affected them in a very devastating way.

As far as the vice president, he is going to comply with the letter of the law. He is going to be forthcoming.

They had a number of meetings with energy officials from all over this country, as they should, as they try to develop an overall national energy policy, which we don't have, by the way.

NOVAK: Senator, you got $2,000 from Enron. You're a pretty small pumpkin grower.

LOTT: Yes.

NOVAK: So a lot of people of both parties, liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats -- they gave to everybody. They gave to both candidates in the race for governor of Texas in 1984. Give me your opinion of a company like Enron, which is pouring out all this money, isn't paying taxes. What do you think of that now?

LOTT: Well, I don't think much of companies that conduct themselves in the way this company has done. In fact, I'm very, very disturbed about that. I also...

(CROSSTALK)

LOTT: Let me talk about the pure politics of it. I think that's the worst of all worlds. One of the things I've always liked and admired about labor unions is they support their friends and try to defeat their enemies. The corporate world doesn't seem to have that same philosophy. They'll give to anybody and everybody so that they, I guess, can have access to -- The thing about it is they don't have to do that.

Most congressmen, senators, administration officials will visit with, you know, company representatives, particularly from their state, if they have a problem or if there's a major company that is having difficulties or perhaps with an overseas project, they can get an audience without doing this. But they don't seem to know who their friends are, and they don't care who their enemies are.

SHIELDS: On the matter of access, Senator Lott, one of the most glaring examples, apparently, of it involved a friend of yours, Curtis Hebert Jr. from Pascagoula, Mississippi, the top electricity regulator in the entire federal government as chairman of FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And he reported -- went on record as saying that Ken Lay, the top man at Enron, came to see him and said, in essence, "You change your position closer to mine on energy deregulation and I will support your continuation of the chairmanship."

Mr. Hebert said at the time, on the record, "I was offended by it." He didn't change. He's no longer chairman. And Ken Lay delivered. I mean, do you believe...

(CROSSTALK) LOTT: By the way, it proves once again that the system worked. I don't know what the tone of the conversation was or even, for sure, if there was one.

NOVAK: You believe him?

SHIELDS: You believe he was telling the truth?

LOTT: Well, of course. I mean, he's from Pascagoula, Mississippi. He wouldn't, you know, fabricate that. But he would take calls from anybody that's in the area that they're regulating. He's not going to be influenced by it, and he was not. And, by the way, he's not chairman either.

SHIELDS: That's right. But this is more than access, this is influence...

LOTT: No, that..

(CROSSTALK)

SHIELDS: ... if, in fact, Mr. Lay delivered...

LOTT: I can assure you Mr. Lay didn't have anything to do with Curt Hebert leaving that position. And I know the intimate details completely, and he had nothing to do with who the chairman is of FERC. And my friend Curt Hebert, by the way, is doing quite well in his new position with Intergy.

SHIELDS: We have to take a break. But when we come back, we'll ask Trent Lott just how long should U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Senator Lott, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden, has been in Afghanistan. He said it would be a travesty if the United States should pull its troops out of Afghanistan before there's an all-Afghan army ready. Do you agree with that? And if so, how long should U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan?

LOTT: Well, I haven't discussed it with the experts, with Department of Defense officials and administration officials. I doubt that it would be necessary to keep troops there that long. I don't think it's going to be just a very brief period of time, but it may be quite some time before the government of Afghanistan really is in a position to do what needs to be done in terms of running a government, having a police force, having an army.

That's the reason why we are getting other countries' troops in there. Britain and, I think Germany, is obviously sending some. We don't have...

NOVAK: ... send U.S. troops there?

LOTT: For a while, but not indefinitely. Remember this: This president has assured us that we would -- when we'd go in, we'd go in all out, we'd have a mission and we'd have an end game. And the president's said repeatedly, "We're going to, you know, stay there as long as necessary and then we're going to deal with terrorism wherever else we may need to go to make Americans safe here at home and abroad."

NOVAK: The American Taliban, John Walker, this week was charged, but not with terrorism. And, of course, you need two witnesses for treason. I think there were about 20 witnesses with that fellow. But you think that your constituents in Mississippi would have preferred to have John Walker charged with treason with the possibility of the death penalty?

LOTT: I think the average constituent who is not a lawyer probably would have preferred the charge of treason. And even the information I know, the fact that he was down in the cellar at a prison riot with the hardest of the hardcore, and had to be flooded out of the basement, he knew what he was doing. And I think he is guilty of a major offense...

NOVAK: So you would -- so you would charge him with treason?

LOTT: I say again, I want to know all the information they had. I would prefer that he be charged with treason, but presume that they didn't feel it was a case that they could prevail on, and they wanted to make sure that they had other good grounds to convict him on.

SHIELDS: Trent Lott, sources in the administration estimate that rebuilding Afghanistan, price tag: $25 billion. Would you, as the president's point man in the Senate, as the Republican leader, support the United States shouldering that kind of obligation?

LOTT: I don't think it's going to be necessary for us to shoulder alone that kind of responsibility. I certainly, again, will want to see what the president has to say, and Secretary Powell and the rest of them. This will have to be a multinational, international effort. They do need just basic infrastructure. They don't have food and schools. There are so many needs. I think the United States will be prepared to...

SHIELDS: The lion's share?

LOTT: I wouldn't even say the lion's share. I think that some other countries around the world that have not gone out there on the point are going to have to weigh in and help out.

But clearly we have, I think, a need, not just for humanitarian reasons, but because if we just walk off and leave the situation it could unravel again and cost us even more to fix it in the future, as we have seen happen in other countries.

So some humanitarian assistance, obviously we've already committed to that -- food, trying to get their government up and running. We will be there, but not for the full share or even the maximum...

(CROSSTALK)

SHIELDS: In Friday's "Washington Post" there's a report that in Saudi Arabia they want the United States out -- out of Saudi Arabia, want our troops out. In your own judgment, is this something we should be considering doing?

LOTT: No. And you know, again, I don't know what the discussions that are going on between, you know, ambassadors or State Department officials. The Saudi government has certain, obviously, radical terrorist elements within their country. That is a problem for them, and there are those who feel like the fact that the United States is there is a sin against Allah and al of that.

So we have to be careful. But I think, in the case of Saudi Arabia, sometimes what they say publicly is not necessarily what they hope for in the end.

NOVAK: Senator Lott, in the Senate you've got a big backlog of bills, seven bills. Do you share the views of the people in the administration that this is mainly the fault of Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, and that he's obstructing progress?

LOTT: Yes, I do share their view. I think there's no question about, you know, the fact that he has been an obstructionist.

Having been the majority leader, I know the power of the majority leader. The majority leader has the sole power to call up a bill, and if he chooses not to do so, then you've got to go through all kinds of hoops and try to offer it as an amendment.

And the proof is in the pudding. We don't have an energy bill. If we had stayed in the majority, we would have had an energy bill passed in June. We don't have a farm bill. We don't have an economic stimulus bill. We don't have a trade bill. All of those would have been passed if we had had a Republican majority in the Senate.

And one other thing, because this is important: We also left over 50 nominees in...

NOVAK: Ah, you anticipated my next question.

LOTT: ... and we left over 100 other nominees in committees, approximately 150 nominees.

NOVAK: But you had two recess appointments...

LOTT: Right.

NOVAK: ... nominees who weren't appointed regularly; put in during the recess so they could go in without confirmation.

And this is Joe Biden's idea on the program. He said that several senators came to him and said -- we'll put it all up on the screen -- "Communicate to the president that if he does this, we will retaliate with regard to the rest of his nominations."

Question: Did the recess appointments kill the other nominations?

LOTT: I don't think the Democrats are going to be able to withstand the pressure of refusing to confirm this president's nominees for his administration. I mean, you're talking about one recess appointee, Scalia...

(CROSSTALK)

LOTT: Well, one of them, I'm just referring -- this is the solicitor general position at the Department of Labor. But you are also talking about positions that affect our effort right now against terrorism. We don't have an ambassador to the Philippines at a very sensitive time. We don't have the deputy administrator for the program that controls nuclear weapons safety. We don't have three positions at the U.S. International Development Agency.

And also, the judicial nominations. I mean, what has happened there -- a little bit of that goes over both sides, but we really have a travesty here.

SHIELDS: We have to take a break now. But when we come back, we'll have "The Big Question" for Trent Lott.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: At a closed meeting of invitation-only Republican senators, Republican strategist Frank Luntz said, quote, "Remember what the Democrats did to Gingrich? We need to do the same thing to Daschle," end quote. Do you endorse that strategy?

LOTT: Well, I'm not sure I was in that meeting, but I do think...

(LAUGHTER)

SHIELDS: Nice to know about it.

LOTT: Well, when you have a poster child like Tom Daschle, who has been being an obstructionist, who clearly refused to even allow us to consider the economic stimulus package when we really needed it, he makes a poster child of himself. And we would irresponsible if we did not call his hand on it.

SHIELDS: So, you agree?

LOTT: Yes, that's the way it works.

NOVAK: Senator Lott, if there's one more Republican senator, you'd be back in the majority. There's a Democratic senator from Georgia named Zell Miller who votes with you on the key issues, doesn't like a lot of the Democratic leaders. Are you working on him to switch?

LOTT: Sure.

NOVAK: Is there a chance? LOTT: We'd love to have Zell Miller, and Zell Miller is a good guy and a good friend. I don't think Zell is going to switch; but, you know, he has been showing real courage. He votes with us. And I know that he'd be a lot more comfortable in our caucus.

I hope he will join us, but I don't see it happening right now.

NOVAK: Thank you very much, Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott.

Mark Shields and I will be back with a comment after these messages.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: Bob, Republican strategist Frank Luntz is on record as saying, "Remember what the Democrats did to Gingrich? We need to do the same thing to Daschle." Pretty tough strategy. But that was endorsed today by Trent Lott, who said, "He's the poster boy, Tom Daschle, of the Republicans, and that's politics, folks."

NOVAK: You know, ever since Vice President Cheney said that Tom Daschle was an obstructionist, we've been trying to get somebody to agree with him inside the administration. Nobody would agree. But to my surprise, at least, the Republican leader has calmly said, "Yes, he is obstructing legislation." Boy, that's not the old-fashioned Senate anymore, is it?

SHIELDS: No, it isn't that comity.

And the other factor that I thought he was just a little bit elusive on was that rebuilding of Afghanistan, the price tag at $25 billion. Trent Lott wasn't pledging that the United States was going to put up either the lion's share or certainly most of that money.

NOVAK: You know Mark, it's a lot more fun being majority leader than minority leader, and I think that Trent Lott knows it. I think he'd love to get back in there so he calls up the bills and not Tom Daschle.

He is one Zell Miller away from getting it, but he told us he didn't think the conservative senator from Georgia was going to cross the aisle and become a Republican.

I'm Robert Novak.

SHIELDS: I'm Mark Shields.

NOVAK: Coming up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on "CAPITAL GANG," the Enron scandal, the American Taliban, and the return of Congress. Plus, our "Newsmaker of the Week," Senator Ted Kennedy.

SHIELDS: 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